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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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



Emily Davison

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Emily Davison was an interesting woman. Highly intelligent (Oxford educated in the time before women were awarded degrees), she joined the militant suffragette movement in 1906 and became one of the more active and high profile of its members. Always with an eye for high-profile activities to promote the cause, three of her arrests followed her hiding in Parliament over night.she is, of course, best known nowadays for her death following being struck by a horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby. Elizabeth Crawford, a historian who has written extensively on Davison, has been kind enough to read the article and to provide comments, directions and corrections where necessary; Dr June Purvis, another notable contributor to the literature about Davison, has also agred to read trough the article, and I am awaiting any comments she comes up with. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Add and fill infobox. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure that would be advantageous. There is no requirement to have one, and this article has been without one for some time, without any loss of understanding of the subject. Are there any thoughts you have on the body of the article? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

Per the peer review --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts there; they were much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support, per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your earlier assistance. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Back at this after I had to withdraw the previous nomination a year ago. Hoping for more constructive criticism this time around. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • I looked at this a year ago, so I'm working from a diff since Sept 19. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award nominations and nominations for two British Academy Film Awards" was changed to: "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations". First, that's wrong: change it to "two Academy Award nominations and two British Academy Film Award (BAFTA) nominations", and use BAFTA after that. Second, if you're talking about where you visited this summer, and you say "I went to London, then Bristol, then Manchester. I visited London twice and Paris twice.", then many listeners will think you visited London three times, because you're talking as if this is an ordered list of your destinations. After you make the change I just suggested, the lead will say: "Her performance as an aspiring socialite in The Help earned her an Academy Award nomination. In 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty. Chastain made her Broadway debut in a revival of The Heiress in the same year. ... Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations." Most readers, especially if they're reading quickly, will interpret that last sentence as "two additional Academy Award nominations" (unspecified), because you appear to be presenting an ordered list of her accolades. Don't repeat awards in the lead section. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "She is known to prepare extensively for her roles": Some WPian copyeditors automatically change this to "She prepares extensively for her roles", but I think it's worth slowing down and trying to figure out what the source means. If they avoided saying that she actually does prepare extensively for her roles (rather than just being known for that) because they're hedging, then treat it as spurious information, and don't include it at all. If the source said "X said that she prepares extensively for her roles", and some WPian shortened that to "known for ...", then un-shorten that ... in WP articles, it's important who said what, unless you're writing some dusty history article and there really is a consensus of historians we can rely on. That's not going to be true for currently active actors. If the person (or persons) attributed by the source isn't (or aren't) worth attributing, for some reason, then again, that's your cue to leave it out entirely. Bottom line: when you see "known for" or the equivalent in any WP article, check what the source said. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "vocal about social issues such as gender and racial equality, and mental health": I don't know what this is trying to say ... is she vocal about social issues in general? Is she only vocal about social issues that are similar to gender equality and the other things? Which issues are like gender equality? Better would be: "vocal about mental health issues and gender and racial equality".
  • "this aspect of her childhood": What is it that she doesn't talk about?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Dank. I've made changes to the lead per your suggestions. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

  • Am I the only one to find it strange to have a photograph of Mrs. Chastain, where she looks off-page, in the infobox? I'd pick one where she looks to the left...
This is probably the highest quality picture of her on Commons, but having said that, I wouldn't mind a change if there's an equally good image of her facing left? Do you have any in mind? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "She played the eponymous protagonist in Miss Julie, a film adaptation of August Strindberg's 1888 play of the same name, from director Liv Ullmann." → by director/directed by
  • I also find it a bit stultifying to only have a dismissive review from the tabloid Hollywood Reporter of that very fine picture. The movie was lauded in serious publications like Reverse Shot and Sight & Sound
I tried to reflect the mostly mixed response that the film received in general. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Changed that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise support. Gertanis (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, Gertanis. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

RAAF area commands

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is a little unusual in that I'm unaware of any comparable short history of the subject, a command-and-control system that's been defunct since the 1950s but which was a key part of Royal Australian Air Force operations in the Pacific during World War II. The nom is a follow-up to my last FAC on Donald Hardman, the officer charged with dismantling and replacing the area system. I’m not sure why this particular subject should interest me particularly, but it may have something to do with the way the commands evolved throughout their existence, sometimes with the apparent speed and abandon of the Haggunenons of Vicissitus Three. I originally planned a list-like article with subsections on the individual commands following the overview but in the end I decided that the commands all justified their own articles; with this article they now form a Good Topic. As well as those who commented at the article's MilHist A-Class Review, I’d like to acknowledge the RAAF history staff at the Air Power Development Centre, Canberra, for their help in chasing down some references; they were also kind enough to look over the article recently and suggested only one minor improvement. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Surprisingly easy to follow. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Tks Dan -- that's good to know! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Any time. - Dank (push to talk) 22:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There are 7 images which are well-relevant to the text, and all of them have proper description templates, no copyright issues, and ALT texts. No issues anywhere, and it is good great to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • When and where were File:Caf_goble.jpg and File:Jones-Bostock-Burnett_AWM_012249.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • That's not explicit, Nikki -- these images have been on WP for some time in other articles so the licence tags could well be due for finetuning; perhaps the same Crown Copyright one as Hardman for Goble, and either that or CC-Zero for Jones-Bostock-Burnett? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • That Crown tag should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Okay, that's done -- tks Nikki and Adityavagarwal. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

German destroyer Z39

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

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

Image review from Adityavagarwal

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

Source review = spotchecks not done

  • Further reading should be a separate section
  • Ordered date differs between infobox and text, and for a couple of other dates the text is unclear - captured, and commissioned by the French. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
     Done I have removed the unclear dates, as its not clear that they were actually done on those dates. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons

Nominator(s): PresN 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In 1992 id Software created the grandfather of first-person shooter video games with Wolfenstein 3D, and in 1993 they released the canonical form of the genre, Doom. But two years before that, they weren't even id: they were "Ideas From the Deep", a group of employees from Softdisk in Shreveport, Louisiana, who had just figured out a way to make a smooth platformer game on an IBM-compatible PC instead of a dedicated gaming console. And with that concept, they made the strangely-titled Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons: featuring no demons or Nazis, but a child jumping his way through alien-filled levels. Commander Keen launched id as a developer and Apogee Software as a publisher, so while it was never as famous as id's follow-up games, it forms an important bit of video gaming history, as well as fond memories from my childhood. I wrote this article last summer as part of a campaign to get all of the Keen games to GA; I'm now circling back around to them in an effort to boost at least some to FA-level. I hope you have as much fun reading this as I did researching/writing it! --PresN 21:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Astronomica (Manilius)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 15 August 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 one manuscript transmitted the poem through the Middle Ages. Finally, its style is rather heady and peculiar, and its subject matter is very, very complicated and dense. These last few factors have led to it being 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 (courtesy of User:Tim riley, User:Caeciliusinhorto, and User:Johnbod), and the other in January of 2017 (courtesy of User:Groupuscule). Finally, it has been copy-edited a number of times (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]) by four extremely competent editors. I had submitted this for FAN a few months ago, but upon realizing that I neglected part of Groupuscule's peer-review, I withdrew it and continued to make changes. Now, I feel it is ready to be promoted.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Comments from JM

A few quick comments:

  • You provide the full name of Steven Green five times in the prose, introducing him as a classicist the second time. Could this be neatened up a little?
  • Oops. I removed the repetition, having his name appear only the first time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The poem also contains a direct allusion to Ennius's Annales, which, according to Goold, is the Astronomica's "one solitary notice of Latin literature.[73]" Could you close that quote?
  • Is "Pseudo-Empedocles" worth a link?
  • "The work of Julius Firmicus Maternus, who wrote in the time of Constantine about astrology and other subjects, resembles Manilius in many ways" It doesn't resemble him- it resembles his work or Astronomica, surely?
  • That was just a bit of confusing metonym. I've changed it to "resembles Manilius's work".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "both of which bear the line, "We are born to die, and our end hangs from the beginning" (nascentes morimur finisque ab origine pendet) from the poem's fourth book" Is that comma necessary?
  • Do you mean the one after "line"? If so, I think so, since it's introducing a quote (or, rather, an inscription).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I really don't care for it, but I think this may be a legitimate stylistic difference, so I'll say no more! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

And please double-check my edits, especially the wikilinks I have introduced. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I have responded to/implemented you suggestions. Your edits also look great! Thanks for your help. Does it look better now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. I really, really like this article. I am very happy to offer my support. (FAC coordinators: I was the article's GA reviewer, and participated in the previous FAC discussion.) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of recent comments from Seadowns here that may be helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. I've added some more stuff to the article to address some of his points[5].--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from groupuscule

Comments from groupuscule

Hello. I have no further suggestions to make, having done my best to nitpick an article that was already quite good. Although the topic has aspects about which more could conceivably be written—for example the relationship of Astronomica to historical trends in astrology and astronomy—the page as it stands is well-focused and reads as a very solid encyclopedia article. Thanks again to Gen. Quon and other editors for this contribution. I'll return here if I come up with any more half-baked suggestions to annoy you with. groupuscule (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Groupuscule: Thank you for all your help. Not to put you on the spot, but at this time, would you support this for promotion?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. groupuscule (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • OCLC for the books without ISBNs? Not a requirement, but would be nice.
  • Ah, good idea. I've added them.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Ok, a couple little things stuck out...

The work's date has also been controversial. The... - strikes me as a little strong, why not just "The work's date has also been debated"?
I have implemented this suggestions. Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Despite the attention it received after its rediscovery, the Astronomica was never as widely studied as other classical Latin poems --> "Despite the attention it received after its rediscovery, the Astronomica has never been as widely studied as other classical Latin poems" (presumably all these classical Latin poems are still studied?)
Good point. Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It is unknown if the Astronomica is a finished work, and this is further exacerbated by the presence of a large lacuna between lines 5.709 and 5.710 --> I know what you're getting at but "exacerbated" strikes me as an odd verb to use here..
How is "this issue is further complicated"?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, How about, " The presence of a large lacuna between lines 5.709 and 5.710 raises the possibility that Astronomica is an unfinished work or something like it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks for the comments. I've implemented your suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

Disclosure: I reviewed the article at PR here, and promised Gen. Quon that I'd give them an FA review here.

  • Slightly picky, but in the first sentence "Latin hexameter didactic poem" is three links to three different targets. Could the sentence be rewritten to make that clearer? As it is, it isn't clear just from looking at the text whether that is one, two, or three links (and it's entirely conceivable that we might e.g. have an article on "Latin hexameter poetry"...
  • I've broken it up so that it now reads "Latin didactic poem written in hexameters". How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Section on authorship says that the author was probably a Marcus Manilius, but doesn't say why. The article on Marcus Manilius seems to suggest that the name "Manilius" comes from the poem itself – but why "Marcus"?
  • This is confusing, because no source really talks about it. Here is my speculation: the earliest sources bear no name, and the later ones bear a different variety (I've added this info in as a footnote). However, there is a document from the 10th century written by Gerbertus Aureliacensis that asks for an astrological work by "M. Manilius". I can't find any sources that explicitly say as much, but I think Gerbertus Aureliacensis's letter is taken as authoritative as to the authors nomen, and then scholars derive the praenomen "Marcus" (a popular Roman name) by assuming that's what "M" stood for.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking into this myself quickly, Gain 1970 "Gerbert and Manilius" says that the manuscript M gives the author's name as "M. Manili", "M. Manlii", and "M. Milnili", and so the praenomen also comes from the manuscript tradition. I've added a note to that effect to the article; see what you think... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah! Thanks for that find. The note looks great (although I fixed one minor typo). Thanks for the help there.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What happened to β itself?
  • I can't find much other than it was lost.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

More later... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from edwininlondon

Glad to see this back here. Some comments from a layman:

  • written in hexameters about celestial phenomena, written -> repetition of written
  • I've broken this sentence into two new ones, and changed the second instance of 'written' to penned.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The fifth book -> I have no doubt this is the correct technical term but I suspect that for a layman it is a bit unexpected that a poem has books. Maybe better to state first the work is made up of n books?
  • I've mentioned this in the first line of the article now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • some have argued -> some historians? classicists? some somethings is better than just some
  • This copy is the direct descendant -> you mean M?
  • Good catch. Reworded to make clearer.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Goold later issued -> not sure this sentence needs to be in parentheses. Clutter.
  • See also: Astrology and Horoscope -> why do we need this? inline linking will surely do the trick
  • I don't know why I didn't think of that. Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • According to Katharina Volk -> I can't see a rule when first names are used and when not. Consistency would be good. I prefer first name on intro, but just last name from then on, but that is just my personal preference
  • I like your preference as well. I think it's an artifact from when I moved pieces around and expanded sections.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • finishes his digression on the Milky Way -> I wouldn't think the Milky Way to be a digression. But listing heroes worthy of their place in the Milky Way sounds like a digression
  • Good point. I've changed it to "discussion of".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • dodecatemoria -> maybe one day create an entry to avoid the redlink
  • Good idea. I'll put that on my list!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Near the end of the book, -> I would not have a comma here
  • in book five's description I miss an indication of where the lacuna is
  • I've added that to the summary now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Shout

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Ian! Much appreciated. The following are my edits: [6]. Will get back to you on the second point asap. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Okay, we have a problem with the use of the "record search" from the National Archives of Australia. These are all primary sources. And it's an 83 page file but all sorts of things are cited to the entire file. I'm pretty sure there are some problems with interpretation of the primary sources going on here - but I'm not going to freaking scroll through the entire slowly loading 83 page file trying to figure out which of the 83 pages (that take forever to load) supports each tiny bit of information. Each bit of information should be sourced at the least to a page range, but ideally to an individual page.
  • Actually I have to agree here regarding closer citation. When I've used NAA records, I tend to cite the page (as defined by NAA) or a narrow range where the information comes from across a couple of pages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, will differentiate between cites. However, I will not get a chance to do so until at least this evening. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • there is no rush. To be honest, I probably won't have a great deal of time to get back to it before Monday or Tuesday Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries – I'll let you know as soon as I am done, but it should be before then. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A lot of these sources are primary sources - embarkation rolls, the various bits of paperwork in the archival records, the Gazette mentions, etc. The extensive use of primary sources concerns me - we should be relying on secondary sources not primary. It's entirely too easy to slip into interpreting the primary sources - can none of these details be cited to secondary works instead?
  • This has not been a problem in the past, as the sources have not been 'interpreted' to make an argument. Rather, in almost every case they have been used alongside secondary sources to provide slight additional detail, such as a specific date. Indeed, the embarkation roll is backed up by Snelling and, while all of Shout's awards can be verified by basically any of the secondary sources used here, the London Gazette provides the date of announcement and a complete and accurate rendering of his VC citation (though this does appear in Staunton and others too). Further, as every single one of the records are freely accessible and available online, there is not really a verifiability issue (excepting perhaps the above, which will be addressed shortly). To be honest, you'd be hard pressed to find an FA-level article on an Australian military figure that does not use similar sourcing. As for the London Gazette, this article features just four entries – compare this case to Richard Dannatt and Donald Hardman (both FAs, the latter promoted just last month), which make use of dozens, though in a similar method for a similar reason. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - the things it's flagging up are the long quote from the citation for the VC, which is properly quoted and attributed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, Ealdgyth! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion in living systems

Nominator(s): —swpbT 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is my first FA nomination, and what I think is a rather interesting topic. The article has had a peer review by User:Dunkleosteus77 (here), and a thorough mentor review by User:Brianboulton (here). I will do my best to respond to review comments as quickly as possible. Thank you to all reviewers. —swpbT 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Mentor's comment: I was not involved in the general preparation of the article, which was already a GA when I offered to act. My role has been to help it bridge that important gap between GA and FA. The article is original and interesting, and I'm satisfied that it holds up well when tested against the FA criteria. I look forward to reading reviewers' comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Consistency review from Gertanis

  • Be consistent in whether you write "The University of Chicago Press" or "University of Chicago Press"
  • Same goes for shortened page ranges (we have both '182–184' and '167–91')
  • Ditto inclusion of publisher locations

That's the only inconsistencies I spotted. Well done! Gertanis (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotten those fixed up. Thanks! —swpbT 20:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Wheeled_animal_-_East_Mexico_cultures_-_Ethnological_Museum,_Berlin_-_DSC00852.JPG: the description states that the artwork is PD because artist died over 70 years ago - to my knowledge Mexico has never used that rule. Should include an explicit tag.
  • File:Fitness-landscape-cartoon.png: what is the source of the data used in this image?
  • File:Buer.gif needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed the tagging on the Mexican toy and Buer images. The fitness landscape image is notional – the curve is an arbitrary example with peaks and valleys to illustrate the concept of optimization via an evolutionary process; there is no data corresponding to the depicted function. —swpbT 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Tukwila International Boulevard station

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

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

Image review

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

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

Passing comments from Vanamonde

  • I know very little about this subject, but just in passing, I find the diagram of the station layout somewhat confusing, because it suggests the northbound platform is above the southbound one (unless that is correct?) Also, forgive me for asking a pointed question, but isn't this your second solo nomination on this page? Vanamonde (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Lesley J. McNair

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

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

Some comments from Nick-D

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

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

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:SandyHookProofBattery1900.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:General_Carlos_Brewer.jpg: source indicates that author is unknown
  • File:Lesley_McNair.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and source links are dead
  • File:McNair-TIME-1942.jpg: not sure about this - press images with the {{non-free historic image}} tag generally require a strong argument in favour of transformative use, and IMO there's not enough discussion of the image to support this
  • File:Lesley_J._McNair_Purple_Heart_1943_(2).jpg: where was this first published? And I think "uncredited" photographer was intended, rather than "unaccredited"?
  • File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sign itself?
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg should include a copyright tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

On the Job (2013 film)

Nominator(s): Slightlymad (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about On the Job, a Philippine crime thriller movie with a couple of chases, gunshots here and there, a serving of sex, and a simple yet intriguing premise: two prison inmates find renewed value and sense of purpose as assassins hired by powerful political forces—until one botched assignment turns their world upside down. Fun stuff! Slightlymad (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

ALT text seems OK as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • For the sentence (Michael de Mesa, Leo Martinez, Vivian Velez, Angel Aquino, Shaina Magdayao, and Rayver Cruz feature in supporting roles.), I would recommend "play" instead of "feature" as saying someone is featured in a supporting role or minor role seems a little contradictory.
  •  Done
  • I would suggest linking the ₱ to the article on the related currency to make it more obvious to an uninformed reader. I was initially confused by what the symbol mean when reading the lead. It needs to only be linked in the first mention in the lead and the body of the article.
  •  Done
  • In the sentence (Acosta relays Mario's composite sketch to the police, which unknowingly stuns Mario's family.), I am confused by what is meant by "unknowingly stuns". I think more context or revisions would be helpful.
  •  Rephrased
  • I am not entirely sure if the "Red EPIC camera" image is entirely necessary as it does not really add that much to the article. I would remove it and move the images of the two actors down in its place as that section discuss their casting.
  • I thought it'd be a fine substitute to just add the image of the camera as an illustration since there's not an article about it in the mainspace. Would you consider not removing it?
  • I will leave that to another reviewer; it is not too much of an issue to hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Please add the years in which Magnifico and Ang Pagdadalaga ni Maximo Oliveros were released, either in parenthesis following the title or somewhere in the sentence. Same goes for Dirty Harry.
  •  Done
  • In the "Music credits" table, some of the parts of "Producer(s)' column are blank and need to be filled in.
  •  Done Those blocks don't have credited producers. I just left a long dash so that it won't appear as if I left it intentionally blank.
  • I would encourage you to add topic sentences to the paragraphs in the "Critical reception" subsection to make its organization/structure clearer.
  • I feel like adding topic sentences constitute original research. Couldn't we just let the reviews speak for themselves?
  • I would move the "Home media" directly after the "Theatrical run and distribution" subsection.
  •  Done
  • I would move the "Critical reception" and "Accolades" subsections to a new section titled "Reception" that would be directly after the "Release" section.
  •  Done
  • Are there any updates on the development of the American remake of the film or the miniseries?
  •  Done No fresh update on either one.
  • For Reference 24, the film's title should not be in all caps.
  •  Done
  • The phrase "full list" should not be in all caps in Reference 46.
  •  Done
  • The link to the official website in the "External links" section redirects to the home page for me.
  •  Done

Wonderful job with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Aoba47, I have fixed most of the concerns you raised, but I have questions on a few points there. Slightlymad (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Great work with this. I support it for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review


This looks huge, but don't be scared. ;) Some regulars here at FAC took issue with the brevity of one of my earlier source reviews, and tried to make it look as though I did a half-arsed job. I'm not gonna give them the opportunity to do that again. It's not even necessary for you to read this entire thing: it's more here for the sake of completeness than anything else. The sections in green are the sections that require any action on your part—I'll remove that formatting once you've addressed the issue. I was gonna wait until the weekend to put this up, but it's so big that it'd probably be much easier to put this up in phases (this is phase 1 of – probably – 2; more likely 3). Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Part 1

  • Ref #1: download-able production company dossier being used to source film length, US release date and additional cast actors. Since I'm not seeing this used as a source for anything on the article that isn't also available at the film's listing at IMDb, I suggest replacing this with the latter, since the latter is an industry-validated high-quality reliable source.
  • Ref #2: Philippine Entertainment Portal—a subsidiary of multi-billion dollar independent Filipino broadcaster GMA Network, which has a dedicated editorial staff. High-quality reliable source being used to source budget, uncredited consultants developing the story, reception at Caméra d'Or and Philippine distribution, all of which are attributable to this reference.
  • Ref #3: Box Office Mojo, a high-quality reliable source, in terms of collecting officially-released film industry financial data, being used to accurately source box office figures. No problems to be found here.
  • Ref #4: ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs, clearly a high-quality reliable source, being used to source director Eric Matti's acquisition of the film's concept, as well as Michael de Mesa's casting and the film's positive critical reception, all of which have been adequately paraphrased and accurate to the source.
  • Ref #5: I initially wasn't too sure about the quality of the actual website here, but the website has obviously developed quite a reputation as it has bagged interviews with some pretty damn high-profile people. This source is an interview with the film's director, which has been used to elaborate on aspects of the film's production and development, so I see no problem here. Everything sourced from this article is attributable to it, and has been adequately paraphrased.
  • Ref #6: Article from Philippine edition of Esquire, clearly a notable, global publication with a dedicated editorial staff, being used to source information regarding the trailer's release, its reaction and eventual development into the full feature film, problems gathering investment in the Philippines – partly due to the film's violence – and other aspects of the film's creation. Since it's a publication, also consider adding it's ISSN to the reference, which is 2243-8459, according to Scribd.
  • This ISSN is for the February 2016 issue, not the August 2013.
  • An International Standard Serial Number is used to identify any serial publication, and remains the same on all issues. I'll add it to the article myself, just so I can tuck all this under a collapsible template. Feel free to respond if you think there's still an issue here.
  • Ref #7: Philippine Daily Inquirer, listed as a newspaper of record from the Philippines, obvious high-quality source. Used to describe the film's distinction from the lead production company's usual romantic comedy projects. Everything on the article attibuted to this source is accurate, and adequately paraphrased, with the exception of a direct quotation.
  • Ref #8: Same publication as in ref #4, being used to describe Joey Marquez' casting in the film. No problems here.
  • Ref #9: This was the reference I was most concerned about, mainly because of the Squarespace link in the URL. It turns out Squarespace is a hosting service which insists on putting its name in every one of their website URLs. It is not UGC as I initially suspected, but rather the website of Rogue Magazine, a long-established and popular Filipino magazine—pretty much the Filipino Rolling Stone, with a dedicated editorial staff focusing on films, music, art, politics, et cetera. This reference is an editorial which originally featured in the magazine's June 2013 issue, and primarily consists of an interview with the film's director where he discusses the film's principle photography and the mechanics of production (ie, type of cameras used). I'm convinced there is no issue with quality or reliability here.
  • Ref #10: Same publication as in ref #2, being used as a reference to the film's shooting, film's classification by the Cinema Evaluation Board, as well as the publication's own review. All good.
  • Ref #11: GMA News and Public Affairs—major independent Philipino broadcaster. Used to cite the film's cinematography as well as the broadcaster's own review. No problems here.
  • Ref #12: The Philippine Star—broadsheet with multiple notable editors. Used to identify the film's musical director and editors, also discusses the soundtrack's inspirations. I don't see a problem with this.
  • Ref #13: same publication as above reference. This is an interview with the film's musical director.
  • Ref #14: Soundtrack.Net: another website which initially seemed a bit iffy, but it's been listed as one of the best music websites by Time Magazine, and is also used on other featured film articles, see Alien vs. Predator (film) and Boys Don't Cry (film)—and those are just the A's and B's. I went up to the F's at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media, and seen 4 more.
  • is actually recognized by WP:FILM/R as a RS for all things soundtrack.
  • Ref #15: same publication as in ref #7. Used as source for the film's premiere at the 2013 Cannes Film Festival. No problems here.
  • Ref #16: Cannes Film Festival website. Only used on the article as a 2nd reference for the statement about the film's premiere at the event. Otherwise, it's a primary source that adds nothing to the article that isn't third-party sourced by the previous reference. Can be removed with no loss to accuracy or article sourcing.
  •  Done
  • Ref #16: Rappler. I'm not entirely convinced of this reference's quality. In any case, it doesn't support the article's statement that the film received a 2-minute standing ovation at Cannes. It confirms the standing ovation part, but not the 2-minute part. I did find this from the Philippine Daily Inquirer (as in refs #7 and #14) and it does explicitly say that the film premiere ended with "a two-minute standing ovation." Consider using this instead.
  •  Done Can you archive this one for me?
  • Archived it for you.
  • Ref #17: Same publication as in refs #7 and #14. Used to support the film's release in North America and France. No issues here.
  • Ref #18: IndieWire, Notable and trust-worthy source being used to source information regarding the film's release on BluRay and DVD. I don't see a problem with this.
  • Ref #19:—an industry trade publication being used to identify Well Go USA's CEO and XYZ Films founders. I see no problems here.

I'll pause here. It'll probably be Saturday before I can get part 2 up. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Might wanna use the Template:Collapse just like the ones used atop your comments so that this page won't appear too unwieldy to navigate. Slightlymad (talk) 04:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Part 2

  • Ref #20: Box Office Mojo (same as ref #3) being used to reference US release and box office gross. All fine.
  • Ref #21: Reality Entertainment—production company website being used to source Australian release details. Seems fine to me.
  • Ref #22: AllMovie—owned and operated by the same company which operates AllMusic, which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Resources as a reliable source. No issues here.
  • Ref #23: DVD Talk—founded by Geoffrey Kleinman, and has a staff of 60 professional writers, being used to source DVD/Blu-Ray release and bonus feature identification, as well as the site's own critical assessment. Don't see an issue.
  • Ref #24: High-Def Digest—seems like a legit website with decent credentials, being used to source the website's own review.
  • Ref #25:—a retailer's website being used to source the website's review. Author Jeffrey Kauffman is a published writer, with his work appearing in The Sondheim Review and the Daily Utah Chronicle.
  • Ref #26: IndieWire (same as ref #18) being used to source that publication's review. No problems here.
  • Ref #27: Screen Anarchy—Initially wasn't sure about this, as the About Page made it sound like user-generated content. That doesn't appear to be the case with this article, as it's written by James Marsh, a writer for the South China Morning Post, among other things.
  • Ref #28: a Template:refn of three previous references: #11, #26 and #27.
  • Ref's #29–#34: Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, Complex—won't waste space going through each individual one; clearly all high-quality reliable sources.
  • Ref #35:—website for Screen International, a publication which has been going since 1889. Clearly high-quality.
  • Ref #36: Film Business Asia—review by Derek Elley, a former writer at Variety.
  • Ref #37: The A.V. Club—used to source the publication's review of the film, which was written by a listed staff writer. I don't see a problem here.
  • Ref #38: Slant Magazine—notable source, review written by a writer who has also written for numerous other notable publications, including The Village Voice, Time Out New York and Variety.
  • Ref #39: Rappler (same ref as was previously #16)—I don't believe this source has the same issues as there were with #16. This review's author, Carljoe Javier, is a published author with a masters degree in creative writing.
  • Ref's #40–#44: various articles and reviews from Philippine Daily Inquirer (see ref #7); Philippine Entertainment Portal (see ref #2); GMA News and Public Affairs (see ref #11). No issues here.
  • Ref #45: Rappler news item regarding the 2014 Gawad Urian Awards. Its author, Alexa Villano, also writes for The Philippine Star.
  • Ref #46: Twitch FilmI've tried to find something to establish this source's quality, but came up empty. Not much on the website, and couldn't find anything on the author other than him going on to co-found a movie festival. You could just replace this with ref #48 (Deadline— "Baltasar Kormakur Eyes Feature On Scandal That Inspired Cannes Pic On The Job"). If you did that, you should make sure to remove "...and 2 Guns (2013)." from the sentence. Or you could just use this interview he did with Variety, since he discusses his remake of this film as well as Contraband and 2 Guns.
  •  Done Needs archiving, too. :)

I know there's only a few references left, but I'll pause here and start again tomorrow, hopefully. I've been going through every reference and trying to determine its quality and if it's a reliable source, and with a couple of exceptions, it been mostly fine on this aspect. I've also been checking that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and the article has been perfect so far in this regard. I still have to check each source for close paraphrasing, so I'll do that after I finish the last few references. Be back soon. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Twitch Film, now known as Screen Anarchy, is definitely a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice to know, for future film source reviews. Thankfully, the Twitch Film source was used to reference a fairly minor point on the article, so it could easily be replaced by the Variety article (which I'll archive after posting this). And, Slightlymad, I've not been sitting on my ass doin' nothing tonight: I spent this evening going through each individual reference manually checking for close paraphrasing. I couldn't find any, but I'll post a more detailed response on this tomorrow night, when I hope to have this source review finished.
And, just so you know, I hope you don't think I've been this detailed and anal about this article's source review because I believed this article required me to be this detailed and anal—it's a perfect fine article, and almost perfectly sourced up until now (bar the couple of issues I raised above, which you've adequately dealt with). It's just that another user complained about the lack of detail in one of my earlier source reviews, and it was one of the main reasons that article wasn't promoted. So I'm following that user's instructions to a tee, and posting a level of detail which even she has never posted. And, if she happens to question any single reference on this source review, I'll be able to explain and expand on why I believe they are all "high-quality" reliable sources. ;) Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Part 3:

  • Ref #46: Film Business Asia—notable source, with this article written by the deputy director of the New York Asian Film Festival.
  • Ref #47: Variety—obvious high-quality reliable source when it comes to film, theater, etc.
  • Ref #48: Deadline—same ref as in #19; a notable industry trade publication
  • Ref #49: The Philippine Star—same as in ref #12.
  • Ref #50: The Manila Times—broadsheet founded in 1898; see no reason why this shouldn't be considered a high-quality reliable source.
  • Ref #51: Rappler—same source as used in references 39 and 45, although the writer of this article hasn't been identified. The website seems to have been provided with the exclusive for this story, so I think that speaks to the site's quality.
  • Ref #52: Manila Bulletin—broadsheet founded in 1900; see no reason why this shouldn't be considered a high-quality reliable source.

And with that, this nearly 12-hour source review is complete. I'm satisfied every source is of high enough quality and reliable to meet the featured article criteria. Everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and I manually went through every reference to check for close paraphrasing: I found none, neither did Earlwig's tool—with the exception of the usual direct quotations. I'm satisfied that the references on this article meet the criteria for FA status. Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Claudio Monteverdi

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC), Brianboulton

This article is about the composer Claudio Monteverdi, a key figure in the evolution of Western classical music at the transition from the Renaissance to the Baroque period. We have already run the article through a peer review and made changes (and sometimes not) accordingly; those who did not see the review may like to take a look at it before commenting here. All and any constructive opinions will of course be very welcome. Smerus (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support I was a participant at the peer review, see here, my concerns, and they were few, were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Support I took part in the peer review and have no outstanding concerns. Looks like a very thorough job. --Folantin (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of the above. Your contributions to the peer review were much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "made great developments": Developments aren't made, exactly.
  • "the lowest level for about 150 years": probably: "the lowest level in almost 150 years"
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this: I have altered one of your edits (no evidence that M. 'originated' basso continuo). I've changed 'made' to 'undertook'; but 'almost 150 years' (implying 'less than') is not the same as 'about 150 years' (which could be a few years either way), so I have left it. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Always good to see you at FAC, Smerus (and Brian!). Right, I wasn't saying he originated it (see the edit summary), I was saying that either the lead needs an edit or the text does. The text says "among other innovations, Monteverdi introduces a device that was to become a typical feature in the emergent Baroque era, the concertato style with basso continuo" ... since you're talking about multiple innovations here, and you list and link two things, many readers will think you're referring to both of them as innovations. - Dank (push to talk) 12:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I get! I will think on this. Thanks, Smerus (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I have now reworded the text in a manner which I hope meets your point.Smerus (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Consistency between citations - you normally give last name first for citations, but current ref 17 (Sergio Vartolo) is an exception. Needs fixing.
  • Same consistency issue with current ref 137 (Lindsay Kemp)
  • Most of your sources you do not give a state for the publication location, but you do with "Cruice" - make it consistent and remove the CT there
  • Same with Palisca - gives a state
  • Same with Rosand - gives a state
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I have changed Vartolo and Kemp. Not too sure about the state references; I have normally used these in the past on FA for US publications for clarity's sake, and under the assumption that this was in accordance with WP guidelines - but I can't now find any such guideline. Would be grateful for any further opinions on this. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Generally what I do is give state for anything but blindingly obvious US cities (so plain "New York", "Boston", "Los Angeles" (as examples) but "New Haven, CT" or "Berkeley, CA"), and country for anything but blindingly obvious non-US cities (so plain "London" but "Cambridge, UK"). It's up to you. You can leave off locations all together which avoids the problem completely - there isn't a requirement for locations, but it IS nice to give them. You can also just give the city and avoid the "state/country" issue. Just need some sort of consistency. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have now gone through and I think have achieved consistency on the above basis.Smerus (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC) –

Tim riley

Support. I said my bit at PR. Three quibbles so tiny as to be barely visible with the naked eye:

  • de' Medici or de’Medici? – we have both forms
  • ritornellos or ritornelli? – ditto
  • Cateau–Cambrésis – shouldn't the en-dash be a plain hyphen, as in the WP article?

The main editors have done wonders: the article is not only comprehensive and authoritative, it is remarkably readable, given the subject. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 20:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your accipitridoptical identification of these anomalies, which I have now resolved (de' Medici, ritornellos, Cateau-Cambrésis). And thanks of course for your endorsement. Smerus (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

An interesting read, and not excessively difficult for a person with no formal education in music. Possibly a few more links of technical terminology may be helpful.

On this basis, Support • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Cremona_Duomo.jpg: this should include an explicit copyright tag for the building. Same with File:Veneza47.jpg, File:Frari_(Venice)_Cappella_dei_milanesi-_tomb_of_Claudio_Monteverdi.jpg
  • File:Gabriele_D'Anunnzio.png: source link is dead and needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies, Nikkimaria, can you please point me to the rules for copyright tags for buildings? I am completely unfamiliar with this territory. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Italy does not have freedom of panorama for buildings or sculpture. Thus, with the restrictions noted on that page, building copyrights are held by the architect and are subject to similar expirations as conventional 2D works. Does that help? For example, if the architect died over 100 years ago, {{PD-old}} would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I will proceed accordingly.Smerus (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I have now tagged the three views, and changed the D'Annunzio pic. Hope this is now OK, Best, Smerus (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

  • "Born in Cremona, where he undertook his first musical studies and compositions," – you can undertake musical studies, for sure, but a composition? Not sure.
  • "His opera L'Orfeo (1607) is the earliest of the genre still widely performed" – perhaps 'in the genre' or 'example/entry/work' of the genre
  • "Cremona was close to the border of the territory of the Venetian Republic, and not far from the lands controlled by Mantua, in both of which states Monteverdi was later to establish his career"
  • "When Wert died in 1596, his post was given to Benedetto Pallavicino, but Monteverdi was clearly highly regarded by Vincenzo" – Is 'but' the right preposition here? I'd have used 'yet'. Also do we need both adverbs before 'regarded'?
  • "but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response" – perhaps use 'however,'
  • We have both 'among' and 'amongst' in the article
  • Each line in the paragraph ¶ Vespers starts with 'The'
  • "they were not especially regarded in Monteverdi's time" – highly regarded?

As you might gather, these are only subjective ramblings of a confused Norwegian. :) Hope they are of use anyway; you'll have my support in any case. Gertanis (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I have standardised 'among', cut 'of the territory', and added 'highly' to regarded. The other points seem OK to me as thy are for colloquial usage, unless anyone else objects. Best --Smerus (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Brianboulton has recently made some helpful edits; many thanks to him for that. I noted, however, that the article's source text has quite a few double spaces ("  "). Are these deliberate? Gertanis (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've broken up the "The" paragraph beginnings in "Vespers", and knocked out a double adverb somewhere. Thanks for your comments and support, Gertanis. I'm not sure where the double spaces are - perhaps Smerus knows. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I blitzed the double (sometimes triple) spaces. Quite difficult to spot though. Gertanis (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. I found a few more and dealt with them accordingly.--Smerus (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Scarabocchio

  • the lede describes him as a singer, but only mention of his singing in the article is to the fact that there is no evidence for the claim he was "a member of the Cathedral choir"
  • Late flowering: 2nd para mixes one "San Marco" with two "St. Marks'". Higher up the article, the text standardises on San Marco.
  • Artusi controversy, "L'Ottuso Academico": in current Italian, ottuso means the same as the English obtuse -- slow of thought, dense, stupid. The translation as "The Tedious Academic" should be checked. (Was Monteverdi's text published in English under this title?)
  • The picture thumbnails are too small, particularly the three in the Mantua section, and the D'Annunzio. These would benefit from being at least 50% wider.

(updated) Scarabocchio (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I have adjusted the pix, and changed translation of 'Ottuso'. The remaining use of 'St. Mark's' comes in a direct quote - not sure what to do about this. Being a singer - this is generally stated (e.g. Carter says he presumably trained as a singer as he later gave vocal lessons) but I am having difficulty finding specific evidence at the moment.....Brian, do you have anything? Smerus (talk) 08:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
There is little evidence to suggest that singing was a major factor in Monteverdi's professional life; in my view, not enough to justify the headline description of him as a "singer", and I suggest we drop this. Similiarly, I think the description of him as a "string player" is questionable. Although this was the role he took when first employed in the Mantuan court, it's hardly what he became famous for. I would prefer to see him identified in the lead as a "composer and choirmaster", which I think more accurately summarises his career. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • He describes himself as a string player in the intros to the 2nd and 3rd books of madrigals, and this is mentioned and cited in the article, so I think that should certainly stay. I am removing singer, and adding choirmaster, as suggested by Brianboulton.Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

More comments from Scarabocchio:

  • "Cremona lay under the jurisdiction of Milan, a Spanish possession, so that Monteverdi was technically born a Spanish subject. Cremona was close to the border of the Venetian Republic, and not far from the lands controlled by Mantua".
This would be much clearer with a map. Monteverdi was active, professionally, over quite a small area. If the state boundaries haven't changed, it would be possible to re-annotate this map to cover all of the places mentioned in the article. (Specifically, Cremona would need to be added! (inside the Duchy of Milan, just to the left of the 'M' of Mantua)) I don't know how to clone and reannotate maps, but could look into it if you think such a map would add value. Scarabocchio (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Italy 1494
  • The map doesn't show Cremona. In any event I think the point in question is too trivial to justify including the image, but if Smerus thinks differently he may wish to replace the Cremona Cathedral image with it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd rather leave this. Apart from not showing Cremona, the map is as at 1494; here's a map as at 1600, looking a bit different, and showing Cremona, but alas copyright. Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's a non-starter .. the boundary changes were very fluid at the time. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I could draw a map based on the linked map if you can specify what should be in it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but honestly it's not worth your time or trouble. The point it would illustrate is of very small significance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Images.
    Possibly CM?
    The images are now a better size, (thanks, Smerus), but not very inspiring ....
The itWP article has this portrait of a musician with a viola da gamba, dated somewhere between 1570 and 1590 by an unknown Cremonese painter. The image description:

"The sitter has traditionally, but incorrectly, been identified as Antonio Stradivari.   Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643) and Gasparo da Salò (1540-1609) have been suggested. He holds a Brescian viola da gamba, and there is a violin/viola with a bow in the background."

Given the size of it, it's likely a viola da braccio rather than a violin. Even if it is not Monteverdi himself (and this cannot be proven), it is of the right period and right locality to show clothing and instruments. (updated) Scarabocchio (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Most of the choices of images were Smerus's, and I'll leave it to to him decide whether any should be changed. Personal preferences about choices of image are likely to vary. However, such exchanges of opinion properly belong to the article's talk page rather than to the FAC, and I suggest that the discussion be continued there. Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It is true, if moderately surprising, that there are no requirements/guidelines on illustrating Featured Articles. The conversation can continue elsewhere, as you suggest. Scarabocchio (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This image was in the original article. One reason I took it out is that it was claimed to be possibly CM, whereas there is not in fact a shred of positive evidence for this; I don't think WP should give that line of thought any credibility. On images generally, by all means take the topic to the article talk page, but I suggest leave things as they are for the purposes of the present review.Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added a reference to this in the 'Historical Perspectives' section, as it is indicative of growing interest and research in CM.Smerus (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Holy orders. Pause: Final para: "His set of Scherzi musicali was published in Venice in 1632.[34] In 1631, Monteverdi was admitted to the tonsure, and was ordained deacon, and later priest, in 1632."
There's a little bit more in itWP (no inline refs, I'm afraid): "We don't know if it was for convenience or from devotion, but Monteverdi took sacred orders on 9 March 1632 .. we find him with the title 'Reverendo' in the second book of Scherzi musicali, which dedication is dated 20 June 1632." Scarabocchio (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Fall of Mantua (One more, the last, from itWP). Pause, First para: "Mantua was invaded by Habsburg armies in 1630, who besieged the plague-stricken town, and after its fall in July looted its treasures, and dispersed the artistic community."
There's a bit more context in itWP: "In 1627, the throne of Mantua passed into the hands of Carlo I di Gonzaga-Nevers (the French, cadet branch), provoking a reaction from Emperor Ferdinando II, who in July 1630 sent in his Landsknecht troops. They took the city by assault, devastating it and spreading the plague."
The change of ruling family, and hence change of side in the Wars of Religion, provides a bit of necessary explanation for WHY Mantua was attacked. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Holy orders and Mantua. As CM wasn't actually in Mantua at the time, and as there is a link to the article on the fall of Mantua, I don't believe we need to expand on this in the article about CM himself. If you have a citation about CM being 'Reverendo' in the book of Scherzi, please let us know - I can't find one, alas.Smerus (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no access to anything more than Grove and Google, ahime' Scarabocchio (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Banchieri. Artusi, 2nd para: "The theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote ...". I had to check to see if this was *the* Banchieri; it was. Either "The composer and theorist...", or "The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist...". The second has the advantage of identifying this as a compliment to Monteverdi from someone in an alternate and parallel set of musico-dramatic development. Scarabocchio (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Criteria for FA article?

Which criteria are to used for evaluating this article? The WP Opera standards? Scarabocchio (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Scarabocchio: WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Oups! should have spotted that .. thanks! Scarabocchio (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

From SchroCat

  • Support from SchroCat. I was happy at PR, and the article is even stronger now. – SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Rossbach

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

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

Support Comments from Pbsouthwood

(on general intelligibility to a lay reader}

Terrain and maneuver

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

Image review

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

Comments from Dank

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

Comments by Finetooth

Another impressive article. I find this set of three fascinating even though they are far afield from anything I write about. I have a few suggestions and questions, as follows.
  • Lead image needs alt text.
  • The gallery images need alt text. WP:PIC in the Galleries subsection shows a way to add alt text using table syntax.
  • I think you can scale the gallery maps if you use the table format that you'll find in the same section of WP:PIC.
  • The layout of the gallery at the bottom of the article looks odd to me because of the 3-4-1 arrangement. Suggestion: use one panorama rather than two. That would give you a more balanced 3-4-0 arrangement, which would look better if you centered the line of 4 images. They will center properly once you remove the bottom line of 1. Alternatively, a table might give you more options than the existing two separate galleries at the bottom.
  • To avoid bumping against second-level subheads or from displacing the Battlefield today head, I would suggest moving all of the maps to the right.
Seven Years' War
  • ¶1 "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war with Austria." – Maybe it would be more clear to say "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war between Prussia and its allies with Austria and its allies."
Terrain and maneuver
  • ¶1 "The story of the battle of Rossbach is as much the story of the five days of maneuver leading to the battle as it is those famous 90 minutes of battle, and the maneuvers were shaped by the terrain." – Since the "famous 90 minutes of battle" has not been mentioned in the main text before this mention, perhaps modify to say: "Five days of maneuvers, shaped by the terrain, preceded the battle of Rossbach." Or something like that.
  • ¶1 "at the confluence of the middle Saale from the Buntsandstein" – Some confusion here. Confluence refers to the meeting of two streams, but the Saale doesn't seem to meet another stream at Weissenfels. A map embedded in the Thuringian Basin article shows Weissenfels lying just outside of the basin, so perhaps the intended meaning here is "near the emergence of the middle Saale from..." Another possibility is that the confluence referred to here is the meeting of the Unstrut with the Saale upstream of Weissenfels near Naumburg.
  • ¶1 "in the so-called Weißenfels-Jenaer Saale valley..." – Delete "so-called"?
  • ¶1 "this influenced the troop movements leading up to the battle..." – Delete "up"?
  • ¶6 "Until that point, Soubise had done nothing." – I had to go back to an earlier part (Situation in 1757) of the article to see who Soubise was.
Initial battlefield positions
  • ¶1 "The French general, the prince of Soubise," – He's referred to simply as Soubise in the last sentence of the preceding section. Maybe "the French general, the Prince of Soubise" could replace "Soubise" in that earlier sentence, and you could use plain "Soubise" here.
  • ¶2 "under the command of Charles, Prince of Soubise and Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen" – Here they are identified again in a slightly different way. Integrate them somehow? Maybe add "Charles" to the first mention of him in the Situation in 1757 section and just go with ""under the command of Soubise and Saxe-Hildburghausen" here. Not quite sure.
  • ¶5 "When the Allied cavalry came striking distance..." – Missing word, "within"?
  • ¶5 "still in echelon" – Link to Echelon formation?
  • ¶7 "Seydlitz led his cavalry in their third assault." – A minor question. I'm not sure how these things are formally counted. I would have said "second assault". I suppose this is the third if the 20-squadron charge counts as one and the 18-squadron charge counts as the second. I assume the combined squadrons take part in the third assault. Maybe a bit of clarification here?
  • ¶1 "Impressively, the Prussians took..." – Not sure you need "impressively".
  • ¶4 "While he did owe his position to his good relationship..." – Maybe "rank" rather than "position" since at first glance that might be interpreted to mean his battlefield position. Absurd interpretation on second glance, but still... "
Battlefield today
  • long quote: "set up his field bed in alcove" – Word missing? Maybe "an alcove"?
  • long quote: "Hauptmann [Franz Leopold] von Funcke" – Missing comma after Funcke?
  • "(Kreis roadway)" – I'm assuming that this means something like a side road or crossroad or secondary highway. Maybe a brief explanation or a link since it probably has clear formal meaning to Germans?

Barry Voight

Nominator(s): ceranthor 01:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been working on this article about a star volcanologist and engineer—who happens to have some star siblings as well—for a while now, and I think it finally meets the FA criteria. ceranthor 01:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Welcome back to FAC, and well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, Dank. ceranthor 12:26, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There is one image in the article, which is well-relevant, has proper description template, and is under public domain. No issues whatsoever. It is good to go!. Adityavagarwal (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, Aditya. ceranthor 11:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting. I've probably read about him, but all I can think about with Mount St. Helens is old Harry Truman. Anyway, to business:

  • "Teaching career" Must this be one long paragraph?
  • Some mention of how he could have a teaching career and a career as a government geologist simultaneously would be useful.
  • "he published the first volume of a publication" published/publication
  • References are not always in numerical order [14][6]
  • "Voight insisted that the bulge could fail" Why insisted? Was there opposition?
  • "After a magnitude 5.1 earthquake centered directly below the north slope triggered that part of the volcano to slide" Maybe "caused" instead of"triggered"? It's the "to slide" that's bothering me.
  • "In 1985, Voight blamed human error for the Armero tragedy, where more than 23,000 died from an eruption from the Nevado del Ruiz volcano." I might toss a "in Colombia" in there somewhere.
  • "while categorically accurate predictions of volcanic eruptions were impossible, unpreparedness for the disaster and inaction in preventing it exacerbated the death toll.[25]" I'm not sure what "inaction in preventing it" means as distinct from "unpreparedness for the disaster". After all, the volcano was going to erupt no matter what.
  • "Voight began contemplating initiating an evacuation" That sounds a bit vague.
  • "it was largely unknown by volcanologists." probably should be "to", not "by"
  • "including guests of a wedding ceremony." No doubt "at" is meant.
  • "People in Pasto, located at the foot of the volcano, became alarmed by noises and shaking from Galeras." I imagine this is what caused Voight to visit, so possibly "had become alarmed" might be better.
  • "Voight still oversees hazard assessments at the volcano, including providing his input during eruptive periods in 2006 and 2010.[12]" I might cut "including"
  • "helping plan engineering projects in France, India, Ireland, Somalia, Papua New Guinea, Canada,[8] and Turkey, as well as the United States.[10]" I think you still need an "in" before "United States"
  • "monitoring of active volcanoes, and pyroclastic flows have brought him to Iceland, Columbia, " Presumably the nation of Colombia is meant. By the way, this list is somewhat duplicative of the one two paragraphs previously.
  • "For his service as a professor at Penn State, Voight has been given two awards, specifically for his research. In 1991, he gained a Faculty Scholar Medal for "Outstanding Achievement in the Physical Sciences and Engineering".[8] In 1990, he received the Wilson Research Award from the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences for excellence in research.[33]" I would put this in year order. Paragraph breaks might also be welcome somewhere.
  • "In addition to journal articles, Voight has written or helped write at least 21 books and monographs since 1965, some of his co-authors including W. D. Gunther, R. T. Chase, Mary A. Voight, and George Stephens." I'mnot sure the grammar completely works in the second half of the sentence. I might put a semicolon after 1965 and change "including" to "include"
  • "The Eruption of Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat from 2000 to 2010," Looking at the front cover online, there seems to be a grave accent over the first e in Soufriere.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I wrote the article about Harry R. Truman, too! I'll get started on these in just a bit. Thanks for your comments. ceranthor 02:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: I think everything has been taken care of except the government geologist comment. Isn't that explained in the career section where I mention that he was a USGS consultant, and that much of his research overlapped with his work for them? He wasn't a government geologist per se, just a consultant for them. ceranthor 18:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Support all looks good. It's a bit technical, but it can't be helped given the subject matter. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and support. ceranthor 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Current citation 2 ("Chip Taylor") - can we expand the NPR abbreviation for folks outside the US who will be clueless about what it means?
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - the things it's flagging up are properly quoted and attributed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Just took care of the NPR abbreviation. Thanks for the review! ceranthor 20:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Maurice Wilder-Neligan

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

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

Image review

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


Nominator(s): -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the twenty-fourth Tirthankara of Jainism who holds great significance in the history of the religion. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)


  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
  • 3D objects should include a copyright tag for the original object, not just the photo - some may be covered by freedom of panorama, others will not. For 2D works under US law the photographer gets no copyright but the original artist does.
  • Needs a pass for Manual of Style issues - linking, hyphenation, italicization, etc
  • Generally the article is in need of copyediting - suggest reaching out to the Guild
  • The text is likely to be difficult to follow for non-experts. For example, the Historical section discusses "year of nirvana", but this concept is neither explained nor even linked until later in the article.
  • One-sentence subsections should be avoided
  • The {{expand section}} tag should be addressed
  • Citation formatting is generally quite inconsistent, and some citations are incomplete
  • Don't think a press release meets the requirements of this RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopian historiography

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

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

Image review from Adityavagarwal

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

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

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

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

Initial comments from Hchc2009

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

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

Waterloo Medal (Pistrucci)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... something of a sideline from the Pistrucci one, about the famous Waterloo medal, that cost the British Government thousands of pounds, and at the end of the day, could not be struck in its original form. And if it had, it would have been useless, since most of the recipients were dead and it would have been politically imprudent to bring up Waterloo while wooing the French ... "Don't mention the war" ...Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There are 4 well-relevant images in the article. They have proper description templates and no copyright issues. Just one minor issue, that the fourth image is moving into the references section due to which the references are gliding to the left.

Otherwise, everything is great! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've moved that image up a paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Awesome one, yet again! It is a great article. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Gertanis

  • Perhaps add short description of Mr. Pistrucci in the very first sentence, as it is at present rather short.
I did, though I'm not sure it entirely helps.
  • "Commissioned by the British Government in 1819 on the instructions of George IV while Prince Regent, the medals were to be presented to the victorious generals at the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, and to the leaders of Britain's allies." – I fell into a garden path when I read that first part, and had to read the whole sentence thrice to make sense of it (though the link to prince regent certainly did help). Something with the prepositions, though don't ask me, I'm not a native speaker
I've simplified it a bit.
  • "Most of the intended recipients had died by 1849; with improving relations with France the medals were never struck, though modern-day editions have been made for sale to collectors." – "with...with"
  • "The Royal Academy proposed work by John Flaxman but Pistrucci, whose responsibility it was to engrave the dies, refused to copy another's work, and proposed designs of his own." — "proposed...proposed". Also, who was Mr. Flaxman?
  • "He likely concluded that he would be sacked if he completed it, something the Mint was reluctant to do before then lest the sums paid Pistrucci be wasted, and progress was extremely slow." – again, difficult to parse, especially w/ the tense oscillating between conditional, indicative and subjunctive. And whose judgement stands behind 'likely'?
Most of the sources say more or less the same thing on this point. It's backed up with a quote and inline attribution in the text.
  • "Pistrucci's designs have been greatly praised by those who have written on the subject." – i.e. numismatists?

I hope these comments don't come off as facetious, as I did genuinely have some difficulty reading it. YMMV Gertanis (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No, they are excellent comments. I've made those changes, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Red-billed quelea

Nominator(s): Dwergenpaartje (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the most populous non-cultivated bird in the world. Newcomer Dwergenpaartje has done most of the heavy lifting in this one, but many folks of the bird wikiproject have had a look. It got a detailed going over at GAN and I think has buffed up quite nicely and is within striking distance of FA-hood. Have a go at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagaral

  • There are 8 images in the article, and all have proper description templates, and have no coyright issues. Also, they are well-relevant to the context.
  • There is some sandwiching of text in the description section, and it would be great if that could be removed. Also, the images do not have ALT text.

Looks great otherwise! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

Some quick comments to start off with.

  • Why is there citations in the lead? I don't think that there needs to be any except after that quote in the next-to-last sentence.
You're right, though I don't think even that one is controversial enough to warrant a ref. removed refs in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The ref for the quote should probably be included since it is a quote. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
ok re-added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be good to include the pronunciation in the lead.
didn't strike me as that odd a word to pronounce.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, at least for me, it is. I had something like /kwɛlɪə/ going. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
yeah me too...I'd not thought about any other way... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is interbreeding with the red-headed quelea included in the phylogeny section? Maybe put it in the section on reproduction and add some more details about how it affects clutch size, success rate, etc.
I have always put hybridization in taxonomy as it touches on the relationship with other species or a population with distinct characteristics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully I will do some more soon. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Some more:

  • The last part of the sentence "The species is endemic to Sub-Saharan Africa and avoids forests, deserts and colder areas such as at high altitude and southern South Africa" doesn't seem to be right; maybe say "such as high altitudes and..." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
the altitude isn't a place so needs some sort of preposition and article. Added "those". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be better to have what family it is in in the first sentence, instead of in the middle of the first paragraph. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying "globular roofed nests" in the sentence "It constructs globular roofed nests woven from strips of grass hanging from thorny branches, sugar cane or reeds", maybe say "roofed, spherical nests"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
not sure about this one..."globular" implies a less exact roundness than "spherical" and hence strikes me as more appropriate word. Can you expand on why you think this change is good (am I missing something...?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, "globular" pretty much implies roofed, but some may be confused if we leave that out. Maybe say "spherical-like"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, need to think about this one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Readers might be a bit confused when you mention out of the blue that "In 1850, Ludwig Reichenbachthought the species was not a true bunting, but rather a weaver, and created the genus name Quelea, as well as the new combination Q. quelea". Maybe, after the citation to Linnaeus, say that it he placed in the bunting family? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

A very worthy topic, and one that I am sad to say I know little about. Only have a few minutes right now, but I'll be back soon enough to finish up. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm personally not keen on referring to people by surname only at first mention; it strikes me as a little over-formal, and alienating to certain readers. YMMV. Also, why no link to Reichenbach in the lead? How about the countries mentioned?
Nope, was an oversight. Now rectified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "oval roofed nests" oval-roofed?
The nests are oval...and have a roof Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The usual pest control measures are spraying avicides or detonating fire-bombs in the enormous colonies during the night." Avicides is jargon- link? Also, wouldn't it be pest-control?
linked...was trying to think of an accurate plain English substitution but couldn't without getting really wordy.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps "a chemical bird control substance"? Do'nt like it too much for it is really wordy. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "When food runs out, the species migrates to locations where in recent weeks the rains have started and grass seed is plentiful and so exploits its food source very efficiently." Could this sentence perhaps be broken up?
Gave it a shot - tricky one to split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "without giving the literature reference however." I would recommend "without, however, giving the literature reference", but more importantly, I'm not sure it is clear what is meant here.
I think it means that he didn't explain the name or bird...but then again he almost never does anyway. I removed it as no real meaning is lost. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I assume you mean Surrey and not "Surry"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The 18th century source says "Surry" and not "Surrey", can we be sure they are the same? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
fixed I think so yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, next batch:

  • "The nominate" is this common? Would "The nominate subspecies" not be more standard?
slightly worried it is a tad repetitive but done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Q. quelea intermedia is regarded a synonym of the nominate" Could we perhaps have a smidge more about this name?
added. Reichnow named it but a few years afterwards realised it was aethiopica Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The type was collected in the neighbouring Sennar province in today's Sudan." Of the subspecies, you mean? Probably no need to change if so. If you mean the type specimen for the species, the placement is a little odd.
yes. I used a run-on "and" and "its" to tighten the link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "DNA-analysis," Why the dash?
no idea. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "lores", "coverts and flight feathers" Jargon
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The mask is surrounded by a varying area of yellow, rusty, pink, purple or (in case of a white mask sometimes) black. This coloring may only reach on the lower throat or extend along the belly," Could this be smoothed out a little?
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "the chin, throat whitish" Not very prosaic!
rewrote this bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The male sings in short bursts, starting with some chatter, followed by a warbling tweedle-toodle-tweedle.[21]" Do females not sing?
not sure - have tried to search for any details on this. The guidebooks say the flocks give a chittering, but is unclear if they know that both sexes make the calls. So I have nothing conclusive to add... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The birds however avoids forests, including miombo woodlands, and rain forest such as in central Africa. It is also" Singular/plural
  • "where it attacks crops, although it is suggested it prefers seeds of wild annual grasses" I think "attack" is a little strong, and is the passive voice necessary?
attack changed. tweaked it a little but hard to get out of passive entirely Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Central Kenya" Is that a proper noun?
no. downcased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "South-Sudan" Is the dash necessary? The fact you're referring to South Sudan rather than the south of Sudan is shown by the capital S.
It's both actually. clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "to the South-East to southern" south east or south-east, surely?
yup. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "When breeding, areas with thorny or spiny vegetation below 1,000 m (3,300 ft) elevation are selected, such as Acacia, and lowveld." I'm struggling with this.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Red-billed queleas feed mainly on a wide range of grass seeds such as from native annual grasses like species" Too many qualifiers
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "lanner falcons, tawny eagle and marabou stork" Singular/plural?
Done by Dwergenpaartje Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We're given two lots of stats about birds caught "near N'Djamena"; I don't think we need both. Also, I feel the paragraph quickly loses track of the "three methods" structure that it sets out with.
I thought both facts were helpful and illustrative so I rejigged so they were flowed better. I am not sure how else to set out the three methods, but did add a comma and a "while" between methods two and three to try and delineate them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Quelea guano is collected in Nigeria. Tourists like to watch the large flocks of queleas, such as during visits of the Kruger National Park. The birds themselves eat pest insects such as migratory locusts, and the moth species Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera exempta.[6]" This feels a little out of place. Also, perhaps you could specify the uses of guano?
added, though little other info available. Have split this into second para Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I fear the "Aviculture" section is a bit how-to. A striking example: "Particularly during the breeding season living insects such as mealworms, spiders, or boiled shredded egg should be provided."
rejigged now..better? This is tricky to massage. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "can put away 50 tonnes of grain" Informal
aww spoilsp- fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the "pest" section is also a bit-how to. Perhaps better to simply stick to describing the methods used?
tweaked, how about now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really like the "illustrative images" section. You could consider using {{external media}} in the article body as an alternative.
We have a pic of nests in article, videos now in EL with template. Most photos don't add a huge deal so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That's all for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I did, they were fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Few additions, and a consideration in purple by me Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Usual nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • color, coloring, colored—the English-speaking counties in its range all use BE, but your spelling is inconsistent and regularly wanders into AE
I'm not a native speaker, but try to stick to BE, although I may not always be aware. I'll correct to colour, and any other irregularities that will catch my eye.
  • Over time, two other subspecies have been describe—"Formerly" is better
  • However is overused
Avoided using it now in 3 out of 7.
  • kwelea domo-jekundu in Swahili—is this borrowed from English or vise versa?
This remains unclear. Please see this discussion.
  • link iris genets, civets
  • When they reach for instance the Benoue River valley, where passed rains already caused the grass to set seed. —doesn't make sense
You're right. I've rephrased and hope it is better now.
  • 18 g of grain… 50 tonnes… 1500 tonnes… one hectare—need converting
Done Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • It is described as small in the lead, but I think the actual size and weight should be given there.
  • "The male sings in short bursts" Presumably the female does not sing, and if so worth saying so.
Yes, it is likely she doesn't, but I haven't found a source that says so.
  • "Nest building usually commences four to nine weeks after the onset of the rains and a quantity of about 300 mm (12 in) has been exceeded." I checked the source on this as 300 mm seems high, and I could only find a statement that the quelea needs 300 to 800 mm annually, not before nest building. You give one reference for 6 citations to a 73 page thesis. This is far too long to cite the whole document. You need to cite each separately with page numbers so readers can check your source.
You are doubly correct. The amount does seem rather high and the reference did not cover that aspect of the statement. The source actually says under the heading "Early Warning Systems": They utilized knowledge that 60 mm of rain within a two week period would stimulate grass-seed germination, and hence the initiation of the early rains migration, and that only if a further 240 mm falls within the following six weeks will conditions allow breeding.
I have added the page numbers for the thesis for each citation - e.g. rainfall and breeding are mentioned on 2 separate pages but one refers to the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Predators and parasites section. There is five lines on predators of quelea ending with the scorpion Cheloctonus jonesii. The reference for these lines only suggests the scorpion as a possible predator, and does not cover other predators. The next sentence regarding parasites has two refs, one a general description which covers most of the paragraph and the other about a rare example of turtles preying on quelea.
I think I've disentangled it now.
  • The final paragraph is confusing. It starts by saying attempts at control took place at the turn of the last century, and later in the 1950s and 1960s.
I've rearranged it a bit to avoid breaking the time line. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This article is interesting and well written, but the referencing is unsatisfatory. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Ahoy @Dudley Miles:..changes done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
The site is run by the Department of Biological Sciences of the University of Cape Town. As far as I have checked, all information is consistent with other sources, but not everything can be found elsewhere freely accessible on the web.
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
replaced with a Reliable Source now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 2 "Quelea quelea" Handbook of the Birds of the World - any reason the Handbook part isn't in italics? And is it "Handbook of the Birds of the World" or "Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive" (as it's given in current ref 23)
The source is identical, no reason for avoiding italic, corrected
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
XC is a bird sound data base. It gets its material from crowed sourcing. Many birders contribute and also check on each others contributions. I think it is actually more reliable than many peer-reviewed science articles. In fact, by allowing media from wiki commons, we include illustrations much less reliable in almost every wikipedia article.
Generally user generated content is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree it is a difficult issue. I was unable to answer a question on whether the female made calls with any other source. XC has many biologists contributing and vetting content. I will have a look on whether this has been discussed elsewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
The website says its content is taken from a book titled The Bird Almanac, by David M. Bird. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, ouch. So they are basically copying the information and/or doing a copyright violation? Better to get the information from the original source. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I have removed that - apart from the almanac (a tertiary source), the consensus appears to be 1.5 billion with no mention of larger figures. Hence I have removed the sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations. I did not check the reliablity of the foreign language sources.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Indian National Army

Nominator(s): rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about "Indian National Army", an organisation in south-east Asia formed during World War II. It forms a part of the radical side of the Indian independence movement, different from the Gandhian pacifist movement and is a very delicate topic, with very many differing viewpoints. A substantial effort has been made over several years to achieve an NPOV good quality article, carefully avoiding hagiography and pro and anti-INA bias. Best efforts has been made to achieve quality secondary and tertiary sources in noting the pre and post-war history, politics, people, of what formed the INA. Very close attention has been laid on factual content and giving due weight to view points and opinions, and extensive help has been sought from the GOCD. In time for Indian independence day, I think this would be a great article to achieve FA status on a less visible side of the Indian indepdendence movement.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Fujiwara_Kikan.jpg: can you provide more details on source?
  • File:Gandhi_and_Subhas_Bose.jpg: given source has date of 1950s; where was this first published?
  • File:Destruction_of_INA_Memorial_1945.jpg: source link is dead; who is potentially the copyright holder, and is the claim for the memorial, the photo, or both?
  • File:Former_Indian_National_Army_Monument.JPG: what is the copyright status of the memorial?
  • File:Azad_Hind_stamps_released_by_Indian_National_Army_in_display_at_Netaji_Birth_Place_Museum,_Cuttack,_Odisha,_India.jpg: what is the copyright status of the depicted stamps?
  • File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg: can you explain why the URAA tag would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, I took a quick look. I can't comment on content as I don't know enough about the subject, so I have focused on more generic things. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • "army remains a popular and passionate topic in popular Indian...": suggest trying to change one of the instances of "popular" here to vary your language
  • this needs a ref: the paragraphing ending with "Men going forward on duty were issued British stocks of hand grenades by senior officer of the Bahadur groups attached to each unit."
  • this is not grammatically correct: "Men going forward on duty were issued British stocks of hand grenades by senior officer of the Bahadur groups attached to each unit."
  • this needs a ref: "Both the soldiers of the INA and civilians addressed Bose as Netaji ("Dear leader"). In October 1943, Bose proclaimed the formation of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind, or the Provisional Government of Free India (also known as Azad Hind or Free India). The INA was declared to be the army of Azad Hind."
  • this is not grammatically correct: "The radio transmitting set with all accessories that sent by Subhas Chandra Bose to India in a submarine, four members of INA were the carriers."
  • "was organised into a quasi-military organisation..." (please try to reword to avoid repetition)
  • in the Operations section, I suggest splitting the 1944 paragraph as it is very long
  • this needs a reference: "Malik Munawar Khan, commander of 2nd Guerilla Battalion during INA's Imphal campaign, later joined Pak Army and commanded Pakistani Special Forces during Operation Gibraltar in 1965."
  • this needs a ref: the paragraph ending with "The Indian National Army Memorial at Moirang, Manipur, commemorates the place where the flag of Azad Hind was raised by Col. Shaukat Hayat Malik. Moirang was the first Indian territory captured by the INA."
  • newspapers such as Times of India, Hindustan Times etc should be presented in italics
  • inconsistent date format, for instance compare "2007-07-07" with "2 November 1945"
  • the citations are generally ok, but I found a few that needed tweaking (I may have missed a few, please review)
  • the Further reading section is inconsistently formatted
  • the Cohen, Moremon and Ghosh works do not appear to be specifically cited, I suggest moving them to the Further reading section

Continuing the review: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

  • the use of emdashes or endashes instead of parentheses is inconsistent
  • this is unreferenced: "In October 1943, Bose proclaimed the formation of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind, or the Provisional Government of Free India (also known as Azad Hind or Free India). The INA was declared to be the army of Azad Hind."
  • Stenson & Rai citations (136 & 137) are inconsistent in their presentation, both also lack page numbers
  • the Cohen ref uses a different style citation to the other journal articles. For instance compare citation # 114 with 120 (Green).
  • is there a page numbr for the Urquhart news article?
  • sometimes you use "Firstname Surname" and others you use "Surname, Firstname". For instance compare "Healey, Beth" with "Stephen P. Cohen" or "Sumit Ganguly"
  • "File:Destruction of INA Memorial 1945.jpg": the source link for this file appears to be dead. You might be able to find an archived version here: [7]
  • "File:Surrendered Indian National Army troops at Mount Popa.jpg": the image description page should include an indicative date of when the image was taken
  • "File:Gandhi and Subhas Bose.jpg": probably needs a US licence as well as those that are already on the image description page

Replies to Images comments

Thankyou Nikki, to address the comments:

File:Fujiwara_Kikan.jpg: can you provide more details on source?
The original image was published (from what I gathere) in a Singapore newspaper in 1942 in print (I cannot shed light on which one). The image is also found in Joyce Lebra's Japanese-trained armies in South East Asia, published in 1977. I haven't asked Prof Lebra where her original source is.
Correction, the source were it was published is Domei Newsagency in April 1942.
Okay, could you add that to the image description page? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Gandhi and Subhas Bose.jpg:
To the best of my knowledge, the original image was published in TIME magazine in 1937.
As above, please add to image descirption
The destruction of INA memorial file is from
This was a digital archive of Singapore government (to the best of my knowledge). I am not tinternetwise gifted, a cached version of the website may exist?
Former Indian national army monument is noted as released under CC license by the creator.
INA stamps are released under CC license by the creator.
For both this and the memorial, the CC license given appears to apply to the photo, but not what is pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, the photos are of the memorial to the memorial, and if the stamps described. The photos are used in accordance with the license to the best of my understanding. Is there a problem that is not immediately apparent to me?rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
If something is being photographed, either freedom of panorama must apply or the thing being photographed must be freely licensed or in the public domain. This is separate from the license of the photographer. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I see your point now. The former Indian National Army monument falls under FoP-Singapore, the Azad Hind stamps are in fact Cinderella stamps published in and by Nazi Germany. I imagine this is appropriately covered under PD-Germany-§134-KUG. please let me know if this clarifies.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure which other Subhas Bose image that you mentioned under URAA (terribly sorry, not sure what is URAA).

Best regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Uruguay Round Agreements Act - the image includes a tag stating it was in the public domain on the date on which that act came into effect, but it is unclear to me why that would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC).
Many thanks, I must ask though which image is in question since the only one with Bose is the Gandhi and Bose together, discussed above. Best wishes,rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thankyou, this image is not in fact displayed in the visible part of the article, I will delete this if it is a part of the hidden part of the article. In any case it does not add much to the article and is interchangeable (the subject of the article being the INA and not Bose). Thankyou for highlighting this.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Note File:Subhas_Chandra_Bose.jpg is not a part of this article.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Australian Rupert

I will addess your notes today. Mnay thanks rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind comments Rupert. I have addressed the poitns you raise.

  • Some sentences have been removed now (re:Munawar Khan) for which I could not find dependable source (this was added in the past by a different editor).
  • Grammatical corrections carried out.
  • Italics provided for print publications.
  • I have not changed the date format. The inconsistencies you highlight are not in fact such. The date in words show the original publication date where the artile was first published in print. For online resources first published online (and therefore available as such), this is the date provided.
    • I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. The format is clearly different/inconsistent. Please pick one style and use that throughout. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Yo're right,it didn't. This I think is adressed now.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 14:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have trimmed the Further reading section to include only relevant literature.
  • Uncited works removed

rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Habits (Stay High)

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

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

Image review from Adityavagarwal

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

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

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

Support from edwininlondon

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

Dragon Ball (manga)

Nominator(s): 1989 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a manga series following Goku and his adventures. It made it's run on Weekly Shōnen Jump from 1984 to 1995. The manga is recognized from its anime adaptions in the United States, most notably Dragon Ball Z. 1989 18:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • Both the images have proper description templates, well-relevant, and qualify for fair use. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe you mean one is fair use, the other is CC 2.0. In any event, all looks proper.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean both are appropriate, in sum. Face-tongue.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • For the caption for the Akira Toriyama image, I would replace the comma between "advance" and "he" with a semicolon as they are two separate sentences. I also think that "he thought it up weekly" can be changed to "he developed it on a weekly basis" as something about the current wording sounds a little too informal to me.
  • In this sentence (The journey leads them to the desert bandit Yamcha, who later becomes an ally; Chi-Chi, who Goku unknowingly agrees to marry; and Pilaf, an impish man who seeks the Dragon Balls to fulfill his desire to rule the world.), the semicolons should be replaced with commas as this is a list and not individual sentences.
  • In the sentence (Bulma, Gohan, and Kuririn search for them to revive their friends and then the Earth's Dragon Balls), I do not believe the "then" part is necessary.
  • I would suggest revising the following sentence (This leads to several battles with Freeza's minions and Vegeta, the latter standing alongside the heroes to fight the Ginyu Force, a team of mercenaries.) to avoid starting a sentence with "This".
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (In order to be allowed to end his popular series Dr. Slump). Who is allowing him to end the series? The publisher? A little more context would be helpful here.
  • In the "Japanese publication" subsection, you alternate between spelling out numbers and representing them as numerals. I am specifically referencing how you spell out twenty and twelve in the second paragraph. Please be consistent one way or the other about this.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. I hope that you have a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 16:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Argento Surfer

  • from the lead, "strong comedic aspects early on." Suggest adding "in its run" to avoid ending on a preposition.
  • "to be allowed to end his popular series " - was he under contract or something?
  • "the two-part one-shot" - what does this mean? "two-part story" might be less confusing.
  • "he specifically aimed Dragon Ball at readers older than those of his previous work Dr. Slump" Dr Slump was already discussed two paragraphs earlier. The italicized section here seems repetitive.
  • "thinking about how you get in and where " suggest "a/the pilot enters and where"
  • "no one can tell him his original designs are wrong, as it is faster to draw" - the second part doesn't follow from the first here.
  • "asked Torishima for as few color pages as possible"
  • "The February 2013 issue of V Jump, which was released in December 2012" - I think this passage could be rewritten more clearly with a link to cover date, such as "The December 2012 (cover date February 2013) issue of V Jump..."
  • "have been collected into four tankōbon volumes on April 4, 2013" - "were collected"? All released the same day?
  • Excellent work on the plot summary. It couldn't have been easy to distill such a long story into such a brief retelling. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Argento Surfer: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 17:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response. I support this one. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from

  • Comment - has the scholarly literature been surveyed for this series? For example:
  • Mínguez-López, Xavier (March 2014). "Folktales and Other References in Toriyama’s Dragon Ball". Animation. 9 (1): 27–46. doi:10.1177/1746847713519386. 

Thanks! -- (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I have scholarly sources on refs 63 and 93. I couldn't find much that was based on the manga from where I was looking at. -- 1989 02:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I added the source you recommended. -- 1989 03:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Great! What about book chapters, is there anything on DB in the encyclopedia we used for Naruto? & what about Japanese English-language news sources? (Due to the great popularity of DB and DBZ.) -- (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to scholar sources. I used Google Scholar and Trove (for searching purposes, not access) to find something, but not much. I don't know what you mean, do you mean by publisher? The Japanese English-language news sources mostly talked about the (mostly newer) anime more than the manga. The only source that were relevant to the manga were The Japan Times from what you've found. I didn't find much on Asahi Shimbun except for a future exhibit event that I was able to use for the Legacy section. -- 1989 05:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there does seem to be a lot of confounding reviews on DBZ and Dragon Ball Super in the searches I've done. Perhaps someone from WP:LIBRARY might be able to doublecheck? The book that we used for Naruto, Spanjers, Rik (2013). "Naruto". In Beaty, Bart H.; Weiner, Stephen. Critical Survey of Graphic Novels : Manga. Ipswich, Mass.: Salem Press. pp. 215–221. ISBN 978-1-58765-955-3 – via EBSCOhost. (Subscription required (help)). , has a publishers website which says the book has a chapter on Dragon Ball. I know that the articles in this book tend to duplicate what WP already has, but there might be some information that would help lift the article to further comprehensiveness. Glad to know you've checked through the available English language Japanese newspapers. -- (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I added the source you recommended. -- 1989 23:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Freikorp

  • "but no one can say his original designs are wrong and they are faster to draw." This wording reads quite badly, at least to me. It is supposed to be in quote marks? If not, reword it.
  • I removed it. -- 1989 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Now, decades later, cars are so sleek and aerodynamic, he currently draws square ones." - As per WP:REALTIME, try and avoid using terms like "now" and "currently".
  • "while thinking if the fighters can move around in it." - I think it would be better to say "can move around in them"
  • "he does not draw bad guys" - "bad guys" is pretty colloquial, I'd either put it in quotes or use a less childish term, like 'villains'.
  • "inspired by real estate speculators, Toriyama called the "worst kind of people" - I think you could use the word "who" after the comma
  • "Viz began to censor the manga in response to parental complaints." - How were they censoring it at this stage?
  • 'translating the sound effects of gunshots to "zap"' - this is confusing. What was the translation before it was zap?
  • Susan J. Napier could be introduced with her profession so we know why her opinion is relevant.
  • "In 2016, the manga has sold over 156 million" - this should be "As of 2016, the manga..."
  • "lots of martial arts, lots of training sequences, a few jokes" - I think this would read better if you put "[and]" in front of "a few jokes"
  • "became the model for other shōnen series" - this appears to be a fragment. I think you need the word "it" before 'became'
  • "thus starting a trend that he says continues to this day" - can you reword this considering WP:REALTIME?
  • "he commented that the developed" - huh? Is this supposed to be 'commented that the development'?

Well done overall, that's all I found. Freikorp (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Happy to support this now. Freikorp (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review

The article's sources are reliable and archived. Only one thing that bothers me is the use of all capitals for some Japanese sources. Also "Shenlong Times 2". DRAGON BALL 大全集 2: Story Guide (in Japanese). Shueisha. 1995." is lacking a isbn. Just fix these two issues and I'll make it pass. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 17:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Good. Passing this review. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Paparazzzi

  • "...which together were broadcast in..." I guess you meant "broadcasted"
  • "The companies initially split the manga into two parts, Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z to match the anime series, however...", I think that a full stop would be more appropiate before "however"
  • "the most recent edition saw the entire series released under its original name." Sounds odd to me, why not to change it to "the most recent edition of the series was released under its original title"
More to come...Paparazzzi (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@Paparazzzi: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

  • I think the are so many short paragraphs in the "Spin-offs and crossovers" section.
  • Split the "Popularity" section into two paragraphs

These are my comments. I did not find any flaw. Since they are minor comments, I'm going to support this nomination. If it is possible, could you take a look at my FAC? Sorry for the delay on this review. Have a wonderful day. --Paparazzzi (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the paragraphs. -- 1989 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

  • In the "Writing" section:
    • "In order to be allowed by Shueisha to end his popular series Dr. Slump, Akira Toriyama agreed to start his next work relatively soon after." sounds weird. How about In order for Shueisha to allow him to end his popular series Dr. Slump, Akira Toriyama agreed to start his next work relatively soon after.

More comments later. epicgenius (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I resolved your concern. -- 1989 21:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I will comment more tomorrow when I have more time. epicgenius (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@1989: More comments:

  • In "Characters":
    • Paragraph 2 - "The editor admitted his concerns were unfounded" contains "admitted", which has a connotation. Would you like to change this? This is optional since Torishima's concerns were unfounded.
    • Para 3 - "He created Piccolo Daimao as a truly evil villain, and said that arc was the most interesting to draw" is missing a "that", but having "that that" is kind of weird. How about Having created Piccolo Daimao as a truly evil villain, he said that arc was the most interesting to draw.
  • In "Japanese publication":
    • Para 1 - "before Toriyama changed midway through to drawing them on a graphics tablet and coloring them with Adobe Photoshop" could be a separate sentence. How about Midway through, Toriyama changed to drawing them on a graphics tablet and coloring them with Adobe Photoshop
  • In "Controversy in the United States":
    • "A fan petition that garnered over 10,000 signatures was created," → A fan petition was created, garnering over 10,000 signatures,
  • In "Legacy":
    • Para 3 - "Installations included using an EEG that measured visitors' alpha brain waves to move Goku's flying cloud." Remove "using".

Overall, this is very well written. I will be happy to support this nomination after these issues are fixed. epicgenius (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I resolved your concerns. -- 1989 02:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. I'm glad to see that this was resolved so quickly. Nice work! epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


@WP:FAC coordinators: Is there any more feedback that needs to be put here? -- 1989 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This is about the document considered to be the birth certificate of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Its 100th anniversary is in three months' time. It is a Top-Importance article at both Wikiproject Israel and WikiProject Palestine. It was promoted to good article status in April 2016, and has since had a peer review, a GOCE copy edit, and support for almost a year from FunkMonk as a mentor. As an important topic in a controversial area, it has been prepared in conjunction with WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, which aims to create a bilateral narrative in a field with distinct and divergent ways of describing the same things. The abundance of supporting quotations and notes, reflecting the fact that every detail of this topic has been argued over by scholars from all sides of the spectrum, has been discussed at WP:ANI. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

update: the article was recently promoted to be a level 4 vital article in History. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Haven't finished reading it yet.
  • "The Balfour Declaration was a British public statement made during World War I to announce its support for the establishment of a "national home" for the Jewish " Who is "its"? (if it's the British government, remember to use "their"; note the first sentence of the Declaration is similar.)
  • The lede seems to me too long with five paragraphs plus the lengthy blockquote. My understanding is the maximum is four paragraphs. The blockquote seems a bad idea to me as the prose in the lede should be as concentrated as possible to give the reader information and I don't think a blockquote of an original source can fit the prose. I'll wait and see before discussing further what you have to say on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to Wehwalt

I agree with you that the verbatim text is not needed in the lead. It was discussed 18 months ago at this talk thread with Hertz1888 and Rjensen, and consensus was for keeping. However, the article and lead have developed a lot since then, so consensus may have changed. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there a memorial plaque or similar with the words written on it that would do instead, say as the lede image? I would urge you to discuss making a change.==Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Good point. When this was last discussed, we had a lower quality image on the page ([8]). Now we have a much clearer lead image with the words on it. I will open a request on the talk page. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
On "its" to "their" - thank you, I will fix this. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where to make comments, so I'll do it here. It seems to me that the text belongs in the lead. Reasons:

  • From what I remember, every word and punctuation mark of the Balfour Declaration was crafted with a lot of behind the scenes maneuvering.
  • Without the text the subsequent two paragraphs would be incomprehensible ("The first part", "The second part" and discussion of the various phrases like "national home".
  • MOS:LEAD recommends four paragraphs as a rule of thumb, but AFAIK there's no prohibition against having five. More importantly, the guideline says that the lead should "stand on its own". I, for one, can't read the image easily on a desktop and mobile is probably even worse.

Kingsindian   15:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to removing the text from the lead. Having it buried several sections below, at the end of the "Drafts" section, after several earlier versions, is not the same at all. The lead should "stand on its own" and explain what "it" is, "it" being the subject of the article. In this case "it" can be shown, verbatim, in a single legible paragraph. Let's leave it be. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's a pity about the images, not much you can do with 100 year old stuff; is there any way of somehow putting the nicely typed version together with the image or is that just impractical? I did as well wonder about having a face or two on the page somewhere, maybe a little shot of the authors or even just Balfour?

Selfstudier (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Just messing about a bit:) Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea on the bottom right - where you have the full text in the infobox.
I don't like having Balfour's photo in the lead as it's misleading - sure his name is attached to it, but he was just one of many players in the story of its creation. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
True, three of them here
I don't like Balfour's photo either, probably can just remove it. As for the infobox stuff, does the infobox count as part of the lead? Perhaps it might work. I am not sure I like it though: it would still be awkward to talk about "first part" and "second part" without actually stating the text in the lead. It might be the least of all evils. I don't know. Kingsindian   20:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Um, how about this one, then? Selfstudier (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I had a go at amending the one on your sandbox. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Like Kingsindian says, its an awkward choice, I hadn't paid much attention to it before, its not good that the text in the infobox is difficult to read tho it is nice to see a copy of the original. However I think I prefer a popout version at least some users can then see a legible version. It says that infoboxes should still contain what is in them in the main text somehwere, they are supposed to be a fast summary of some key data, having the long block of text is also frowned on apparently /:
I suppose that in the end, the reason it is in the lead is because it is short enough to be able to do that (cf United_States_Declaration_of_Independence has a single line quote from it in the lead).Selfstudier (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I will wait and see what other FAC reviewers think of the text in the lede. Please ping me when you want me to take a second look. .--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
What about a "no infobox" version? Starting something like this

A picture could be inserted somewhere later in the article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

As to photographs, there are no known photographs of the protagonists together from the time of the declaration. This is likely a function of the wartime and secret nature of the discussions. The available photographs are usually posed portraits which give the reader no relevant information other than these people's facial features. I prefer going a little later, either to the 1918 Zionist visit to Palestine (see Weizmann, Edwin Samuel, Ormsby-Gore, Israel Sieff, Leon Simon, James de Rothschild and Joseph Sprinzak) or the 1925 Balfour visit (see Sokolow, Balfour and Weizmann or "The Palestine Trio", in which a few of the protagonists can be seen side by side.) There are also a few out of copyright videos from 1925: [9] [10] [11] [12], [13]. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Image review (let me know if discussion above results in further changes)

  • Suggest scaling up 1915-16 maps
  • File:The_"Basel_Program"_at_the_First_Zionist_Congress_in_1897.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • I'm not entirely sure that textual documents of this sort would qualify as "artistic works", which is the wording of PD-UKGov. Does provision of Crown copyright differ for nonartistic works?
  • File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._amd_King_Hussein.png is of poor quality; is a better-quality image available?
  • File:Balfour_Declaration_in_the_Times_9_November_1917.jpg should explicitly state author's date of death
  • File:Filastin_(La_Palestine)_March_25th_1925_editorial_addressed_to_Lord_Balfour.pdf needs author date of death, and given the 1925 publication date what is the rationale for that US tag?
  • File:2011-08_Desk_Balfour.JPG: what is the copyright status of the pictured wall art? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria, a few initial reactions:
  • Basel - have added as suggested
  • Times - Since no known writer (to be expected, since it looks like a government press release), I have added the date of death of the editor (1944)
  • 1918 map - no, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere. I have looked high and low (this was discussed at the talk page a few months ago). It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
  • Filastin - the editor and owner (El Isa) was the author of the piece. He died in 1950. I have removed the other tags, as Mandate Palestine copyright laws apply
  • Bit confused here: if he died in 1950, and the Mandate Palestine copyright term is life+70, why would this be PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • 70 years is for Israeli copyright post 2008. For creations prior to 2008 (as this was), the British Mandate laws apply, see [14]: "The term for which copyright shall subsist shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Act, be the life of the author and a period of fifty years after his death." Onceinawhile (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, so we need now to determine the status of the work in the US - not sure how the Mandate laws mesh with URAA. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's an interesting question as the El Isa family would likely not have recognized Israeli descent of their Mandate copyright. It's not relevant though as the paper was almost certainly published in the US without a copyright notice or copyright registration. I have added a tag and an explanation onto the file page. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Desk - a tricky one. The Hebrew text is simply a verbatim translation of the letter and declaration. But the artwork, I don't know. An option is to replace it with a cropped version (e.g. he:קובץ:שולחנו של בלפור.jpg, but i'm not sure how to transfer the hebrew otrs to global commons).
  • I don't know the answer to that one, maybe ask over at Commons? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I figured it out! I will swap the photos. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • UK Crown Copyright - I read this [15] as applying to all Crown material, not just art. Following [16] gives the same conclusion.
  • Hm. That flowchart does differentiate between artistic and non-artistic works, though: artistic works have their copyright expire 50 years after creation, whereas for other works it's 50 years after publication, assuming that happened before 1989. So the question becomes, when were all the textual documents pictured here published? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • They were all published before 1961 (the date of Leonard Stein's seminal publication on the topic which incorporated most of them as core primary sources; the others are in other works from the same time period). I will figure out the dates and add them to each file. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added the details against each of the files on commons. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay. I'm wondering whether there is a UK tag more reflective of the situation for textual works, as UKGov is specific to artistic works. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added a note above each of the tags on the file pages to clarify. To clean things up for future users of the tag, I have also proposed an amendment to the template at [17]. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Scaling up - do you mean make larger on the page, or zoom in further?
  • Make larger on the page, ideally using |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you - this has been done. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

While you are deciding what to do with the lead/infobox, here are a few other minor points you should address:

  • The form "Lord Walter Rothschild" is wrong; it would only be right if he was a younger sone of a duke or a marquis, which he wasn't. Just "Lord Rothschild" would be correct everyday form.
  • "Mark Sykes" was "Sir Mark Sykes" at the time, and was rather more than "a British War Cabinet secretary", which makes him sound like a typist. "A senior member of the British War Cabinet secretariat" might be a better indication of his rank.
  • The way it's currently written, it sounds as though Sykes began discussions with Weitzmann on his own initiative, out of the blue. I would preface this sentence with "In accordance with government policy, which was increasingly favouring Zionism,..." (or some such wording)
  • Repetitions in second line of final paragraph: "ongoing...ongoing", and "conflict...conflict".
  • Like others, I think including the text of the declaration in the lead as well as in the infobox is unnecessary. Do you actually need the infobox at all? It contains nothing of note that's not in the first paragraph of the text. A possible alternative to the infobox is illustrated here - replacing it with a quote box containing the declaration's text, and obviating the need to repeat it in the body of the lead.
  • The image in the current infobox gives an impression that the declaration document was headed "Balfour Declaration", which was not the case. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know when the document first acquired this name – was it from the very outset, or a later appellation given by historians?

Aside from these minor issues, I have a major problem with the article as presently constructed. In addition to its main text, there are more than 10,000 additional words of "Primary supporting quotes" and "Explanatory notes and scholarly perspectives" – considerably exceeding the length of the article itself. Some of the notes are, individually, quite lengthy essays running to several hundred words. I don't believe that this approach is what is intended for Wikipedia, which is about providing articles in plain style for the general reader, not for researchers or academic historians. The authors should reconsider the nature of their intended readership, with a view to removing much of this explanatory material. WP:NOT might be a useful guideline. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to Brianboulton

Many thanks Brianboulton. Comments on your points in turn:

  • I agree that "Lord Walter Rothschild" is wrong. However, we need a way to differentiate him from two other contemporary Baron Rothschilds (in England Baron = Lord), much better known in politics, his father Nathan Rothschild, 1st Baron Rothschild who died a couple of years before the declaration and his distant cousin Baron Edmond James de Rothschild (who was, I believe, not an English Baron but an Austrian Freiherr, but who used the style Baron in England). Walter was not a particularly political or financial man, so it is notable that it was him in particular.
  • Agreed re Sir Mark. It seems his entitlement as a sir was in his Baronetcy inherited from his father, rather than being knighted. I have made both these changes
  • Agreed re Sykes's authorization; I have added wording to clarify
  • As to the infobox, that's an interesting idea. I am neutral on this and will wait to let consensus form.
  • The caption below the picture in the infobox is intended to explain that the declaration itself is within the letter. The name "Balfour Declaration" formed very early. It was used frequently in the reports of both the 1919 King–Crane Commission and the 1920 Palin Commission
  • As to the notes, in the original nomination above I linked to the ANI discussion on the topic. The subject of this article is the origin of perhaps the most controversial and hotly debated of all modern conflicts. I have edited in the Israel Palestine area for some time, and have learned that quotes in footnotes are a must in order to avoid edit wars on controversial topics. As it says at WP:IPCOLL, every topic is described differently by both sides. Israelis, Palestinians and their respective supporters come to read this article all the time - when they see something that doesn't fit the narrative they thought they knew, let's just say that they do not bother to go and check the source book out of the library before editing. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Seconded, on the last point. Some quotes are useful to get some insight into the topic. Around the time of the ANI discussion, I made an attempt to shorten the quotes, but judging from the overall discussion, people didn't find the practice problematic; so I discontinued the attempt. There were some concerns raised about copyright, but from what I saw, most people agreed that it did not fall into copyvio territory. Kingsindian   11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree with both of you. I accept that, to an extent, explanatory footnotes which incorporate verbatim source material can have some useful function in backing up possibly contentious statements in the article text. But this should be done sparingly; when the notes amount to considerably more in size than the text they are supporting, and when some of the individual footnotes are essays of several hundred words, my eyebrows remain raised. Were you writing for a scholarly journal, the argument might be different (though I think the editor of such a journal might well insist on some cutback in the notes). But this is an encyclopedia; we should be writing principally for a general readership who require a clear straightforward summary account of the topic and, I am certain, will not read the notes and may well be intimidated by them. The subject is controversial, but not more so than many other subjects, none of which as far as I can see have adopted your pre-retaliatory approach. Alas, those who are determined to challenge your coverage will find ways of doing so regardless – you simply can't anticipate every point of contention, and I worry that attempting to do so creates further problems, not least a great strain on readability. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

Fragment of a Crucifixion

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Post war horror by the painter Francis Bacon. The article rightfully went down in flames a few months ago, since then I am most grateful to Wehwalt especially for reviewing on talk. The painting is overwhelmingly nihilist, and fittingly was a thematic dead end outside of the emphasis on the screaming mouth. Bacon went in a completely different direction after this; the article is thus slight, but is a comprehensive summary of this once off direct depiction of the logical end of existentialism. His later work reflects the same bleakness, but was never again so literal. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I know less than I would like to about the history of art, but I have some familiarity with Bacon. I used to visit the Ulster Museum a lot, and this houses his Head II.

  • I think you and I have slightly different comma philosophies, so I'll avoid commenting on comma use unless it seems particularly problematic to me.
  • Is the predatory animal a he or an it? Also, there's some slight repetition in the second paragraph of the lead.
    Its an it. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "he did not believe in either divine intervention nor an afterlife" How about "he believed in neither divine intervention nor an afterlife", perhaps with some links?
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the description section could start with some very basic information? "Fragment of a Crucifixion is a [whatever] painting measuring [whatever]"? It seems to jump straight in to tricky material! In particular, it seems to assume information in the lead, where as I am inclined to think that a description section should be relatively free-standing; the figures, the cross, etc. can be introduced anew.
    Have simplified the lead as much as I could, moving thing around, but its a very dense article, with not much levity. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "catholic" Shouldn't that be Catholic? (Also, would raised not be more accurate than born?)
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "religious believe...he would go for them" belief? Also, check spacing?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "in of itself" and?
    This is a quote Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "the whole art of Francis Bacon."" Check MOS:LQ.
    Dont follow Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Punctuation should be outside of speech marks, except in a few special cases as outlined at MOS:LQ. I was asking if you could double-check this particular use. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "more imbued with pathos" Link?
    Dont follow Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    "pathos" is not a word that you would hear down the pub; I was suggesting a wikilink to our article on the subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "and weighted heavily throughout his career" What does weighted mean, here?
    "Weighted" removed Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bacon's patron and then lover" I think this means "Bacon's patron who later become his lover", rather than "Bacon's patron and, at that time, lover" which would be "Bacon's patron and then-lover". Does that make sense?
    Yes agree, and reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "1512–16 "Isenheim Altarpiece" and" Why quotemarks?
    Fixed Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The loosely opened mouth in the seventeenth-century painting is taut in Bacon's image." I'm struggling with this.
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Maquettefor King and Queen" Spacing?
    Eek Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bacon's devoutly atheist and nihilistic outlook" Is "devoutly atheist" an oxymoron? It strikes me as a little non-neutral.
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bacon was his own harshest critic" Also a little non-neutral

Fascinating read. Hope these comments are helpful. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi J; your edits are very solid and thanks for the comments. Re devoutly atheist; thats probably even underselling, he was far more so than I claim here. I'm ok with such a bold claim here. Otherwise, agree with all..working through. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree that "devout atheist", if not an oxymoron, is definitely off. "Committed atheist" would work better all around. —swpbT 13:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I like that, for what it's worth. I don't mind stressing the strength of commitment, it's just the word "devout" that I'm not sold on. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree that committed is beter but left just as "atheist" in the end. Thanks again for the review - almost there....Ceoil (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
J Milburn can you take another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ian

Recusing from coord duties, I don't claim to be an expert on painting but I do have a weakness for fantastic imagery, and a Bacon piece usually fits the bill... Copyedited so pls let me know if I've misunderstood anything, or if you simply disagree with my changes. Outstanding points:

  • I would've expected BritEng for Bacon, but notice "modeled" and "center"...
  • "...its form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats" -- sorry does this mean Bacon used some of his actual pictures of bats in the painting (like a collage) or simply that he took inspiration from his pictures of bats?
    Ended up taking this out. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the first Peppiatt quote, is the ungrammatical "its" in the original, or is it a typo in our article?
    Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

That's about it, but I'll keep an eye on proceedings since it's early days. Structure and level of detail seem fair to me, and I was fine with the tone, but will hold off support until image and source reviews are in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you...have most. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Got them all. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

  • Support I did a review for the first FAC, they were posted here. Those look to be addressed, or moot. A few fresh comments:
  • "The prey unsuccessfully struggles to flee from its capture." It seems likely to me you mean "captor"
  • "at what may be a beach or seaside resort." this may puzzle the American reader, since they would use them almost interchangeably.
  • "Bacon was born a catholic," caps?
  • "He kept a photographic still of a close-up of the nurse shown screaming in panic and terror, with broken pince-nez spectacles hanging from her blood stained face." I might cut "a photographic still of"
I won't say I admire the work of art. But the article is admirable ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, got these. Ceoil (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

I reviewed this at the previous nomination; it has massively improved since then, so good job!

  • The first paragraph in §Description seems a little topsy-turvy to me: we hear about the link with the Crucifixion, and the positioning of the creatures on the cross first; only then do we move on to the description of the creatures and the cross as individual elements.
    Now restructured. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the mid-ground, the artist has sketched a street scene, which features walking stick figures and cars, at what may be a beach or seaside resort.[6] the reference given supports that there are stick figures and cars in the mid-ground, which is obvious to me from looking at the image, but not that it is at a beach or resort, which is not. Where does that interpretation come from?
    I ended up taking this out about the resort. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The motif was developed from sources including [...] Matthias Grünewald [...]. Not knowing who Grunewald was, it was not at all clear to me on first reading what this meant. Having clicked on his link, I see he was an artist: did his works include screaming mouths? I'm still not entirely sure how he inspired the motif of the screaming mouth...
  • Horizontal frames often featured in Bacon's 1950s and 1960s paintings. The motif may have been borrowed from the sculptor[...] Henry Moore The only Moore sculpture with such a horizontal frame I can think of is the Maquette for King and Queen mentioned in the article, but this postdates Fragment of a Crucifixion. It's possible that I'm forgetting a Moore, though.
    Removed. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A few queries, but the article definitely in much better shape than I last saw it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: there is an archived version of the page available here. I have added a link in the article; Ceoil might want to reformat it to fit in with their scheme. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for finding this, and for both reviews. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto: Thanks for the spots, especially re Moore. Can you take another look. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

All looking good to me. Happy to support.

Comments from Ceranthor

  • 1950 canvas by the Irish-born, English figurative painter Francis Bacon. - might be worthwhile to link figurative art
  • Added. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Blood pours from the animal's mouth onto the head and body of its prey, a chimera rendered as owl-like with human facial characteristics. - I feel like these characteristics should be introduced when you first name the lower figure as a chimera, not the second mention
  • not returning to it until the more loosely based, but equally horrific triptych, Three Studies for a Crucifixion. - the use of horrific seems out of place here, more opinion than anything
  • Went with "bleak", which I think is ok as its a well worn trope when talking about Bacon Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • body of the chimera, or hybrid bird,[10] - You didn't mention a hybrid bird in the lead
  • I say "as owl-like with human facial characteristics". Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • His referred to the still in paintings throughout his career.[14] - Is this meant to say He rather than his?
  • Ahem. Yes Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • He admitted that, "When I was younger, I needed extreme subject-matter. Now I don't." - citation after a direct quote?
  • Got it Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The Barker reference should probably have an accessdate too.
  • Added now Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • References all seem reliable.

A short, but fascinating article. The prose is very, very good, so these are just a few nitpicks before I can support. ceranthor 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Support ceranthor 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Ceoil (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • What makes a high quality reliable source? I'll note that I could NOT get the site to load, even trying a number of workarounds.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some spots that probably need to be looked at and possibly reworded.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Will get to these this evening. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Have reworded some.; see archive link added by User:Caeciliusinhorto above. Friedhelm Mennekes' resume is here, and he has a de wiki bio here. Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

(I am commenting from the point of view of a lay reader not expert in artistic convention or critical style.}


  • The upper figure, which may be a dog or a cat, grips a chimera with its mouth - This is not apparent from a visual inspection of the image. There seems to be a significant gap between the head of the upper figure and the nearest obvious part of the lower figure. What part of the lower figure is the upper figure claimed to be gripping with its mouth?
  • Reworded now. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


  • The upper creature is modelled on a dog or a cat, its form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats - Are you sure it is the upper creature that has a "form merged with pictures Bacon kept of bats", as the lower creature actually looks more bat-like to me? If so, how is its form merged with pictures of bats? I do not see it.
  • Have taken this bit out. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • at what may be a seaside resort - This does not appear to be supported by the adjacent reference (ref name=gs (Gemma Sharpe))
    Removed Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Looks OK, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Imagery and sources:

  • Bacon was born a Catholic, ... - How can one be born a Catholic?
    Reworded Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Now the lead says he was an atheist and Imagery and sources says he was a Catholic. I don't think it is technically possible to be both at the same time, but he could change from one to the other. It seems likely that he was brought up/indoctrinated to be a Catholic, and may actually have been one for some time, but lost faith and ended up an atheist, but I have not read the sources. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


  • Crucifixion scenes appear from Bacon's earliest works, and appeared frequently heavily throughout his career. - What does frequently heavily mean?
    Reworded - "appeared frequently throughout" Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    Fine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ben Affleck

Nominator(s): Popeye191 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the actor/filmmaker Ben Affleck. It was listed as a Good Article in June 2017, and has been copy edited and peer reviewed since then. Popeye191 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support I did a detailed review at the PR; here are my edits. I was satisfied then and the article still seems in good order. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Popeye191 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do some copyediting Popeye191 (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking them Popeye191 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This article is in excellent shape. Here are five suggestions, questions.
  • ¶4 What is a "first-look producing deal"? Can you link to something or briefly explain?
Political views
Democratic Party activism
  • ¶1 "and later remarked, "I'm going to vote twice next time, in true Boston fashion." – Should this say "joked" rather than "remarked"? If taken straight, it might feed into the mistaken idea that voting twice is commonplace in the United States.
  • ¶1 "In a 2003 interview, Affleck described himself as a "lapsed Protestant... " – Again I would recommend moving the linked term outside of the direct quotation. In this case, I think you could simply drop the quotation marks.
  • Most of the titles are in title case, but some like citations 96 and 97 are in sentence case. Making them all the same would be good.
Thanks, the first four points have been addressed and I'm looking at references now. Thanks for the suggestions Popeye191 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Changes look good. I'm happy to support, as noted above. I leave the title case – sentence case decision to you, but I'd opt for title case myself. Looks to me like most are already in title case. Finetooth (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again, I've changed them all to title case now Popeye191 (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks much better, though I confess that my suggestion was nit-picky and that fixing these dudes must have been a tedious chore. Finetooth (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Have I missed a source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

No, there hasn't been one yet. I've requested it at WT:FAC Popeye191 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Finetooth

A random Google search of four sentences revealed no problems.
Earwig's tool finds no real problems but flags this text, which must have been copied from Wikipedia to YouTube without acknowledgment.
Yes, I think so. The article's introduction has been gradually edited over years to get to the current draft.Popeye191 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Citation 48. What makes highly reliable?
If this reference needs to be removed, that's okay. The Boston Magazine ref also speaks to how the movie was based on their own experiences (but not as expansively). It's the blogspot of Tom Shone - he writes for The Times and uses the blog to share extra material he didn't have space to fit in printed articles. He links to the blog on his twitter profile and the Sunday Times regularly link to his twitter profile. This specific blog post was reported on by Indiewire - they linked to (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds fine. It can stay. Finetooth (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Citation 147. Author's name should be last, first.
Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Citation 218. Needs a page number.
Fixed Popeye191 (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything else looks fine to me. Finetooth (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
All good. Finetooth (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Spotcheck: I just realised that this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, unless I'm mistaken. In that case, we need a spot-check of sources for reliable use and close paraphrasing, above the Earwig check carried out above. Finetooth, any chance you could do this as well? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes. I might add that this is my first-ever formal source check for FAC, and I won't be insulted if someone else double-checks. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I found reliable use and no close paraphrasing for these six citations chosen at random: 25, 51, 96, 163, 225, and 313. Finetooth (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Current ref 2 - we should have a secondary source that connects the birth record to the actor - how do we know that the "Benjamin G. Affleckbold" is the correct person? It is OR to assume that some primary record is the person without some other way to connect them than the same name.
Comment I think ref 1 did just that. Affleck explained how he got his birth name in detail while he was honored at the Writers Guild of America Awards. Or, we could add another ref from Britannica. Artoasis (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - do you think we need another ref from Britannica?Popeye191 (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
It was founded in 2011 and is a bi-monthly Dubai-based publication. The editorial director is also the Middle East correspondent for Women’s Wear Daily and a contributor to Bloomberg Television. Because this is an Asian publication, Affleck went into much more detail about his interest in Middle Eastern Affairs than in other interviews. Popeye191 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source? I saw your reply to Finetooth, but I'm not quite convinced that this is high quality - is the information not shared in the actual newspaper because there isn't space or is it rejected by his editors? I'd like to see something that shows that it's the former and not the second - and not from the writer. Do other writers pick up on what he puts on his blog and consider it reliable? Or do they ignore it?
Indiewire reported on the additional information contained in the blog post concerned and linked directly to the blog. However, I've replaced the source with a link to the published interview in The Times. Sorry - I've only just realised that the quote about how they drew from their experiences to write the screenplay is there too. Popeye191 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source? Note this is just the rebranding of ""...
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
Boston Common Magazine is a well-known Boston-area publication. The Boston Globe often runs stories based on interviews in Boston Common. Entertainment outlets like E! News and the Huffington Post have also picked up their features.Popeye191 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 218 (Van Pileup) returns an invalid ISBN when searching at World Cat.
Fixed this Popeye191 (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes a high quality reliable source? College newspapers are not generally the best sources.
Removed Popeye191 (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Just a quick question of my own. Throughout the article, there are a selection of reviews of Affleck's performances. Given that there is no biography available, how have we chosen which quotes and reviews to include? I also wondered if there were any sources available that took a broader overview of his career, rather than just interviews publicising his films? (If there are not, that isn't a problem, I would just like to check we have exhausted every option.) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I only included reviews from publications on Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics list - The New York Times, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The Boston Globe, The New Yorker, New York Magazine, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Rolling Stone, Time, Chicago Sun-Times and The Atlantic. When it came to deciding which quotes from the reviews to use, I initially included the quotes in full but, over time, I and others edited them to make the article flow better. I'd like to think that the reviews chosen are a balanced and accurate reflection of the reception to his performances.
Some of the articles included (Backstage, Playboy) look at his career in a broader context but unfortunately, like most actors, he only gives interviews when he has something new to promote. This article discusses the trajectory of his overall career and I think the sub-sections of the current article reflect those phases of his career. Popeye191 (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Underwater diving

Nominator(s): • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

This is the lead article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Scuba diving, and a level 4 vital article in Everyday life. The article is about the human practice of going underwater to interact with the underwater environment for professional or recreational reasons. It is in summary style throughout as it is intended as the top level introduction to the large number of Wikipedia articles on subsidiary topics relating to underwater diving. ... • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

  • General notes on first glance (sorry if this is formatted wrong, I'm not an FA regular):
    I think I can manage, I too am not very familiar with the procedures. Thanks for your attention. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. There are various WP:SANDWICHING issues that just get worse the wider the resolution is.
    If I understand you correctly, you mean that when the gap between the images gets too wide it causes problems? I will try to recreate this and see what it looks like. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have done what I think may solve the problem. Please confirm. If it does not, please feel free to demonstrate, as I am not sure that I can replicate the problem adequately. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sandwiching issues happen when there is an image on the left and an image on the right and text "sandwiched" between them. The easiest solution is to use only right aligned images, but left can also be used, if they are adequately spaced. The wider the screen resolution the more difficult it is to avoid sandwiching. TimothyJosephWood 22:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I understand. The changes I have made eliminate reduce sandwiching issues on my screen, so I will assume it is fixed until notified otherwise. however, putting the images on only one side pushes some of them out of the relevant section, and at a screen width where sandwiching starts, the text width is already quite wide. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Changing all images to right aligned default width seems to give an acceptable appearance over the widest range of page widths, for my browser. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    I added upright scaling to all the vertically oriented images, combined a few images using Template:multiple image, and removed exactly one image. This reduced a lot of the stacking issues, but there's still a pretty bad stack right around the History section. I'm not sure if there's an easy solution there other than adding more text or removing some images. TimothyJosephWood 13:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Looks OK to me, I will experiment a bit with more multiple images and see where it goes. Worth a try at least. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. The images in the lead look fine on PC, but on mobile browser they result in having to scroll through a full screen's worth of image before you get to any text, and on mobile app they do the same, but they appear after the first paragraph of the lead, meaning you can't really see the text of the first paragraph and the second in the same screen. The flags should probably be moved, removed, or incorporated into something like Template:Multiple image.
    I think I get your point, but have no mobile browser to check on. I will look into possible solutions, including those you suggest. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I moved the flags to another section where they are probably more relevant anyway. Does this solve the problem? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, it seems to have. TimothyJosephWood 22:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  3. The lead overall could probably be more concise. Some animals are physiologically and anatomically better adapted to the environmental conditions of diving doesn't really seem like it has thorough treatment in the body, and so it's not clear why it needs to be in the lead. The whole thing could probably be reduced to about two thirds its size with careful reduction.
    Changed so that other animals are not mentioned in that statement. Other reductions are not obvious to me, but I will see if there is anything I can do. I did reduce the lead considerably during the GA review, but a few things have changed since then and it may be possible to squeeze it down a bit more without too much loss. If you have any specific suggestions, I would like to see them. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I've done a good deal of tightening to the lead. One sentence still bothers me: In ambient pressure diving, the diver is directly exposed to the pressure of the surrounding water, and uses breathing apparatus for scuba diving or surface supplied diving, or when freediving, will breath-hold. The "when freediving, will breath-hold", although I can probably imagine how it would be technically grammatically workable, if so, is still really awkward sentence construction. But I'm not totally sure how to best reword it so that it would be understood by... a fairly average but inquisitive 15 year-old. TimothyJosephWood 14:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    I noticed, most is good, but I had to change one where the meaning was distorted. I will look at options for the awkward construction as I don't like it either. It may take more words. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    Really awkward construction changed by rewriting much of the paragraph. I think it is better now. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  4. There is probably an over-reliance on scare quotes where they're not clearly necessary, some MOS:WORDSASWORDS instances where they should probably be italicized instead of quoted. Also quotes and wikilinks should not be used in concert.
    Works for me. TimothyJosephWood 13:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
    Good point, I will sort this out. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Removed several that seemed unnecessary. If I have missed any that you think should go, please feel free to delete them. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  5. Personal preference, but if upright is used on vertically oriented images, it should probably be used consistently.
    I will take a look, but am not sure that I get your point. Maybe it will become clear after I look into it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Still mot sure. Do you want all the images to be of the same width, or all the portrait format images to be the same width, or something else? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have made all the images default width and right aligned as this seems to provide reasonable layout over most page widths between about 50 chars to 200 chars. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Taken care of this one. TimothyJosephWood 13:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. The sourcing has a mixed format, and Sources section should be incorporated into inline citations.
    I don't think I understand what you are suggesting here. If I do, then I don't understand why. If this is about some having parentheses round the date and others not, I am on it. I had not noticed it before. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    I Think I have all the dates parenthesised, and a couple of references consolidated. Done? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    I have changed the Sources level 2 header to level 3, so it is now a subsection of References. This might have been one of the things you wanted, and is how I normally do it anyway. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but per WP:FACR #2c, my understanding is that you can use either a footnote citation style or a bibliography citation style, but you can't use both. TimothyJosephWood 14:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    WP:FACR #2c states: either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). I am not using Harvard referencing, and assumed that what is used here is all considered footnotes. I see no mention of bibliographies/sources or whater one chooses to call them, so assumed that the current arrangement complies. I will make some further checks, but have seen this arrangement pass several GA reviews. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:18, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    I have found existing FAs with similar referencing by randomly inspecting FAs - it is a minority format, possibly between one in five and one in ten use it:
    I choose to use this system because it seems an efficient compromise at providing the necessary information while using the least space on the page. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  7. The Notes section needs sources to indicate exactly where that information is coming from. TimothyJosephWood 13:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Also a good point, I will look up the source and add it, these are fairly standard definitions, so should not be too difficult. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    Found a source, now all I have to do is work out how to nest references with list definitions. That will have to wait for another day. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
    As far as I can make out from the help pages, it cant be done, so will leave the definitions inline for now where they at least work as required. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
    I see you found exactly the template I was going to suggest. Looks good. TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Timothyjosephwood, I have changed one of your multiple image templates, as one of the three was out of place in that section, and combined it with the other image from the previous section, with similar overall effect. You may wish to adjust overall widths to suit what you had in mind - I left them at 450px. I am not familiar with the workings of multiple images, and have hesitated to use them because of possible accessibility issues such as overriding the users image width choice, and I have no idea how they display on mobile. However I think we have a situation where we are choosing a lesser evil, and image formatting can always be changed when the software is improved. With this in mind, there are other possible combinations for multiple images. How far do you think it is advisable to go? I will combine a couple more to see how it looks. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the template doesn't work with an upright scaling factor at all, so this is one of those "preferred whenever possible" situations. On mobile it basically ignores the template and treats it like two adjacent images, unless you use perrow as in the lead image for Humour, where it treats them either the same as PC, or as horizontally cropped swatches depending on device. Probably right that for mobile users it's better to use just two combined images at a time. TimothyJosephWood 09:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Timothyjosephwood, Are there any outstanding issues? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Accessibility review

  • All of the images now have sensible (if sometimes lengthy) alternate text.
  • Images (other than the multiple images) do not use forced sizing, thus allowing registered users' preferences to work.
  • No use is made of text below 85% of the page's base font size.
  • The only use of colour is in the navigation templates, which meet WCAG AA standard, but fail WCAG AAA when a link (colour #002BB8) is displayed against the light blue background (#CCCCFF).
  • No data tables are used which would require considerations for accessibility.
  • The article is navigable by use of the keyboard without a mouse, and the collapsible content is also accessible from a keyboard (but needs JavaScript enabled, of course).

I do not judge that the minor deficiencies noted should be a barrier to promotion as a Featured Article. --RexxS (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS, If you have any recommendations for improving the minor deficiencies, go ahead. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There's not much that I can do to improve the colour contrast as the templates all use the default styling from {{Navbox}} and it was a design decision to harmonise colours; also I don't really have the stamina to start micro-managing every template we use. It's not a big deal as it's almost AAA compliant (and the colours appear to differ anyway between Vector skin and Monobook), so it's unlikely to be a problem for the vast majority of readers. I really ought to create an alternative to {{multiple image}} that allows |upright= to solve the other problem, but I need to find some time to do that. I promise I'll let you know when I have. --RexxS (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
    I have made some changes, but I am not confident that they are all done, or all correct. The more I look at them the less sure I am. Please identify which ones you think are wrong.
    Thanks for the fixes. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Diving_stage.jpg: source link is dead
    So I see. I did not take the photo or upload it. I just used it as found on Commons, assuming that the Commons community will have checked that the image is acceptable for use on Wikimedia projects. The photo has been on Commons since 2008 and there are no warning notices and the provenance is entirely plausible. Is there something I am expected to do about this, or are you just mentioning it?
    Suggest checking for an archival copy of the source and adding if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    I searched but could not find an archived copy. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:US_Navy_explosive_ordnance_disposal_(EOD)_divers.jpg: is there a source for this image?
    Not that I am aware of. It too was linked from Commons on the assumption that as has been there since 2005 without challenge, and the provenance is entirely plausible. I have no reason to suspect that it is not exactly as claimed.
    Okay. You can add this one if none other is available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    Done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:ROV_working_on_a_subsea_structure.jpg: image description suggests that the uploader was not the author
    So I see. It is possible that User:Mierlo was the author, but the copyright was held by Oceaneering. I do not know how to investigate this possibility. Commons appears not to have an issue with it.
    Ideally we would have an OTRS ticket to confirm licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    I think this may not be reasonably practicable, as the original uploader has been vanished for some years. Commons keeps files of this era of upload through a grandfathering policy as it was uploaded before OTRS was implemented. See discussion at commons. I have no compelling reason to assume bad faith, but admit I may be biased because I like the image and find it useful. It is easily the best I could find on Commons for this purpose. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Alexander_the_Great_diving_NOAA.jpg: even though NOAA is the immediate source, they wouldn't hold copyright under US law - should use a different tag
    As a 16th century painting I would assume that any copyright would have expired long ago. It has a {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} template as well as the {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} template. What other PD template should it have? Is there any doubt that it is PD?
    No, but it should still be appropriately tagged. The NOAA tag is currently representing its status in the US; this should be replaced with one of the pre-1923 publication tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    PD-US tag added. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John_Scott_Haldane_1910.jpg (1) needs a US PD tag (2) needs an explanation of what has been done to try to ascertain authorship (3) needs a publication date
    I cannot prove anything that I have done by way of trying to ascertain authorship, and as I cannot find out when it was published beyond the moderately obvious "1910 or later". I will give up on this and use the only alternative available, which is dated 1902, by an author who died in 1914.
    The new image (File:John_Scott_Haldane_1902.jpg) will need a US PD tag of some sort. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    PD-US tag added. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Trevor_Jackson_returns_from_SS_Kyogle.jpg is tagged as lacking source details, and is that attribution correct given the author?
    I corrected the apparent attribution error. There is an OTRS ticket referenced, As far is I know that means that permission has been verified. I have no source information, and no idea where to get it from. Is it a problem?
    I've dismissed the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Decompression_chamber.jpg: source link is dead
    So it is. Provenance seems uncontroversial. There are thousands of US Navy photos on Commons.
    Suggest adding archived link if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    I do not know how to go about finding an archived link. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    And now it seems I do. At least I found one for this and have added it. Seek, and sometimes ye shall find. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Pavillon_rouge_avec_une_diagonale_blanche.svg is too simple to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    Still needs addressing - should use a different tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    Should I just arbitrarily change the tag to CC0 on Commons? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    Check out File:Alpha_flag.svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    Ah! Precedent. Thanks, and done. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Thanks for pointing out these details, I will look into them and ping you again when I am finished or if I need clarification. If there are any improvements you would like to do yourself, please go ahead. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I have done what I can to address some of these issues, and it is not clear whether I am expected to do anything about the others, or whether you are just mentioning them here to show due diligence in your checks. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I think these have been done as far as possible. Is there anything else> • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope, looks fair enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience and advice. I have learned some new things. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Welcome to FAC, Peter. It's really, really hard to take a big topic like this and make it your first attempt at FAC, but I think you've done a good job with this article. I cleaned up a few minor things while reading it and came up with the following points:

  • The most important issue is that there is some uncited content (either whole paragraphs or the ends of paragraphs) in Breathhold limitations (admittedly basic stuff), Diving environment, Medical aspects of diving, and Risks and safety. The coordinators will be reluctant to promote this as long as that content remains uncited, and even if it is promoted some random editor will be sure to put cite tags there on main page day; I've seen it happen quite a few times before.
    Busy with this one. One down, 3 or 4 to go. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    Just one more, that is proving surprisingly recalcitrant, considering its importance as a general principle of diving safety. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    Remove unreferenced statement. It is sufficiently logical that readers should come to that conclusion from the rest of the context. I may replace it if I find a suitable reference, but it is not critical. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Breathhold limitations: The first paragraph consists solely of links to three articles. Was this meant to be part of the hatnote here?
    Even worse - they were notes to link to those articles I made as an aide-memoire when I started the section, and then forgot. Now moved to where they should have been.
  • Surface supplied diving: Is Snuba supposed to be capitalized? I thought I should ask here, as I wasn't comfortable changing it without knowledge of the subject.
    It is a trade name which is probably becoming genericised. As far as I know it is still normally capitalised, unlike scuba, which has been around as a generic term for far longer.
  • History: I can't say that I'm in love with the bold text here. We don't need to have this in bold just because the full article on the subject begins that way.
    Quite agree, changed.
  • I see a mention of Second World War in the lead and one of World War II in History. You should probably pick one style and stick with it consistently, though I have no strong preference either way.
    Agreed, and changed.
  • Diver training: This section has a couple of small paragraphs, including a one-sentence "Further training is required..." paragraph. Would it be possible to merge a couple of these so they don't appear so stubby?
    Done. I used the best fit I could think of.
  • This is just a suggestion, but you might want to check the article for wikilinks that are duplicated. I'm seeing a lot of them, particularly in the History section, and typically only one link is needed per subject in the body. It is sometimes considered acceptable to have multiple links for a longer article like this, but some of the overlinking here is bordering on overkill.
    I recently eliminated several redundant links. Those which remain are unique to a major section. I left them as they may be useful to the reader, who otherwise might not easily find the link if there were only one in the whole article. My own experience is that if it is not easy to find a link within about a page up or down from the term in question, it is easier and quicker to just do a Wikipedia search, and that reduces the value of the links. Your experience may differ, and I know that WP:OVERLINK does not agree. I am open to logical persuasion on this point. It is possible that some of the links may be considered trivial or unnecessary and if you prefer to remove some of the duplicates, I will not object, but I find it difficult to decide which ones should go.
  • I'm not doing a full source review here, but I noticed that references 4 and 13 have different styles in their access dates than those in the rest of the cites. I'd change these two to the DMY format; that's what is used elsewhere, and the source checkers will want to see consistency in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    Somehow I keep missing these. Thanks for spotting. Fixed. I rechecked all the access dates again, and that was the only one I found.
    You found number 4, but missed number 13, which still has the different formatting. It's from Aviat Space Environ Med, in case that helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    OK, Got it. Fixed. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Giants2008, Thanks for pointing out these details, I will look into them and ping you again when I am finished or if I need clarification. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Giants2008, I think this is all done now, Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Support – All of my concerns have been adequately resolved. This is a fine effort at developing a big topic Wikipedia article, and I'm satisfied with its quality. Let's hope it attracts some attention from other reviewers. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and support. I also hope for a few more reviews, as it would appear that an insufficient number of reviews is one of the major reasons for a nomination not making it to FA. (largest single factor in the last 11 months - 19 out of 54 = 35%) Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Vultee Vengeance in Australian service

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Vultee Vengeance dive bomber is one of the most notorious lemons to have been operated by the Royal Australian Air Force. Ordered when the country faced the threat of Japanese invasion in early 1942, the aircraft didn't arrive in significant numbers until this threat had passed. While five RAAF squadrons were equipped with the type, their performance was mixed and the only significant deployment of Vengeances ended in embarrassment when they were ordered back to Australia after only six weeks to free up space at airstrips for more capable aircraft. Nevertheless, the history of the Vengeance's Australian service provides some interesting insights into the RAAF's successes and failures during World War II, as well as air combat over New Guinea during 1943 and 1944.

I developed this article as part of a series on aircraft operated by the Australian armed forces, with the previous articles covering some of the most successful types. It passed a GA review in April this year, and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in June. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are also met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal

  • There are 7 great images which are in public domain, have proper description templates, and are also relevant. No issues; good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the image review Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article at both GAN and Milhist ACR, and have reviewed all edits made since then. It has been significantly improved by the addition of material relating to the perceived performance of the aircraft and dive-bombing as a tactic in general, and is really comprehensive and an interesting read. Great job! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for these comments Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

  • Mention World War II somewhere in the Acquisition section?
  • The USAAF was also rapidly expanding at this time, which limited the number and types of aircraft available to the country's allies. Suggest "its allies", as "the country" refers to Australia in the previous sentence.
  • the Australian Government sought assistance from its allies to rapidly expand the RAAF Explain RAAF and link.
  • While in Washington DC should be "While in Washington, DC," and why was he there anyway?
    • To represent Australia on the Pacific War Council and seek aircraft: added Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The Australian Government eventually placed an order for 400 Vengeances. Were they acquired under Lend Lease?
    • I tried to clarify this one, but no source was clear. Several sources noted that the Vengeances were expensive to purchase (as noted towards the end of the article), so it seems not. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
      According to Hasluck (p. 16), the first of 400 Vultee Vengeances were to be delivered in January 1942. So they must have been ordered in 1941. He later says that as a result of Evatt's mission, it was agreed to deliver 34 in 1943 (p. 214) Odgers says that 297 were on order in December 1941. (pp. 268, 484). The Wikipedia article says "a mixture of Lend Lease and diversions from the original British orders". (Shores. Christopher and Smith, Frank. "Diving Vengeance." Air Enthusiast Number Five, November 1977 – February 1978. Bromley, Kent, UK: Pilot Press, 1977. p. 31) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
      Thanks a lot for this. It looks like the RAAF history I'd relied on here was totally wrong - from Googling the quote from Evatt in the paper, it appears that they got confused with a deal he struck in June 1943! ([18]). I'll do a bit more digging, and amend the text. There appear to be some useful-looking files on the NAA website which hopefully provide a clear cut date. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
      After a fair bit of digging (including the fortuitous availability of a book I was unable to consult earlier), I've been able to provide an overview of the procurement history. The Australian Government paid for most of the aircraft, with the remainder being provided under Lend Lease. Interestingly, this purchase replaced an earlier order for an aircraft type often described as being among the worst aircraft of World War II. Also interesting, multiple highly reliable sources (including the RAAF Museum and the Oxford Companion to Australian Military History) stated that the Vengeances were ordered in early 1942, which explains why I didn't think to check the earlier official history volumes which demonstrate otherwise. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
      That's great! It makes a lot more sense now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The US Fifth Air Force preferred to use fighter-bombers and light bombers to support ground troops in New Guinea. You might also mention that it had withdrawn its own A-24 Banshee dive bombers
  • The commander of the Allied Air Forces in the South West Pacific, Major General George Kenney, requested in late August 1943. Suggest linking South West Pacific Area at this point, and Kenney was a lieutenant general in August 1943.
  • Air Vice-Marshal George Jones, the chief of the RAAF The Chief of the Air Staff?
  • USAAF units equipped with superior types were rapidly arriving in New Guinea during early 1944 The Fifth Air Force had six fighter groups during the war. The 8th, 35th and 49th arrived in New Guinea September-October 1942; the 348th and 475th in June-August 1943; and the 58th in October-December 1943. No new fighter groups arrived in New Guinea in 1944, although the 3rd Air Commando Group arrived in November 1944, and went straight to the Philippines.
    • I've added a bit more to clarify this - the main factor was the need to accommodate the USAAF fighter groups at forward airfields. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Article seems very good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Is it worth mentioning the August 1944 crash? [19] It appears that someone has written a whole book on it, and there's a memorial plaque. [20] It doesn't seem to have been the only crash though [21][22][23] Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Not without being about to note how many of the type were lost in crashes, which no source states. The NAA has files for large numbers of crashes for this type (and one appears to list about 189 incidents involving casualties). Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
      • The number of crashes seems large, but I have no point of comparison with other aircraft types. If you're thinking of taking a trip to the National Archives, A649 22/600/31 and 57 probably contain the purchase history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: Thanks very much for this review. I think that I've now actioned all of your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC) Support Looks good. I made one minor change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Beringian wolf

Nominator(s): William Harris • (talk) • 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Beringian wolf (Canis lupus), an extinct type of wolf that lived during the Ice Age. It inhabited what is now modern-day eastern Alaska, the Yukon, and northern Wyoming but is morphologically and genetically different to the wolves that inhabit North America today. It existed at the same time as the more famous dire wolf that lived south of the glaciers. The Beringian wolf article has recently achieved GA listing and has been reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors. Please enjoy. William Harris • (talk) • 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Nice to see this finally up. I will add comments as I read along, so I might take some time to finish. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for initiating the comments. This page is not transcluding to the Talk:Beringian wolf page for some reason.
That is only supposed to happen automatically with GANs. It can be done manually for FACs, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • First, from reading the intro and skimming the article, I'm not really sure whether anyone is proposing this is a distinct taxon or not? Could we get a clearer statement on this in the intro?
Addressed; no subspecies classification has been applied. The wolves are similar in morphology to C. l. spelaeus (cave wolf) in Western Europe and C. l. brevis in Eastern Europe. Baryshnikov 2009 proposes that spelaeus and brevis may be the same species, and there are similarities with the Beringian wolf. Until further work is done clarifying a single wolf subspecies - or not - no name has been applied.
  • As I mentioned elsewhere, the wolves in the diorama photo seem so lifelike that it makes me, and probably others, wonder how this was made. Some readers may even inaccurately believe it is actual, stuffed Beringian wolves, so may be good to somehow clarify it. Is it rogue taxidermy? Made from extant wolf skins, or just models with fake fur?
Addressed. Models created by paleoartists; how they did it might be beyond the scope of the article.
Yes, what you wrote is what I was thinking of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the gif map could need a caption, to explain how it relates to the subject of the article. Seems a bit diffuse now, and you could explain what the numbers mean.
Addressed, perhaps. Your assessment?
Much better with context. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Likewise with the photo of the bison hunt. How does it relate to the subject of the article? Is the Beringian wolf thought to have had similar prey?
Addressed. All of the Late Pleistocene wolves across the mammoth steppe loved bison and horse! Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 06:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "From the 1930s a representative of the American Museum of Natural History" Name?
More than one representative after checking the reference.
  • "The historic population was found to possess twice the genetic diversity of modern wolves." Perhaps state in parenthesis why this was? I assume due to hunting? Would also explain this sentence: "However, much of their diversity was later lost during the twentieth century."
Addressed - extirpated.
  • "The replacement in North America of a basal population of wolves by a more recent one supports the findings of earlier studies." Rather than "support" wouldn't it be "is consistent with"? I'm not sure if something that is hypothetical can support anything. Or perhaps it is not that hypothetical after all.
Addressed - that sounds better.
  • You have a section called "two types of grey wolf", yet the cladogram shows wolves outside these categories. So there are more than two? So what does the title allude to?
I had originally named this section "Two gray wolf haplogroups" but that seemed a bit heavy going for the reader. A recent study found the Himalayan wolf to be more associated with the African golden wolf than with the holarctic gray wolf (Werhahn 2017). Perhaps I should remove it and the Indian grey wolf (the next one to be seriously studied) from the cladogram?
Could be, if it only confuses the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Title of that section changed to "Different genetic types of gray wolf" as that is what we are addressing. Let me know if you have doubts.
  • There is some quoted description in the taxonomy section, but I think this should be summarised in the description section, where anatomical features are to be discussed in detail. Now the description section only says it was "robust", which is too vague to mean much.
When I can find a holotype with a formal description, I include that under taxonomy. It is by this description that a taxonomist would tell a Beringian wolf from other types of wolves. In this case, I am more interested in Olsen's designation as C. lupus - despite the weirdness - than I am in the description. However, I am not fussed - your call. William Harris • (talk) • 11:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it doesn't have to be on expense of the quote, rather in addition to. We need to know which details that set them apart from other wolves in the description section too. FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Adaptation is the evolutionary process by which an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats." Isn't this definition a bit narrow? As you state later, it also involves other species and so on. Perhaps say environment/ecosystem instead of just habitat?,
Amended. NOTE: I have added a new sentence after this one, further highlighting the link between the wolf and its habitat.
  • "The term ecomorph is used to describe a habitat specialist." The way I understand the term, it is a distinct morphology/behaviour that is adapted for a specific ecology/purpose? So it does not itself mean a habitat specialist, but what may make a species a habitat specialist.
When you include behaviour, I believe you have just described an "ecotype", with "ecomorph" including morphology only (it is in the name). However, I have sourced a superior definition; let me know if it is not sufficient.
  • "his Beringian refugium, eastern Beringia's vegetation included isolated refugia of" Seems a bit redundant the second time?
  • " and was well-adapted to the cold" In what way? Doesn't seem to be specified anywhere.
"cold, megafauna-rich environment" is using the adjective "cold" to describe the environment, not the wolf. However, we have said that the environment was cold elsewhere, so it is removed here.
  • "twice the percentage of tooth crowding" Which is what?
Now included. 18% v 9%. Interestingly, the domestic dog was only 5%. (That an increased level of tooth crowding separates a dog specimen from a wolf specimen and demonstrates "domestication" is not supported by this study, and calls to question many of the ancient "dog" findings.)
Oh, I meant what is meant by the term tooth crowding? FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, amended with explanation.
  • What is the "Rancho La Brea wolf"? Canis lupus?
Amended, they are lupus.
  • Any sources that explain why the Beringian wolf hasn't been named as a distinct taxon? Have researchers consciously refrained from doing so?
No sources available. (Pers. Comms. J. Leonard - the relationship between these and the other megafaunally adapted wolves across the northern holarctic during the Late Pleistocene is unclear and further research is required.)
  • "The Beringian carnivores included the Beringian wolf (Canis lupus)" Since the article is already about the wolf, I would say "In addition to the Beringina wolf, other Beringian carnivores include".
  • "A study of Canis dentition shows" You give dates for most other studies, but not this one.
  • Who coined the name "Beringian wolf" and when?
Amended. (As always, there is a team behind this, this one under the guidance of Bob Wayne.)
  • "This type of wolf has been referred to as the Megafaunal wolf." Needs source. And your text implies the megafaunal wolf is the same as the cave wolf?
Provided. As above, we do not know if this is the same subspecies across the northern holarctic during the Late Pleistocene. (I understand that this is being worked on now, and we should have an answer sometime in the next 12 months.)
  • " and if the study is correct then it suggests that the wolves were able to migrate south between 23,800 and 23,000 YBP but were then unable to return north due to the closure of the corridor." Needs a source.
I have removed this section altogether. A corridor that is impassable to bison may not be impassable to wolves.
  • "presenting new competition for large game." No source. May seem like common sense, but do we have a source that specifically says this?
Amended to what we know the humans ate; the reader can follow what this means.
  • "Beringia was once an area of land that spanned the Chukchi Sea and the Bering Sea, joining Eurasia to North America. Eastern Beringia included what is today Alaska and the Yukon." Needs a source.
  • I'm not sure what the second paragraph in the "range" section has to do with the subject's range? Rather seems to be about relatives in other parts of the world?
Relocated the text to "Differenct genetic types of gray wolf", which now adds to further support that narrative.
  • "Ancient DNA and radiocarbon data indicate that local genetic populations were replaced by others from within the same species or by others of the same genus." This would of course only be true for those animals that ave modern representatives, which should be clarified. There are no elephants in America, of course.
  • "Phenotype is extinct" I think you need to define phenotype somewhere in the section, I wouldn't think casual readers necessary know what this means.
  • "The study did not support two wolf haplogroups that had been proposed by earlier studies." This should probably be noted in the section titled "Two types of gray wolf"?
Are we to say this twice in the text or leave the disagreement within the section that indicates a new study has found ancient lineages still existing in remote places today?
As is, it is kind of like one section supports one interpretation, while the next supports another. I am tempted to say it should be mentioned both places, but I don't really have a strong opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Amended. It does not detract from the key evolutionary scenario in the next paragraph that is supported by other studies: "A scenario consistent with the phylogenetic..."
  • The title "Haplotype is not extinct" does not seem to be consistent with the fact that the text only says "One ancient haplotype... was similar to that of modern wolves"?
Amended - the same haplotype was shared with them.
  • "The Beringian wolf (Canis lupus) is an extinct type of wolf" This should rather be: "The Beringian wolf is an extinct type of wolf (Canis lupus)", as the name of course isn't specific to the Beringian type. I seem to have missed this when you asked about it earlier...
  • "The Beringian wolf is the first ecomorph of the gray wolf to be identified and comprehensively studied" This is only stated in the intro with no source. It should be mentioned and sourced in the article body as well.
The source was unclear on this, so amended.
  • Support - everything looks good to me now, and I think it is clearer for the average reader in places. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and the intensity of your reading for this review. William Harris • (talk) • 10:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up phylogenetic tree
Done, thanks.
  • File:Beringian_wolves_diorama.jpg: what is the copyright status of the diorama? See references here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
A fascinating case. However, the copyright status of the diorama is not relevant as at no time is that called into question. I believe the copyright status of the photo is the issue here, and we have that well covered. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
If you're taking a photo of something for use on Commons, either freedom of panorama must apply or the thing being photographed must be freely licensed / public domain. Absent FOP, a photograph of a non-free thing is a derivative work. The status of the diorama is relevant if you want to have it pictured here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, you are quite correct - I never knew this stuff existed. Given that the Yukon Beringia Interpretive Centre is located in the Yukon of Canada, we should be OK: Freedom of panorama#Canada and also on Commons here plus "The Beringia Centre is owned and operated by the Department of Tourism and Culture, Government of Yukon. In many ways, it can be seen as the public front of the department’s Museums and Heritage Resources units." plus "" Personal photography and videography is permitted in our exhibit galleries.". Do you concur? William Harris • (talk) • 03:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Canadian government works are not public domain by default, but sounds like a FOP tag would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I have tagged the image on Commons with FOB/Canada in the "Licensing section"; please let me know if anything else is required. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and for your review of the Beringian wolf. (Another thing to bear in mind in the future!) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 04:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Just going to praise you here for knowing how to cite current ref 12 (Editorial board)... thank you, thank you, thank you. So nice to see.
I am finally learning.....
THank you FOR learning.... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 14 (Genetics Glossary) ... up at the top says its a wiki - what makes this a high quality reliable source?
Removed, plus we have the other citation supporting that statement.
  • Current ref 17 - all other books sources are "last name, first name" but this one isn't it's "Sam Turvey" ... needs fixing to be consistent
Amended, one always slips through.....
  • Current ref 42 (Elias, etc) per the MOS, we don't do all caps even if the original does, needs fixing.
  • Current ref 43 - you give the location here for this book source, but don't on others... pick one system and be consistent (either include locations or don't include locations)
Locations removed. They don't add a lot of value and have become meaningless in this age of global publishers.
  • Current ref 61 has the author as "first-name last-name" which needs fixing to the more commonly used here "last name, first name" system
Amended, so two slipped through.....
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
You taught me how to run earwig over articles and it was a valuable lesson.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your time wading through all of these references. William Harris • (talk) • 22:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

  • In 2016 a genetic study showed that some of the wolves now living in remote corners of China and Mongolia are genetically identical to one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen - if possible, avoid two "genetic(ally) in one sentence
Amended; now looks more elegant.
  • Should add rationale for status (i.e. why not subsp.)
Please see editor Funkmonk's 17th and 21st dot point above.
Yeah I figured - but it needs to spell it out succinctly, once in the lead and again under taxonomy. This is important as it is part of what defines (or currently fails to define) a taxon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I have added some explanation but I have no citation to support it. Intuitively it fits, as does the link to the cave wolf.
Yeah, I understand it's a tricky one. I think that's about as good as we can get it without veering into OR. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully things will be clarified within the next 12 months and with it some media interest. This is one of the reasons why I wanted to get this article at FA standard - once people come looking for further quality information, Wikipedia can provide it.

Otherwise looking good...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. William Harris • (talk) • 10:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood


  • In 2016 a genetic study showed that some of the wolves now living in remote corners of China and Mongolia are genetically identical to one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen, indicating that both types of wolves share a common maternal ancestor. If they are genetically identical, why are the Beringian wolves considered extinct? Alternatively, does this refer specifically to mitochondrial DNA as hinted by the maternal ancestry?
Good point. I would like to avoid saying "shares the same haplotype" this early in the article, as we define a haplotype later and that would be more tidy. I have amended it to read "share a common maternal ancestor with one 28,000-year-old eastern Beringian wolf specimen."
Better for the lead, as everyone will understand. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Phenotype is extinct:

  • Phenotype is defined right at the end of the section. If it is necessary to define (I think it is useful), it should be described earlier so the definition is more useful to the reader.
Agreed, let's move it to the start of that section.
Fine. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Haplotype is not extinct:

  • The earlier definition given for haplotype implies that there are several. The section states that one of them not extinct. Is this connected with the statement in the lead mentioned above?
If you are referring to the "four modern European mDNA haplotypes", these are "phylogenetically associated" but the Beringians were not ancestral, i.e. more like "auntie" than "mother". I once had in the article the phrase "but the Beringian wolf was not ancestral...." Perhaps I need to reinstate that phrase? Or "close on the phylogenetic tree" rather than phylogenetically associated? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The rewrite of the lead clears this up sufficiently for me. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Support as intelligible and interesting to a person with a moderate amateur background in evolutionary biology (no formal training). • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

You have just described the person who wrote it! :-) Thanks for your time and comments. William Harris • (talk) • 11:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Nodar Kumaritashvili

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) and Another Believer (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about "Donald Trump", the second episode in the third season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. In it, John Oliver describes Donald Trump's business dealings and behavior, and then proceeds to criticize it. He even calls Trump "Drumpf", a term that went viral immediately after the segment aired. This episode was first released a year and a half ago. Although it didn't work like Oliver intended, since obviously Trump is the U.S. President, it's still the most popular episode that LWT has ever released. Also, it's been a Good Article since May of last year. So, as Oliver would say, please enjoy. epicgenius (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The Media data and Non-free use rationale box for the infobox image is not completed, specifically the "Not replaceable with free media because" and the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parts.  Done
  • The lead should include some information regarding the "Name change timing dispute" section, and I would imagine more parts from the "Reception and aftermath" section could be included as a well, specifically critics' response and Oliver's eventual decision to not use the joke anymore. I am suggesting this as the lead should be a comprehensive overview of the entire article.  Done
  • I would imagine that the Frederick Trump image would need a more descriptive caption other than just the name and the link.  Done
  • Is the Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? link appropriate for the "See also" section. Does it directly link to this segment or explicitly reference it?  Done, removed.

Overall, wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I hope you both have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

    • @Aoba47: Thank you for your comments. I have resolved all the issues you have brought up. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your prompt responses. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Thank you for your support vote, I appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Frederick_Friedrich_Trump_2.jpg: when/where was this first published, and what was the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: As per the documentation, the image was taken before 1923, which exempts the image from the "author's death plus 70 years" rule per COM:PD. Frederick Trump died in 1918 and such a photo of him could not have been made posthumously, though I'll look for the original source. The original shows up in this search. epicgenius (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
      • COM:PD states that works are PD in the US if published before 1923, not simply created. Further, for an image to be hosted on Commons, it must also be PD in its country of origin, and depending what that was the life+70 rule may apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I'll take a look at the publication date and location. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
          • According to, it was originally published in 1918 in the US. The page is paywalled, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I've added 2 new images and removed the Frederick Trump image. Could you kindly review the article's images again? epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, all appear appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by 1989

  • "also started a controversy on" How about started debates on? Controversy isn't the right word.  Done
  • I would put square brackets around the ... part.  Done
  • "traffics in the very xenophobia that is Trump's sick stock in trade" You're repeating yourself in the seventh paragraph.  Done

When my concerns are addressed, I'll check back. -- 1989 20:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@1989: I've fixed all of the issues you've raised above. Thank you for your feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Support @Epicgenius: When you get a chance, could you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Ball (manga)/archive1? -- 1989 18:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for the support. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem. -- 1989 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: How do I request a source review? epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Place a request in the dedicated section at the top of WT:FAC, and someone should pick it up relatively quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Note from co-nominator: I will be on vacation until August 20, so I might take a while to reply to any comments made until then. epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Revival (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the comic book Revival, published by Image Comics between 2012 and 2017. It passed GA in June 2017 and has been stable since. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The infobox image requires ALT text.
    • done.
  • In the lead, identify who described the comic as "a rural noir" and add the source that supports this quote.
    • I revised it to "described by its creators as". The citation in in the Early Inspriation section.
  • In the "Plot summary" section, do you think you should include a link to Wausau, Wisconsin? It is linked in the "Production" section, but the place is first used in this section so I would move the link up here.
    • Done - the sections got shuffled during GAR, and I didn't catch this. Thanks.
  • I would put the acronym CDC in parenthesis directly after Center for Disease Control, just to make it absolutely clear that the acronym is referencing this.
    • done.
  • In the phrase (referred to as "creeps" in Seeley’s scripts), clearly identify Seeley with his full name and a short descriptive phrase and link him. Remember that the lead and the body of the article should be treated separately so things linked in the lead will have to be linked again in the body of the article.
    • done.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Early inspiration" subsection, please fully introduce Norton with the full name and add a link.
    • done.

Great work with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support it. I hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Corrections made, thanks for the input. My day's been quite nice so far, and I hope yours has been as well! Argento Surfer (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your quick responses, and my day is pretty good so far. This was a very interesting and enjoyable read. I will support this for promotion. Good luck with the rest of this process. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Image review
  • File:RevivalComic1.jpg: The image use makes sense in the context of the article, and all aspects of the Non-free media information and use rationale box are fully completed to explain the rationale for the image.

This is a very easy image review as there is only one image used in the article at the time that I am writing this. I believe that passes the image review. If any additional images are added to the body of the article during the nomination, I will update this and review those image as well. Either way, wonderful work. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I am currently seeking a good interior image to show Norton's style, what a "glowing man" is, and at least one member of the cast. I will ping you when I locate one. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me; thank you for letting me know and good luck with your search. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've found four so far - (1) creep attacks Em, (2) creep meets Em, (3) creep meets Dana's son, and (4) Dana and creep in separate panels. I'm torn between 2 and 4. I think two is a better single image, but I could crop 4 to show both a creep and Dana. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with your assessment that I think the second image is the best out of the four as it is a single image. However, I think any of them will work fine in the article. Just make to sure to connect it in with the article/critical commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by 1989

  • "originally published" I would remove the first word.
  • done
  • The format is ongoing? The lead said it ended.
  • In comics, Ongoing series is a format distinct from a limited series. Even though the story has been ended, it was not planned to have a fixed number of issues.
  • I would put square brackets around ...
  • done
  • Who's "letterer Crank!"?
  • Christopher Crank is credited in his comic work as "Crank!" (see this credit listing).
  • "was announced February 12, 2014 and released May 2014"
  • not sure what the issue was here, but I've specified the date as May 28 and added the word "on" before both dates.
  • "In January 2013, a group of retailers who commission exclusive "Phantom Variant" covers to provide additional attention to series they believe deserve more support selected Revival to be part of the project." This sentence doesn't sound right.
  • I've reworded it to "In January 2013, the Phantom group, retailers who commission exclusive covers to provide additional attention to series they believe deserve more support, selected Revival to be part of the project." I agree it's clunky, but there's not an article for the Phantom group and their mission statement is hard to summarize. Other suggestions are very welcome.
  • "Because of the declining sales, Seeley expressed skepticism about doing a project of similar length in the future" You're missing something.
  • Clarified, hopefully.
  • "A fourth hardcover collecting the rest of the series is scheduled for release in June 2017." It's August now.
  • It was released in June. Updated.
  • "8.1/10" I'd change the slash to "out of".
  • done
  • Kois described Norton's art as "wonderfully specific and evocative of the rural Midwest"
  • Added a period.
  • "Tonic found the subtle background detail added to her understanding of the characters." Doesn't sound right.
  • added "such as music posters and the cleanliness of bedrooms"
  • "a satisfying conclusion for longtime readers." I'd move the period.
  • "every plot thread that has been hanging out there in a satisfying manner." I'd move the period.
  • done
  • "was nominated for Best Cover Artist in 2013 and 2015 in part because of her work on Revival." In part?
  • she does covers for multiple titles each month, and Revival was one of three or four listed with her nomination.
  • "Screen Panel released four prints based on Revival October 25, 2014."
  • not sure what the concern was here - I added the word "on" before the date.

When my concerns are resolved, I'll check back. -- 1989 21:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@1989: Thanks for the input. I believe I've addressed or responded to your concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Support @Argento Surfer: When you get a chance, could you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Ball (manga)/archive1? -- 1989 13:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Florin (British coin)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)', Arwel Parry (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)')

This article is about... a coin that was introduced as part of a decimal scheme and appropriately enough lived on the longest under decimal currency. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle

  • Source #35 renders as "[[#CITEREF|]]". I'm presuming this is an error?
  • Source #41 is a PDF, but no page numbers are given are given.
It lacks page numbers and I worry about saying things like "17th unnumbered page".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. The citations style is inconsistent. Most are footnotes, but some (like #11, for example) are not.

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't usually include web pages in the bibliography. I moved one book from refs to biblio. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moise

Victorian issues (1849–1901)

  • First paragraph refers to "Unlike the crown's gothic script". Should this be capitalized like in "The revised florin's diameter was increased to 30 millimetres (the weight was unchanged), and all the lettering on the coin was in Gothic script" in the third paragraph?
  • "Beginning with some 1867 issues, BRIT on the obverse was rendered BRITT, the conventional Latin means of indicating an abbreviation is for a plural, changing Victoria's title from "Queen of Britain" to "Queen of the Britains" (including the colonies and other territories)."
  • Does this mean "the conventional Latin means of indicating an abbreviation is for a plural" is to double the final consonant? If so, this should probably be clarified.
  • Minor suggestion, but I feel "(including the colonies and other territories)" could be made even clearer: for example, "thereby including the colonies and other territories" or "—this to include the colonies and other territories."
Done up to date. I think on the last one that with the splitting of the sentence, there's enough emphasis on "colonies" as to render your suggestion nonessential.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Will finish the review this weekend. Thanks for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Background / Victorian issues (1849–1901)

  • "Bowring obtained surprisingly strong support for his motion" / "These first coins were probably a shock to the public". Both of these sound possibly subjective. Would you consider attributing these statements to the sources within the text itself, to eliminate any ambiguity?
They are both sources that would be difficult to describe in the required thumbnail length, since they don't have named authors. It's my thought that there's no risk of POV at the remove of 160 years ...
  • "Despite a Royal Commission, the drive for decimalisation soon died out for the time, with an 1855 motion in the Commons applauding the issuance of the florin and seeking further decimal coins, attracting only lukewarm support." I'm not convinced the comma after "coins" is grammatical, but I understand you probably added it to aid the reader in parsing the sentence. To avoid the problem, what if you reworked it something like "Despite a Royal Commission, the drive for decimalisation soon died out for the time; there was only lukewarm support for an 1855 motion in the Commons applauding the issuance of the florin and seeking further decimal coins." Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "From 1864 until 1879, many florins were struck with die numbers on the obverse (found to the right of Victoria's brooch,[13] possibly part of a Mint investigation into die wear." For coin buffs, this usage of "die" may be common, but I personally got a little confused initially what "die numbers" and "die wear" referred to ("wear" also having multiple meanings). Consider possibly wiki-linking "die" to Coining (mint)—that could reduce confusion some? Also, it's a little wordier, but maybe "die wear" could be changed to something like "the wearing down of dies"? Just ideas. Moisejp (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Edward VII (1901–1910)

  • "while the other side features what Coincraft's Standard Catalogue of English and UK Coins deems "a most unusual and original reverse". It shows a windswept figure of Britannia standing holding a shield with her left hand and a trident with her right, and inscribed ONE FLORIN TWO SHILLINGS, with the date below." This passage includes both a description and appraisal of the appearance of the Britannia. I wonder whether the flow would be stronger if you brought this closer to the description and appraisal of the Britannia Peter Seaby that appears a little lower. As it is now, the flow is appraisal/description – background information – appraisal/description. Moisejp (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

George V (1910–1936)

  • "While the weight and diameter of the coin were unchanged, due to rises in the price of silver, the metallic composition was changed in 1920 from 0.925 silver to 50% silver, 40% copper, 10% nickel, then again in 1922 to 50% silver, 50% copper, and again in 1927 to 50% silver, 40% copper, 5% nickel, 5% zinc." The reader may initially parse such that "due to rises in the price of silver" goes with what precedes rather than what follows it, and then have to double back to make sense of the sentence as a whole. To eliminate this possibility, how about something like: "The weight and diameter of the coin were unchanged; however, due to rises in the price of silver, the metallic composition was changed in 1920 from 0.925 silver to 50% silver, 40% copper, 10% nickel, then again in 1922 to 50% silver, 50% copper, and again in 1927 to 50% silver, 40% copper, 5% nickel, 5% zinc." Moisejp (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth II (struck 1953–1970)

  • "On 30 June 1993, following the issuance of the smaller ten pence piece, the old florin was demonetised. " This is the second sentence in a row with the structure ", following ___,". To avoid this, how about "A smaller ten pence piece was issued in 1992, after which the old florin was demonetised on 30 June 1993."

Those are all of my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've done those. Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Super. I may have been presumptuous just now and I presumed that your "I've done those" meant that you intended to include my "due to the price in silver" suggestion and that you may have accidentally missed it, so I took the liberty of changing it myself. I apologize, I should have double-checked with you first. Please revert if you disagree with the change, but I do urge you to do something with the sentence, which I feel did not read totally smoothly as it was. In any case, regardless of that sentence, I am happy to support now. Thank you. As with your other coin articles, I really enjoyed reading this one. Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, Meant to but overlooked it. Thanks for the support and review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • What makes a high quality reliable source? Appears to be a commercial site selling coins...
Auction houses are particularly reliable coin sources, since they make their money off proper identification of coins. Chard's is a very well known firm for over a half century.
  • What makes a high quality reliable source? Hes a tax accountant - what makes his a high quality source for coin history?
Hchc2009 looked at it in this source review, that you also did, and seemed to feel it was a suitable source.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Surely we can find a more recent source than Levi (from 1880!) for information on the parliamentary background.
I didn't see any other sources containing the detail. I would submit that it is only used for facts, rather than opinion, and the facts will not have been changed by the passage of time.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Moise

  • All images are properly licensed.
  • It seems Godless florin.jpg and 1932 George V Florin (reverse).JPG are lacking alt text. Moisejp (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I've added the alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Brian Boulton

Apologies for my late arrival here. I'm old enough to remember the pre-decimalisation florin, the "two-bob bit" – it's what your grandparents and great-uncles gave you when you visited. I bought by first (under-age) half-pint of bitter with such a coin - and got change! O tempora, o mores.

Not much to add here, beyond a few prose quibbles.

  • Second line: "just" unnecessary
Not completely. The sovereign, for example, remains legal tender, as do various other coins that were never demonitised (groat, silver threepence that resembles the Maundy coin, double florin are examples). I'm trying to limit it to the halfpenny to half crown range, the eight coins that were actually used in 1967. Changed to "immediately".
  • As this is a British topic I imagine that BritEng conventions have been applied. In which case, we tend to say "quarter of a century" rather than "quarter century".
Victorian issues (1849–1901)
  • Is there a link that might explain what is meant by "Gothic style"? (later: maybe unnecessary as you've linked "Gothic script" later.)
  • Maybe add a parenthetical (one-eighth of a pound) to your mention of the half crown.
  • After "Even more", a word such as "controversially" should be inserted, otherwise even more what?
  • Final sentence: "This reverse was created by Sir Edward Poynter, and was issued each year between 1893 and 1901, the year of Victoria's death" Yet the adjoining caption says: "1899 florin designed by Sir Edward Poynter".
I'm afraid I don't see the issue.
Nor, on looking at it again, do I. Scrubbed. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
George V (1910–1936)
  • Any reason for no mintings in 1934?
Almost certainly lack of demand but I'll research further.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a bit of an outbreak of "due to" around here – two in this section, one in each of the next two sections. I'd vary the wording a bit.
  • Second paragraph begins: "The second florin..." This wasn't so much a "second florin", rather a revised design, so maybe begin "The revised design, dated 1927 to 1936, was by George Kruger Gray and did not..." etc
Edward VIII (1936)
  • Perhaps specify that no Edward VIII florins were struck
Elizabeth II (struck 1953–1970)
  • "When the reverse of the new coin was illustrated in the press, there was no consensus as to which way was up": I'm not entirely clear what is intended here, but I would have thought that the alignment of the head on the obverse would determine which was the "right way up", if that is what is meant.
They probably did not have the actual coins, just the photos, and not all coins are aligned with the top of the obverse just opposite to the top of the reverse. See coin alignment.
  • The otiose "just" appears again in the final sentence.
See my comments to the lede.

That's all. a nice piece of nostalgia. Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged. I will say my first beer dispensed to me cost less than a florin, as it was after taking the tour of a beer factory when I was 16, there was no cost. I suspect that would be more difficult today, some not quite 40 years later ... but on my pre-1993 visits to the UK, I remember being quite interested in the pre-decimal survivors.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Support: Happy with what you've done. Brianboulton (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Roland TR-808

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the TR-808, a 1980s drum machine that became one of the most influential musical instruments in popular music. It became a GA earlier this year, and has been expanded since - for example, it now has audio samples. After writing several GA articles, I'd like to try my hand at a FA. Thanks! Popcornduff (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "Roland ended production in 1983 after semiconductor improvements made the faulty transistors that were an essential part of its design impossible to restock.": This implies to me that any of these machines that are still around are just museum pieces, not functioning ... correct? Past tense might be more appropriate than present tense in some places in your text. In "its popularity with hip hop in particular has made it one of the most influential inventions", "has made it" is present perfect, and I think the natural assumption of most readers from that would be that the machines are still around and functioning, which can't be right if "impossible to restock" is right. So please be clear about when you're talking about emulators or sampled sounds and when you're talking about the actual 808.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this. That's not the intended meaning of the sentence. There are indeed many functioning 808s in use around the world. The Development section says: "Kakehashi deliberately purchased faulty transistors to create the machine's distinctive "sizzling" sound.[8]" The machine used "bad" transistors, by design, because they create a particular sound. Kakehashi would go to transistor manufacturers and buy their broken transistors off them to use in the machine. When the manufacturers improved their manufacturing processes, they stopped producing these particular broken transistors, and so Roland could no longer build the 808s.
  • If you think the sentence is confusing, though, maybe we should rephrase it. It might not be necessary in the lead to mention that the components were faulty. We could simplify it to: "Roland ended production in 1983 after the transistors that were an essential part of its design became impossible to restock." What do you think? Popcornduff (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Better would be: "Roland ended production in 1983, but many functioning 808s are still in use around the world." - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Done, kinda - I think it's still appropriate to mention why they ceased production, so changed to "Having built approximately 12,000 units, Roland discontinued the 808 after its semiconductors became impossible to restock, but functioning units remain in use around the world". Popcornduff (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

A very interesting article that reads well and seems almost ready to me. Good audio files. I have a short list of questions and suggestions.
  • Alt text for the images would be good.
  • Added - never done that before! Is there a way to add them to the infobox images too? Popcornduff (talk)
Yes. It's a bit tricky and seems to vary from one kind of infobox to another. If you roll over the image now, you'll see the "alt=something". You can replace the word "something" with whatever you decide makes a good description for someone who can't see the image. Finetooth (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. Popcornduff (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • If possible, please link to explanations for "individual level", "attack", and "decay", since in the context of drum machines these may not be familiar to many readers.
  • Can't find anything for "individual level", but linked to ADSR for the others. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah. It occurs to me that if the comma after "level" goes away, the whole phrase makes sense as "Individual level tuning, attack, decay, and tone controls for some sounds". Is that what is meant, that all the controls are "individual level"? Maybe just "Individual tuning, decay and tone controls for some sounds" would be even more clear? Finetooth (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It means you can set the level of the sounds individually. Level here means volume, but "level" is the term used in audio mixing. The comma is correct. Popcornduff (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. Finetooth (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "...rather than having to use presets." – Link "presets" to an article that explains what they are? Or if that is not possible, use "preset patterns" as you do in the main text.
  • "Can't find anything for presets, so used "preset patterns". Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "engineer Don Lewis to demo its products" – "Demonstrate" rather than "demo"?
  • No, microprocessers were being used in Microcomposers. The Microcomposer was an instrument, not a microprocessor. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I see now. Finetooth (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶4 "Roland engineer Makoto Muri credited the design of the analog voice circuits to 'Mr. Nakamura' and the software to 'Mr. Matsuoka'." – Is it possible to find and add their first names?
  • Looked hard for this back when I was writing the article, but found nothing. Hence the quotes. We don't know who these guys are. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I figured as much, but I thought it was worth asking. Finetooth (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds and features
  • ¶1 "...TR stands for "Transistor Rhythm"" – More clear would be "the TR in TR-808 stands for 'Transistor Rhythm'."
  • ¶3 "...the bass drum sound is powerful enough to blow speakers." – Would it be possible to link to an explanation of what it means to "blow" a speaker?
  • Can't find anything. Any suggestions for rewording? Maybe just "damage speakers"? (I worry about this entire sentence to be honest - at enough volume, ANY sound is powerful enough to blow speakers. It's just the 808 bass drum was notorious for it, I suppose.) edit: On reflection I've just cut this. Popcornduff (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of the titles in the citations use title case and others use sentence case. It would be good to be internally consistent. It doesn't matter which format the source uses.
  • Fixed. Happy to have an excuse to kill title case. Popcornduff (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Switching to support on prose as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Marcel Lihau

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Marcel Lihau, a Congolese politician, jurist, and law professor who served as first president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Congo and was involved in the creation of two functional constitutions for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Lihau was the first Congolese to ever receive a law degree and began his career in the midst of the Congo Crisis, serving in the justice ministry and authoring the Luluabourg Constitution. In 1968 he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Justice but was removed seven years later by dictator Mobutu after refusing to enforce a harsh sentence upon student protesters. He helped organize the political opposition to Mobutu in his later years and advocated for democracy until his death. As such I think he's very important to Congolese history. This article is smaller than other FA biography nominations, but there's less info to go off of. I've done what I think I can with the available sources and I think this is ready for the FA process.-Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Note to reviewers and coordinators: I will be on vacation from today until August 5 without proper internet access and may not be able to respond in full to comments until then. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things,

  • "In 1963 ... In 1965 ... In 1968" Mix it up.
  • I'm not doing an image review, but that lede image is going to give you trouble. If you don't know who the photographer is, how can it possibly have a CC license?
  • Why does the article use American style spelling (democratizing) and Commonwealth style dates?
  • "He was the eldest of eight children.[2] He received his secondary" ditto.
  • " the decision greatly reinforced their bargaining position with the Belgians." I might say "strengthened" for "reinforced"
  • "Lihau subsequently participated in the economic conference that took place from April until May that addressed the economic transition that the Congo was undergoing." I might change the last two words to "would undergo", if it's consistent with the source.
  • The first paragraph of the "Justice" paragraph could usefully be split.
  • "which party held the prerogative to make revisions" this is unclear as you have not mentioned parties yet.
  • " he added to the diversity of the organisation" I might toss a "geographic" before "diversity"
  • "at the Hotel InterContinental in Kinshasa" I don't think the italics are needed.
  • "in the view of the American delegation" I might say "in full view of the American delegation"
  • " "Conference Nationale Souveraine" " I don't think the quotes are needed. You might want to check the MOS on whether foreign proper names need italicization.
  • "In 1980 13 members of Parliament published a letter criticising Mobutu's regime. They were arrested and charged with "aggravated treason". Lihau testified on their behalf during the ensuing trial.[20] In 1982 he joined them" again, similar beginnings to consecutive sentences. Also consider commas.
  • "Due to his political activities and flight from persecution[22] they separated in the late 1970s." I would say "the couple" for "they" to clear up any ambiguity.
  • "A young politician named Jean-Pierre Kalokola claimed to be the illegitimate son of Lihau, who successfully filed a lawsuit against him." I might say after the comma, "and successfully filed a paternity suit against him." Assuming it was.
  • " Three of Lihau's and Kanza's daughters organized a mass of thanksgiving in their honor in Gombe on 28 March 2015. " Should "their" be "his"?
  • Can anything be said by way of a legacy?
Seems very well-written. I'm glad to see an article on African politics making it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Wehwalt:

  1. Revised as "appointed dean of law faculty at the University of Lovanium in 1963. The following year he helped deliver the Luluabourg Constitution to the Congolese which was subsequently adopted by referendum. In 1965".
  2. On its description page it should say "This file has been extracted from another file:", providing a link to File:Directors of the Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social.jpg, which was published on Flickr under the CC license by Radio Okapi.
  3. That's by mistake! I've changed all American spellings I have found to Commonwealth style.
  4. Not sure I know what you're referring to, but revised as "He was the eldest of eight children. After his secondary education at the Bolongo seminary, Lihau attended".
  5. Done.
  6. Done.
  7. Split after "He also served....under Prime Minister Joseph Iléo's brief government."
  8. In this case I do not mean political parties, I'm referring to the respective factions that debated over who held the prerogative: Kasa-Vubu's government and the constitutional commission. Should this be changed for clarity?
Yes, factions sounds like a good word.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. Done.
  2. Italics undone.
  3. Done.
  4. MOS consulted, revisions made accordingly.
  5. Revised to say "Two years later he joined them in founding".
  6. Done.
  7. Done.
  8. No, as the ceremony was in honor of both Lihau and Kanza. Revised to say "in their parents' honor".
  9. The only info that seems appropriate is what I've included under the "Commemoration" section and the quote I've included from the UDPS leadership. I've also added some details on his constitutional activities at the Round Table and the CNS. Unfortunately, it would seem that Lihau's jurisprudence has been rendered presently irrelevant by the course of Congolese history; the constitutions he authored in the 1960s have long been discarded, the Constitution of Zaire which he interpreted is no longer in force, and the work he did at the CNS has been transcended by a transitional constitution of 2003 and the current one promulgated in 2006. Of course, federalism remains a large matter for debate within the Congo. The only lasting testimony to Lihau's work is the UDPS (still as vocal an opposition group as ever), and I think I've covered that by the inclusion of the quote from their leadership.

Thank you for your review. I'm also happy to have the chance to nominate an Africa article.-Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Support very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Marcel_Lihau.jpg: is there an OTRS number to support that tag?
  • File:Université_de_Kinshasa.JPG: since DRC does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the building pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Nikkimaria:

  1. That photo is a derivative of a work published on Flickr with that license. As I said to Wehwalt above: "On its description page it should say "This file has been extracted from another file:", providing a link to File:Directors of the Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social.jpg, which was published on Flickr under the CC license by Radio Okapi." This was confirmed by the FlickreviewR robot.
  2. Fair point. The building has been around since 1954, having been established by Jesuit missionaries as part of the Catholic University of Leuven (1834–1968) back when the country was under Belgian rule. It's now the main building of the University of Kinshasa. The relevant copyright law does establish that architecture is protected but I can't determine who owns the copyright or when it will/would have expired. As such, I've removed the photo.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Per WP:ALLCAPS, we don't put titles of sources in all caps even when the source does so. "DECLARATION..." and "IN MEMORIUM" in the references need fixing. Same applies to BRILL in the Burke reference.
  • In the citations - you have "UDPS 1999" which is linked to "IN MEMORIUM" - if the author is UDPS, it should be listed as such in the references. It isn't always the case that the links will work, so by not having the short citation easily match up to a reference, you're going to cause confusion.
  • Same holds for "DECLARATION" which appears to be short cited as "UDPS 2015"
  • You give an ISBN for some reference - can we have ISBNs/OCLC numbers for all of them?
  • You give locations for some of the references - you need to be consistent and give them for all of the book references
  • Can we alphabetize the references? Last I checked, Hoskyns comes after Fox...
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Ealdgyth:

  1. Done.
  2. The shortened footnotes like that use the name of the publisher, though abbreviated, so I don't think its too confusing. To say that the "In Memoriam" document, for example, was authored by the UDPS is not strictly true (assuming there were individuals behind its creation), though it was certainly published by them. I didn't think it was unprecedented or incorrect to use the publisher in the shorthand, but I'll change it if necessary.
  3. As per above.
  4. OCLCs added where applicable.
  5. Done.
  6. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

On the authors/links/short cites - there is such a thing as corporate authorship - one thing I've done in the past is use "Staff" as the author... since obviously someone is writing the information... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, but don't the citation templates recommend saying <!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> in the author parameter for that? So that doesn't even display in the full citation, and even if it did, a shortened footnote that says "Staff writer 1999, p. 3" seems even more ambiguous than one that lists the publisher instead. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
My concern here is that if someone can't or doesn't know that the links take them to the full citation - they won't be able to figure out what full citation corresponds to "UDPS 1999". There is no "author" listed in the references section that is "UDPS" - (for that matter, the abbreviation UDPS doesn't appear at ALL in the references, but that's hopefully going to be fixed another way). That short citation goes to ""In Memoriam : Marcel Lihau: 1931 - 1999" (in French). Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social. 1999. Archived from the original on 10 March 2000. Retrieved 25 July 2017." So ... there isn't an abbreviation UDPS, the date doesn't appear at the front like the other full citations, and the first bit is "In Memoriam"... it isn't at all consistent with the rest of the references which all start "author last name, author first name, (date)". So they won't be able to figure it out as they would be with a citation for "Emmerson 1968" (which is easily matched up with "Emmerson, Donald K. (1968). Students and Politics in Developing Nations. New York: Praeger." if the links don't work (say if it's printed) or if (like many of our readers, I suspect) they don't understand that the linked short citation will take them to the full citation. If you have a lot of these sorts of things, the solution might be "UDPS Staff" or "FCE Staff" or "Africana Library Journal Staff". I see this as a problem for all the full citations that lack an author. (And they almost all share the abbreviation issue I alluded to above also). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: I see what you mean. I've made changes accordingly to the citations. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

  • The lede section is too long, in particular the mid section.
  • A prose problem running throughout is the repetitiveness in sentence construction. Many lines go like: "He/Lihau - in year - action - at place"
  • "Marcel Lihau was born on 9 September 1931 in Bumba, Équateur Province, Belgian Congo.[1][a] He was the eldest of eight children." — you can combine those sentences
  • "...a school mostly unavailable to Congolese" — needs def article
  • We have 'enroll' twice in this paragraph. Try 'register' e.g.
  • You might want to link Latin, Greek, and Flemish to Classical Latin, Ancient Greek, Flemish language
  • "By January 1963 he had become the first Congolese to receive a law degree, earning it with distinction." — what distinction?
  • Would be nice with some translations of the French union names
  • "...the decision significantly strengthened their bargaining position with the Belgians" — Which Belgians? Who?
  • "Lihau subsequently sat in on the political portion of the conference as an observer on behalf of the AGEC." — was it a sit-in? I am confused by the use of prepositions (sat in on)
  • "that the Congolese adopt one system or the other to ensure the integrity of their country in the future." — too verbose, try 'future integrity'
  • "Lihau subsequently participated in the economic conference that took place from April until May that addressed the economic transition that the Congo would undergo." — "that...that"
  • What's a 'general mutiny'? Also, what kind of coup did Mobuto launch?
  • "Lihau was appointed to be commissioner general of justice."

Oppose for now - on criteria 1a. Gertanis (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Tentative support - I'm still not crazy about the prose, but I do appreciate Indy beetle's reply to that point. I guess this is the best article on Mr. Lihau we'll be able to have, provided the sources at hand. Best, Gertanis (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC).
Response to @Gertanis:

  1. Could you be more clear about this? I know it may seem large in comparison to the rest of the rather small article, but it properly summarizes all the info on Lihau. I'm not sure how I could slim it any further without removing important information about him.
  2. Aye, I've already had another point this out to me. I've made some revisions to address this, though I most say that it's hard to avoid the listing style as the info on Lihau's activities is limited to a point where I can only state what he was doing in a particular year. So I've tried mixing up between saying "In 19XX" and "The following year", etc.
  3. Done.
  4. Do you mean it should read "a school mostly unavailable to (the) Congolese"? If so, I don't know why this is necessary. "Congolese" is the proper plural term for nationals of the Congo. If there was a sentence that read "This is a school mostly unavailable to Americans" it would be grammatically correct.
  5. Changed second enroll to "admitted".
  6. Done.
  7. The source is unclear about this, though I would assume it's referring to Latin honors.
  8. Done.
  9. Changed to "Belgian government".
  10. By this I meant to imply that he attended the conference in a more passive role than the other participants, though I suppose this is already covered by saying he was only an "observer". Replaced "sat in on" with "attended".
  11. Done.
  12. Revised as "participated in the April to May conference that addressed the economic transition that the Congo would undergo".
  13. Revised to say "widespread mutiny". As for Mobutu's action, it was a bloodless military coup. He didn't actually assume power, but formed a "College of Commissioners" to govern the country like a technocracy while declaring President Kasa-Vubu and Prime Minister Lumumba to be "neutralized" (deprived of political power). Parliament was also technically suspended. I have chosen not to explain the coup in detail in the article because its implications were very complex and have little to do with Lihau's career. For example, Kasa-Vubu was able to partially reassert his political power within a month of the coup, while Lumumba attempted to flee to the eastern portion of the country to reestablish his government. This resulted in the latter's arrest and execution in early 1961.
  14. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Just a thought: do we really need the 'See also'-section? For the article to be comprehensive, those articles should be linked in the prose, right? Gertanis (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gertanis: See also section removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I screw anything up.

  • "Lihau was able to achieve post-primary education": "achieve" is a slightly odd way to say this. For the lead, could we make this "Lihau became the first Congolese to study law, and attended Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium with the help of sympathetic Jesuit educators", stealing a couple of phrases from the body of the article?
  • "He retained the position, continuously advocating for judicial independence": I don't really see support for this in the body; and "continuously" is probably not the word needed here even if the sources support it -- perhaps "continually", or more likely "repeatedly".
  • "He continuously advocated for democracy in the Congo": as with the point above, I don't see support for this in the body, which only talks about the conference he founded while in the US.
  • The links to sources in footnotes 2, 10, and 12 don't work.
  • "president of the small Congolese-Ruanda-Urundi students' union in Belgium, Association Générale des Étudiants Congolais en Belgique (AGEC, General Association of Congolese Students in Belgium)." This is quite dense, and the reader doesn't really need both the French and English; at least one could be relegated to a footnote. How about "president of the AGEC, the small Congolese-Ruanda-Urundi students' union in Belgium." with both English and French in a footnote from "AGEC"?
  • "only veiling such autonomy, not eliminating it": a great phrase, but I don't really understand what is meant by it. Can we get some inline clarification? It seems to be a fairly important point.
  • "The following August Lihau joined several of his colleagues": I think this is August 1982, but can't be certain;I'd suggest adding the year.
  • "Conference Nationale Souverain": a sentence about the impact or lack of impact of the conference's recommendations would be helpful.
  • The article on Lihau's wife makes it sound as though the marriage survived but they lived separately because of persecution. This article makes it sound as though the persecution caused the marriage to effectively end, rather than just making them live separately. Can you confirm that this is what the sources say?
  • Since Sophie had a moderately senior role at UNESCO, and was also unusual in being the first Congolese women to get a degree, I think a sentence or two more about her is warranted.

That's everything, except for the discussion about capitalization we're having on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Mike Christie:

  1. Revised as "Lihau attended the Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium with the help of sympathetic Jesuit educators, becoming the first Congolese to study law."
  2. Excised "continuously".
  3. Excised "continuously". I'm drawn to conclude this from mostly minor news reports I've seen from the 1980s and 1990s, which often quote Lihau saying something critical about Zaire. It seems certain media outlets found him to be a good source of commentary whenever they were doing a story on the country. They quotes mostly insignificant on their own and, though fascinating (in 1988 he remarked that "Mobutu is the constitution in Zaire"), might be difficult to smoothly incorporate into the article.
  4. Fixed.
  5. Originally it was just the French and then the acronym. Another reviewer (Gertanis) requested that I add the English translations. I personally think the translations are unnecessary, as they are of proper names. Unfortunately, MoS is lacking in guidance on this matter. It seems consensus between reviewers might have to determine the solution.
  6. I've kept the wording close to the source, which says, "[Lihau] argued that the 1974 Constitution did not eliminate judicial independence, but merely veiled it." The source does explain some of his reasoning (alongside that of an agreeing magistrate) but I can only see it in Google Books snippet view, which makes it difficult to work out the details. I have been able to extract, "Justice Lihau explained that the name 'Judicial Council' itself obscured the reality of a continuing judicial power and was chosen for political reasons." As the source explains, "Judicial Council" was the new term the 1974 Constitution used to refer to the judicial branch of the MPR (Dictator Mobutu's political party and the official institution of the state). It notes, "Instead of declaring the independence of the magistracy [like the previous charters], the 1974 Constitution states that the magistrate is independent in his mission to determine what the law provides." It also says that Lihau acknowledged that he, as a magistrate, issued opinions in the name of Mobutu. Make of this what you will. With my limited knowledge on the 1974 Constitution, I surmise that Lihau's thoughts were probably something along the lines of "Though the judiciary is now nominally integrated into Mobutu's administration, this is simply a political motion to represent the unity of the MPR, the government, and the nation. It shall function independently of the executive as before." Mobutu obviously disagreed.
  7. *1983. Done.
  8. For Lihau's purposes, we're leaning more on the lacking side. The legacy of the CNS was, as Congolese historian Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja put it in 2004, political by nature, while the institutional framework it produced (including Lihau's constitutional recommendations, I presume) was "no longer viable" because it is "outdated and impossible to reconstruct in any meaningful way". Besides, one could argue that the real turning point in the Congo for political progress was Mobutu's ousting in 1997 via civil war. In the article I've written "The conference disbanded in December 1992 having greatly reinvigorated democratic thought in the country but ultimately failing to enact significant institutional change."
  9. Ah, that's because I used two sources in this article and only one for the Kanza page. Fox was rather vague about their separation, but does say that it was because of how Lihau's activities had brought government abuse upon him. The UDPS statement uses the word "separated" (translated from French, but I double checked to make sure it wasn't "divorced") to describe the couple and mentions that this separation occurred in the late 1970s. So I think this article gives the more correct impression. Plus, this 1991 news bulletin refers to Kanza as Lihau's "ex-wife".
  10. Changed to "Lihau married future politician Sophie Kanza". I'm trying to keep it as brief as possible, and it's complicated because at the time of their marriage Kanza only had her university degree and was not yet working at the UN or in the government.

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

John Glenn

Nominator(s): Kees08 (Talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

John Glenn is one of the most viewed spaceflight articles on the project. He died recently, which made me work towards making his article my (hopefully) first featured article. He was the first American to orbit the Earth, was a highly decorated marine, and served as Senator for much of his life. If you notice on the talk page that this article just failed A-class review, I wanted to note that was due to a lack of reviewers and not due to any opposes. Hopefully I can garner enough interest here that we can get this article the rest of the way to FA. Kees08 (Talk) 07:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Light show, JustinTime55, and Hawkeye7: Apologies for not asking pre-nom, but if any of you significant contributors would like to be co-noms just let me know (or add yourself). Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 21:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to be a co-nominator. Face-smile.svg Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:John_Glenn_Signature.svg: source link is dead
    Now I just feel argumentative, I hope it is not seen that way :). For this one, is a live source required, since signatures are not copyrighted in the US unless they are artistic? Otherwise, I suppose I could use another PD image and extract the signature out of it, then link to that. What do you think of this case? Kees08 (Talk) 20:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    If there were significant information to identify a source without the live link (eg. a Google Books link in a book citation) I'd be less inclined to push it, but in this case the URL doesn't really speak to either original source or credibility, and a source is required under the image use policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    How about [24]? Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Friendship_7_insignia.jpg: tag indicates that use of insignias is restricted - how does this affect this image? Same with File:STS-95_Patch.svg
    I do not think that it does, as the work was created by NASA, so as far as we are concerned in the US it is in the PD. I believe that notice is put there in case individuals in other countries want to use the image, they can see that it may not be in the PD in their country and that they should investigate that. Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 20:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    I can't seem to find mention of the issue in the legal document linked from the tag, but this page suggests that at least some logos/insignia are not PD despite being created by NASA. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    Do you mean this text specifically? "NASA images may be used as graphic "hot links" to NASA Web sites, provided they are used within the guidelines above. This permission does not extend to use of the NASA insignia, the retired NASA logotype or the NASA seal. NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material." If so, I believe it is specifically discussing using them as hot links to NASA websites, so as long as we are not hotlinking to NASA with those images, we are fine. Did you mean another part of that page? Kees08 (Talk) 21:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:92OHSenateCounties.PNG: what's the source of the data presented in this image?
    I have a request in the Resource Exchange right now for the data. I replaced the image with one that looks better, but obviously that does not solve the data source issue. I will let you know when I hear back. Kees08 (Talk)
  • File:Annie_and_John_Glenn_1965.jpg: source link suggests the correct license would be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    I looked pretty hard at this one in the Commons, with this showing that photos donated by Nationaal Archief are PD, and this talking about it in English more. I think its just slightly incorrect information in the metadata of the photo. The National Archief template is where the CC license comes from, which is another reason I think that all of the photos they donated are with a commons license. What are your thoughts? I am open to being wrong about this. Kees08 (Talk)
    On the Nationaal Archief website, the image is clearly tagged as being CC0/PD - because that's a less restrictive license, I'd be more inclined to go with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, that's fair, I'll use a PD tag. Kees08 (Talk)
    Replaced, let me know if that is good. Kees08 (Talk)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. (Note that I don't cover end-sections, such as the Awards section.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Black stork

Nominator(s): Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

We have improved this article to the point where we invite others to let us know (hopefully) about any last fixes before it gets a shiny star. I feel it is the equal of some other bird FAs so have at it.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

Some quick comments, like usual.

  • The last part of the sentence "This is because of the wide range, big population and low rate of decline, which are well beyond the threshold to consider them as vulnerable" makes them sound as if they are well below the threshold for being vulnerable. Maybe instead of saying "beyond", say "above"? Or reword it entirely so you don't have that confusion.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • What are you trying to convey about the bare skin around this bird's eyes? "The black stork has brown iris, and the bare skin around its eyes."
Oops. Nothing about the bare skin, but just that it surrounds the eye. Face-tongue.svg Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Which bird has the traits noted to differ in the sentence "Mostly similar to the Adbim's stork in appearance, it differs by having bright red bill, legs and feet, and black rump and lower back"?
Tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The first part of the sentence "The juvenile resembles the adult in plumage pattern, but the areas corresponding to the adult black feathers are browner and less glossy" might confuse some non-birders, as they might think that "plumage pattern" is a type of moult or something. Maybe just say plumage?
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That is all for now. More will come later. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The last part of the sentence "The female lays two to five white shelled eggs having greyish hue" is confusing. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Rephrased. Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
But how can a white shell have a greyish hue? That is a contradiction. Maybe say "The female [actually, that should be reworded too, as both sexes incubate the eggs] lays two to five greyish eggs." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Rephrased again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence "It was moved to the new genus Ciconia by French zoologist Mathurin Jacques Brisson two years later" is a bit confusing, since it was originally assigned to the genus Ciconia, thus meaning that genus is not new. Maybe say "It was moved back to the genus Ciconia, which had just been formally established, by French zoologist [name] in [year]"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, it needs to be made clear that Francis Willughby wasn't formally describing it - his name was not a Linnaean binomial since he predated Linnaeus (so it was never assigned to Ciconia until Brisson did). Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, have been scratching my head over this bit. The Willughby material is fascinating as it shows that many of the binomial names used by Linnaeus had been in use 100 years earlier, though Linnaeus obviously marks the start of Linnaean taxonomy. I need to think how to note this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
A footnote? The pre-Linnean history of biological nomenclature is somewhat tangential to the subject at hand. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
footnote added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In this sentence, "black stork" needs to be singular: "Black storks host more than 12 species of helminth, with Cathaemasia hians and Dicheilonema ciconiae reported to be the most dominant." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Juvenile black storks host fewer helminth species overall, but carry higher parasite loads than adults do", "black stork" needs to be singular and the last part needs to be reworded. Maybe "The juvenile black stork, although having a less diverse helminth population, is parasitized more frequently than the adult." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
RileyBugz, do you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Just don't count my review, because I don't know if it is thorough at this point, and I don't really want to spend the time to do so. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sabine's Sunbird

Some observations:

  • large wading bird waders (which is linked to) typically means sandpipers, plovers and the like, not storks, herons and ibises and the like. It's slightly different in the US but this is supposed to be UK English right?
Agreed and delinked. I have left as "bird". I could call it Water bird but is a bit of a silly link. I don't know of a common name for Aequornithes, which might be another possibility Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Bit of overlinking in the lead
Removed some more major geographical regions, but left the ones which may not be known to few readers (like the straight of gibraltar, etc.). Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • big population - maybe large population?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It is also covered under the what is this also-ing? No previous discussions of cover before.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • To a layperson it may be weird that conservation actions are being taken for a species not at risk. Rather than listing conventions that protect them, perhaps discuss localised declines and then provide global context of their status?
hopefully the moved material on local declines will help with flow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the lead is still an issue (and this comment was about the lead, sorry should have been more clear. The structure of the last paragraph is "not threatened IUCN/treaties protecting the species/conservation \actions underway". It should be "local declines/global context and IUCN status/ conservation actions" Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I have added a sentence and rejigged it slightly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • English naturalist Francis Willughby wrote about the white stork in the 17th century, having seen one in Frankfurt, naming it Ciconia nigra Is this in the right article?
whoops. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Do the "three major groups of storks" stand up cladistically?
Not sure, but the material possibly a bit off-topic for a species article, so trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would dispute that it most closely resembles the abdim's stork - the plumage patterns are the but the body shape is quite different
added re build. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The information in distribution about declines might be better in conservation?
Right, I have moved some material on declines to conservation. There is some more entwined but is hard to unravel. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is a Old World species in American English in places (Behavior)?
good point, gonna UKize it think all UKized now... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A wary species, it avoids human contact and forms small flocks especially during winter. Is a bit of a non sequitur.
split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In feeding, why does the article suddenly start throwing in binomials after common names?
It is a good point, but in other bird FAs like white stork, such binomials are mentioned after the common names, too. However, if you think that it should be removed, I would remove it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a consistency thing. Do it consistently or don't do it consistently. Personally, I would only use a scientific name if there is some ambiguity in the common name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I've added rather than subtracted. It helps avoid a sea of bluelinks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay more later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Overlinking is still an issue, particularly in the distribution and migration section.
Oops! I hope it looks find now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • However it flees at the presence of dogs. I'm not sure why this is "however" or even what it adds.
..removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I meant that the whole section adds nothing. It flees in the presence of large predators? That's pretty much the rule isn't it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
When I read it initially, it was the contrast between the storks following large ruminants but scared of dogs. But yes, I take your point that most animals can distinguish between herbivores and removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • which had large side branches that allowed it to build the nest away from the trunk as well as black pine, (Pinus nigra) and to a lesser extent oak I think a comma is in the wrong place (it should be after trunk, not pine)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Considering the rarity of infanticide in this species has it been given undue weight in the lead? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
yeah I think so..removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Some more questions/comments:

  • Slightly smaller than the white stork, the black stork is a large bird, why does this start with a comparison to the white stork?
the former is more familiar...but agree not essential so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Like all storks, it has long legs, a long neck and a long, straight, pointed beak. I don't think all storks have straight bills (check out the [[openbill]s.
I just removed comparison to all sotrks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • No mention of bill standard bill colour in the description section. Or the bare eye skin colour
added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It may be confused with the juvenile yellow-billed stork, really?
this is mentioned in Cramp (1977) under both species, though under the black stork entry it concedes the resemblance is "slight". OTOH, many folks are not that familiar with juvenile plumage so can argue might be better to leave in...I did tweak it a little to get a sense of that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The black stork walks slowly and steadily on the ground. Like all storks, it flies with its neck outstretched. Why is this on the paragraph about juveniles?
accident. moved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Distribution and habitat - first paragraph lays out the European distribution of the summering birds - and nothing about its Asian summer distribution (except a line about Korea further down). This whole section needs work on weight (undue focus on extralimital distribution) and structure. Migration section heavily weighted towards Europe too.
have begun reorganising it. Unfortunately appears to have been much more studied in Europe than Asia...but I think there is some Asian material I can add. looking some Asian material in but it's been a hard slog... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The black stork mainly eats fish, although it may feed on amphibians, insects, small reptiles, snails, crabs, mammals and birds.[39] Its insect diet primarily includes water beetles and their larvae, and earthworms.[40][41] It also forages on newts, shrews, small rodents and molluscs. Structure issues here. Earthworms aren't insects, and then the last sentence is basically repeating the first with a bit more detail but no clear logic.
reorganised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Can anything be said about the significance of the statement also forages with both wings raised in an open canopy. Maybe linking it to the sentence on the following paragraph It has been observed shading the water with its wings while hunting.
removed - taken as a misunderstanding as I thought it meant canopy (foliage) but it just means its wings as what the other sentence already says. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, more to come. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • In the lead you talk about deciduous and evergreen trees for nesting but in the article you use deciduous and coniferous - coniferous and evergreen overlap but are not synonyms
changed to conifer in lead - as references are using it in this way Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The listing of the nesting sites in the lead gives them equal weight but the article makes it clear that trees and particularly deciduous trees are favoured.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Lead has some focus/weight issues - lots of info on conservation and migration, but a single short sentence on eggs, incubation, chick rearing and parental care. Nothing on taxonomy
Improved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In the first sentence, the stork family name doesn't need bolding
debolded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It winters into the Indian subcontinent, particularly India where it ranges from Punjab south to Karnataka,[26] and Africa.[16] It is an occasional visitor to Sri Lanka,[27] and was first recorded in western Myanmar in 1998 Weight, again. The first paragraph of this section (distribution and habitat) goes into extreme depth, country by country, sometimes providing population estimates for countries (like Spain and Portugal). And then the entire wintering range of the western Eurasian population is two words and Africa. I think structurally this has been let down by breaking the migration section into its own subsection.
I have moved the wintering areas into D&H, leaving material on routes in migration section only. Have rejigged it but is tricky as there is little information from China. Still, will see what else I can do, including adding winter habitat mentioned below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Similarly, I see no information about the wintering habitat in southern Asia and Africa. According to the HB, while they avoid open habitats while breeding flocks of passage and wintering birds may be encountered in open marshland and often frequent ricefields
added some info from India and southern Africa. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The eggs are usually laid in late April I would take out the chronology of breeding from the description of breeding and have it as a separate section, which would allow you to be more specific about where those dates apply too (I suspect it varies, particularly the African population).
I moved it to first para of breeding, where African breeding dates are mentioned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Away from human disturbance, the black stork prefers to construct its nest in forest trees with large canopies where the nest can be built far from the main trunk. Does that mean that close to human disturbance they build their nests somewhere else?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I still think you need to restructure the status section of the intro (per my comments above) Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Improved. I removed extraneous information and retained the agreements the black stork is covered under, in the lead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay getting close:

  • A shy and wary species, unlike the closely related white stork, the black stork is seen singly or in pairs, I would shift the "unlike" to before the shy and wary, or break this sentence into two as it covers behavioural (temperament) and ecological (habitat) information, the linkages between are distinct enough to warrant separate sentences.
yeah...tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Both in the lead and the main body of the text the prose has a gloomier take on the status of the species than the IUCN does! Examples:
  • lead and appears to be declining in many parts of its range. IUCN The overall population trend is uncertain, as some populations are decreasing, while others are increasing, stable or have unknown trends
tried aligning them by adding uncertainty to lead and removing "many". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the main body of the text ''Black stork numbers have declined for many years in western Europe, and the species has already been extirpated from Scandinavia.[17] ... Its habitat is changing rapidly in much of eastern Europe and Asia IUCN in contrast The European population is estimated to be increasing (BirdLife International 2015).
  • However, the state of the population overall is not known which directly quotes the iucn, however the IUCN says uncertain. Data deficient would be unknown.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • though increasing in others such as the Iberian Peninsula in the lead but not the main text. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
it is, it's just in the Distribution and habitat section... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There's a tendency to dwell on regional threats and declines in widespread species but the overall context should not be lost. Sabine's Sunbird talk
It's very hard to balance. Err, increases are in D&H and not sure about I added most notable ups and downs to lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The IUCN Red List has two references for some reason, 1 and 42. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just a quick read through, I'll look again later. In lead, "winter rather than summer." needs northern/southern to avoid ambiguity. Also some multiple refs are not in numerical order. I made a couple of minor tweaks as I read. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

changes look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Only one to add; The black stork nests solitarily, which are usually at least 1 km (0.6 mi) apart... uses nests as a noun and a verb simultaneously, perhaps The black stork's solitary nests are usually at least 1 km (0.6 mi) apart.... Changing to support anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • Current citation 16 "MacKinnon" has OUP as an abbreviation - we don't generally use these sorts of abbreviations (and later with footnote 19, you don't use it there) Ref 27 also has OUP
Done. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 22 "WAZA. "Black Stork Reintroduction"" ... what is this referring to?
I hope it looks better. I was unable to find the date for the source. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You abbreviate "RSA" (ref 15) but spell out "United Kingdom" ... either abbreviate all countries or spell them all out.
Spelled out. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 32 (Elkins) does not have a location - you give locations for most other citations so it needs to have one also to be consistent.
Added. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 35 (Juana) needs a location of publication per above
Added. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 42 (Ciconia nigra) needs a publisher
Added. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 43 (Sidorovich) needs a location of publication
Added. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes Dressler (published in 1881) a high quality reliable source?
Author was Henry Eeles Dresser, notable ornithologist Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 16 (MacKinnon) doesn't need a full year-month-day date - a year is fine.
Resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 19 (Ali) lacks a publication date
Added year of publication. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 29 (Dymond) doesn't need a full year-month-day date.
Resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 35 (Junana) doesn't need a full year-month-day date
Resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 41 (DK) - what is DK standing for?
Written in full. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 43 (Sidorovich) doesn't need a full year-month-day date.
Resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ref 44 (Pottetz) doesn't need a full year-month-day date
Resolved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some flags that need to be checked out. The first "source" appears to be copying from Wikipedia, but the second (YouTube) doesn't have any disclaimer... it's quite likely they cribbed from Wikipedia also, but it should be checked out.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave the one bit out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Image review - seems this already looks to be getting three positive reviews, I'll give an image review to get things going. FunkMonk (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This map could need a description template on Commons:[25]
Added. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Same with this map:[26]
Added. Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you should show the juvenile, since we do have photos of it:[27][28] This one[29] shows both the nest and the juveniles well, so it could perhaps be used in place of the current nest image, to save space.
Replaced. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The video seems fairly pointless, unlike this one, which shows a foraging bird:[30]
Replaced the video. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The photo of the foraging bird doesn't have a very interesting perspective, how about one of these?[31][32]
Certainly better. Face-smile.svg Replaced it with the first one. Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The image layut seems a bit messy, perhaps trying alternating the image locations left and right.
Repositioned. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Otherwise looks good source and licence wise.

Comments by Wehwalt

  • I might move mention of its range a bit higher in the opening paragraph. My first reaction was "where does it live" and (disregarding infobox) I felt I had to dig a little to far down for that.
Moved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the info about Linneus's description of it: must it be as high as the second sentence? It seems relatively unimportant to the grand scheme of things. A solution might be to switch the present second and fourth sentences.
Moved the third and fourth paragraphs to the second and third paragraphs. Does it look good? Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "incubation. Incubation" ahem.
Gotcha! Fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I tweaked it a little differently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Various conservation measures have been taken for the black storks, like the Conservation Action Plan for African black storks by Wetlands International." I might cut the word "the"
Instead, for consistency, tweaked it to "the black storks". Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " Fossil remains have been recovered from Miocene beds Rusinga and Maboko Islands in Kenya," Should there be an "on" after "beds"? I thought the name of the beds might be what you said, but the links are to the islands.
oops. added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "it has long red legs, a long neck and a long, straight, pointed red beak." 3 x long. Possibly unavoidable, possibly not.
yeah...mused on this today...I can't see a way around this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I might link axillaries.
linked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The black stork has brown iris, and bare red skin around its eyes" I'd think you'd want a plural for iris.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "It bears some resemblance ..." I might suggest incorporating this to the previous paragraph as its third or fourth sentence.
Moved. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " It could possibly be confused with the juvenile yellow-billed stork, but the latter has paler wings and mantle, longer bill and white under the wings." I might put an "a" before longer.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " and the Levant" might "Middle East" be better than Levant? You mention Sinai, and I'm not sure "Levant" is totally current.
Ok here's the thing - "Levant" is a specific area that is more western part of ME along Mediterranean coastline. I could say - "western Middle East" I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I'd let it stand, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " Black storks summering in western Asia, migrate to northern and northeastern India" I might cut the comma
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " Black storks summering in western Asia, migrate to northern and northeastern India,[17] ranging mainly from Punjab south to Karnataka,[24] and Africa.[16] It is an occasional visitor to Sri Lanka." there's something of a tendency to switch from the singular to the plural and back again that you may want to watch in this article.
Fixed it now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "southern China, although occasionally further south, in Myanmar, northern Thailand, Hong Kong and Laos." I'm not sure Hong Kong is south of Southern China.
Good point - tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "no longer breeding in the south since 1966." I might put it "but there are no records of it breeding there since 1966". Something like that.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Similarly it has been seen in the summer in Afghanistan, but is unknown if it breeds there. [17]" I think you need a "it" before ""is unknown". There is a vagrant space before the footnote.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "A broad-winged soaring bird, the black stork is assisted by thermals of hot air for long distance flight, although are less dependent on them than the white stork.[32][33]" There might need to be an "is" before "white". There's also a grammar problem, again singular/plural
I think you mean "is" before "the white stork", to make "is the white stork"? If so, I fixed that. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "and many black storks travel south going through the Bosphorus,[33][17] " I might cut "going", also the refs are not in numerical order. Though I suspect you are doing more important first.
Removed "going". Also, I think now the refs throughout the article are in numerical order . Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The trip is around 5,667 km (3,521 mi) via the western route and 7,000 km (4,300 mi) via the eastern route, with satellite tracking yielding an average travel time of 37 and 80 days respectively[23] The western route goes over the Rock of Gibraltar of over the Bay of Gibraltar, generally on a southwesterly track that takes them to the central part of the Straight, from where they reach Morocco.[35][34] Missing full stop, and I think you mean "strait" not "Straight".
Woops! Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"The western route goes over the Rock of Gibraltar of over the Bay of Gibraltar, generally on a southwesterly track that takes them to the central part of the straight," It's a strait, not a straight, was what I was trying to say :) and I think you mean "or", not "of"--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Woops again! :P You said right; I read wrong earlier. Fixed it now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "which might be due to the frequent flapping flights " I'm not sure what is meant by this.
I didn't write that but it relates to the fact that black storks are not as heavily reliant on gliding (which requires thermals and is better done on land) as white storks, ad hence some fly across the Mediterranean to Tunisia. It was not worded well. But as the explanation occurs up the paragraph I have removed the second mention. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Pesticide use has threatened birdlife in Doñana.[37]" In the park? If outside I might toss a "nearby" in.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "A wary species, the black stork avoids contact with people.[16] It is generally found alone or in pairs, or in flocks of up to a 100 birds when migrating,[38] or over winter.[16]" Possibly better to substitute "hundred" for "100" here.
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Adults will do so when angered or as part of mating ritual. The young clatter their bills when aroused.[39]" the "aroused" might be interpreted as "sexually" given the "mating ritual" so close by.
..except that they are young that do not mate...but I see your point. Unfortunately I can't think of a tidy synonym so best I can do is swap the mating and anger in the previous sentence to distance it a little more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Here a stork positions its body horizontally and quickly bobs its head up from down-facing to around 30 degrees above horizontal and back again, and displaying the white segments of its plumage prominently, and this is repeated several times. " I might say "while displaying" rather than "and displaying"
  • "It may feed on amphibians, small reptiles, crabs, mammals and birds, and invertebrates such as snails,[1] molluscs,[43][42] earthworms, and insects such as water beetles and their larvae.[43][42]" I might try to avoid the multiple "such as".
Tweaked. Used "like" instead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The storks chose the largest trees in an area, generally on steeper ground and near streams. Trees chosen were on average over 90 years old.[45] In the Iberian peninsula it nests in pine and cork oak" an example of the switch from plural to singular.
  • ", the black stork may occupy ... and commonly reuse them in successive years." Should this be "reuses"?
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "animal-fur" I don't see why the hyphen, though it may be an ENGVAR thing.
No, and removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "sharing duties, which commences " commence?
Tweaked. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The young start flying by the end of July.[43] Fledging takes 60 to 71 days," As you've mentioned hatching at the end of May, is there a slight amount of redundancy here?
Hmm...I think the extra highlighting of a time of year is not a bad thing...sometimes these things don't awalys follow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be useful to say why they are hunted. Meat? Eggs?
The impression I get is it is for sport, but the source doesn't spell it out. I guess it's like duck shooting. they sometimes eat them but often not... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's all I have. I can't say I'm familiar with the bird, but I shall look out or it henceforth.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you guys ping me when the article's ready for another look? Much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I would ping you once your comments have been addressed. Face-grin.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
O-kay @Wehwalt: we've at least tried to answer every point as of we're ready for another lookover. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Support, looks to be as you said. Only suggestion on second look is an awful lot of paragraphs begin with "The black stork", if you can find ways to mix it up a bit, it might be good, but that's really stylistic.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess there is no more need to ping you. :P Lighting speed by Cas, as always! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is something I might ordinarily have reviewed, but if you'd rather I didn't do a full review either because all three of us are Wikicup participants, or because this has received enough scrutiny already, let me know. It would take me a few days to get to it in any case. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Not fussed either way really. I don't think the wikicup is an issue, just see if it is still around when you're going to review it and if it's still here its still here and if not then not. I'll be grateful for all input Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Jesé, a Spanish footballer who currently plays for PSG. He previously played for Real Madrid, where he made nearly 100 appearances and won five titles. The article achieved GA status on 8 January this year, featured as a DYK on 17 January, and has been improved regularly since. I look forward to your feedback. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • All of the images require ALT text.
  • The first two images in the body of the article should have the year in the caption.
  • These two sentences are awkwardly constructed and phrased and need to be revised (He became a father for the first time in the summer of 2012 at age 19, and named his son Jesé Jr. The boy lives with his mother, with whom Jesé is no longer in a relationship, in the Canary islands.). I would suggest completely rewriting these two sentences.
  • In what year, did he form Big Flow? Do you have any more information on the two singles (i.e. title, etc.)? It seems like this should be more developed.
  • I am not sure what is meant by "youth product".
  • The lead seems rather short and sparse compared to the what is presented in the body of the article.

Great work with the article. I am not familiar with these types of articles at all, but I just wanted to point out some areas that needed improvement (specifically the sentences on him being a father). Hopefully, you find my comments to be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi Aoba47, thank you for the comments. Your feedback is appreciated.

  • I have included the year in each of the image captions.
  • The section on his son has been reworded to read "His son, Jesé Jr., was born in 2012 and currently lives with the mother, with whom Jesé is no longer in a relationship, in the Canary islands."
  • It is a slight improvement, though I do not believe the phrase "with whom Jesé is no longer in a relationship" is good as it does sound somewhat awkward. I make the fact that Jesé is not in a relationship with the mother into its own sentence. Also, is there any more information on the mother (i.e. name, when they first starting dating, etc.)? The phrase "the mother" just sounds a little weird, so it would better to use the mother's name if known. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I added more info on Big Flow - turns out the band has disbanded so it was good that you brought that up
  • Youth product is a commonly used football turn from someone who comes out of a club's youth academy - I have changed it to academy graduate which is clearer.
  • I've expanded the lead a little bit, added some elements from the body to the relevant sections and added a line on his musical career.

Let me know what you think. Thanks again, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your response. I just had a quick comment about the revisions to the part about this child, but otherwise, everything looks good. I am going to stay out of the support/oppose votes as I am not familiar enough with this subject matter to cast a decision either way. Good luck with this! Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Would you mind having a look at the Personal Life section one more time - I've added some new info that I think makes it flow better. Thank you very much for the feedback and assistance. It is appreciated. Liam E. Bekker (talk)
  • It looks a lot better; the only small comment that I have is that I do not believe you need the descriptive phrase in front of Instagram (i.e. social media platform) so I think you can safely remove that. Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Lemonade51 – Been a while since I've edited here, let alone review an article. Doesn't look as though the criteria has changed dramatically.

  • It's always worth having a look at FA-related articles for inspiration, and to get the gist of what is required in terms of sourcing and structure. If you have a look at Theirry Henry and John Wark for instance, their articles start chronologically. Both satisfy 1(b) of the criteria because it doesn't neglect any major info and there is context. Now when skim reading Jese's entry you'll notice it starts with his football career; his early years are tucked away in the personal life section. Think you should separate them.
  • Any ideas on how Jese got into football?
  • In the lead, "Outside of football he is also a musician," also is superfluous here  Done
  • "His form at youth level for the club saw him attract interest from La Liga sides Espanyol, Mallorca and Barcelona, but he elected to sign for Real Madrid's youth system," how about opted?  Done
  • "Jesé made his senior debut with the Real Madrid Castilla side," replace with for  Done
  • "...drew early comparisons to fellow Real Madrid teammate and multiple Ballon d'Or winner, Cristiano Ronaldo," again, superfluous
  • Not sure manager needs to be wikilinked
  • WP:WEIGHT could be an issue, how do you explain '2013–14' warranting one section?

My major concern is the article's stability, which is natural given Jesé's playing career is active. I think it could do with a copyedit and having a look at the reference section, some sources raise a red flag. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I haven't read this article yet, but I share Lemonade51's concerns about stability. Every article that I can remember at FAC about an active player has slipped appallingly after promotion as the nominator has not stayed around to keep the article up to date and of the required quality. Most have ended up at FAR. Part of me wonders how we can be certain that this will be stable? Perhaps this is something that should be discussed at WT:FAC, but this is a good starting point as I don't think we've had many nominations for current sportspeople recently. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1:The stability criterion was originally intended to address instability at the time of promotion -- editwars and so on -- which meant there was no stable version to be reviewed. The point you're making has come up before, though I don't recall it specifically in the context of sports figures. I don't think we've ever had consensus to regard articles on people whose noteworthy accomplishments are still in process as unstable in the sense of 1e. Personally I think it does mean an article is more likely to be demoted, since some primary authors will fail to maintain them, but I think it would be difficult (and unfair) to make that a criterion for promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Response to Lemonade51

Hi Lemonade51, my apologies for the delay in responding. Thank you for the feedback.

  • I'll try and tweak the page in the coming days to get it to flow chronologically and also to address the minor concerns.
  • As for the 2013–14 season, it was separated because it's kind of the period (though short) between his youth years and his struggles after injury. I can try and trim it and incorporate it into the other two sub-headings if you think that would work better?.
  • Please see below response to Sarastro re: stability

Thanks again for the feedback, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to Sarastro1

Hi Sarastro1, I understand yours and Lemonade's concerns given that he is an active player. I hadn't given stability much consideration in truth. For what it is worth, and you can have a look on my user page, I consistently maintain all of my created and GA articles as regularly as possible so the page won't be neglected while I'm here. What do you think would be the best way to proceed? Thanks for the feedback as well. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited a little; please revert as needed.

  • "Jesé's success drew praise from several quadrants with the player being described as the jewel in the crown of Los Blancos' academy": the source doesn't really support "several quadrants": it's really about Perez's opinion, with an additional comment that the "training ground" considers him a future star, though it's hard to know if this is just journalistic hyperbole.  Done
  • " behaviour ultimately contributing to the club's decision": We haven't heard anything about off-field behaviour to this point, except for the comments about Mourinho years before. I think this needs clarification.

That's it for prose; the article is in good shape. I will try to find time to do a spotcheck and possibly a source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to Mike

Hi Mike Christie, thank you for the review. It is most appreciated. I'll try and tackle your concerns (and the remaining points from other reviewers) this weekend. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

ZETA (fusion reactor)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Mike Christie

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

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

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

Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

When waiting for the train in Seattle, you may find yourself heading underground and having to wait for buses that pull up at the very same platform (abutted by lovely pieces of art and architecture). This is a rather unique arrangement in the United States, only Pittsburgh does something similar (but without any stations), so the transit tunnel is treasured as an odd piece of our transportation system. It carries tens of thousands of train and bus commuters each day and forms the backbone of the regional train and bus network. This article has been the product of a few years of on-and-off writing, so hopefully it's as cohesive and consistent as I think it is. SounderBruce 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Disclaimer: This article is being nominated as part of the ongoing WikiCup competition. SounderBruce 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Sorry this is a bit OT for this page, but is this really unique? I seem to recall something similar if not identical in Boston (trams and metros at a minimumn), and there are several stations like this here in Toronto. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: The Seattle tunnel is entirely unique because trains and buses share the same platforms and tracks/road in the tunnel. The Boston Silver Line tunnel is entirely bus-only, and I'm not sure if I've ever seen a similar situation in Toronto (granted, I've never visited either city and am going off information gleaned from the web). SounderBruce 02:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This TTCs page shows the layout of St. Clair West. As you can see, busses and trams run on the same underground level, and they definitely run over the same tracks. This image shows a bus leaving the platform, while driving on the rails. This one shows a tram on the same ramp. At the bottom of the ramp the rails make a 90-degree left turn, run around a peninsular-shaped platform with stops along it. The trams and busses have alternate stops along the platform and the track is doubled to allow streetcars to bypass stalled ones. Similar situations exist at Union where the trams along Queen's Quay also alternate with busses on occasion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The Seattle tunnel is somewhat different from your Toronto example, but it is still quite fascinating, so thanks for sharing. In the Seattle tunnel, buses and trains share the same raised platform, which allows for level boarding for both low-floor buses and low-floor light rail vehicles; since the buses aren't quite made for this kind of setup, the mirrors stick out at head level and have to have strobe lights attached so people aren't hit. The tunnel is also operated differently (I assume), with a central control center and signals that prevent buses and trains from getting too close to each other when traveling in the same direction; it's not uncommon to see buses and trains stopped in the tunnel approaching a station, waiting for the platform to clear. The tunnel has also been the driver of two unique bus technologies: dual-mode buses that switched to electric overhead wires back when it opened in 1990 (since converted to normal trolleybuses and retired); and hybrid electric buses that switch to electric batteries when operating in the tunnel, which lacks ventilation for diesel buses. SounderBruce 23:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The Toronto buses are also hybrids on a route that formerly had trolley busses (briefly), the trams and buses stop at the same raised platform to allow direct low-floor entry (low-floor trams arrived in the last couple of years), and there is a control booth on the platform controlling signals at the bottom of the ramp that often lead to backups of buses and trams on the ramps. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Seems like there is good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The first image shows the actual tunnel tubes, which I deem important enough for the infobox. The tunnel's portals (another option for the infobox image) are quite hard to photograph due to security and lighting. SounderBruce 14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look - mostly ok so far...

Metro unveiled its tentative plans for the bus tunnel in January 1984 - I know what you mean but tentative strikes me as an odd word..."initial" , "preliminary" fit better methinks.
A minor scandal involving the bus tunnel project emerged in late 1988 Eddie Rye Jr. of the Black Contractors Coalition notified Metro that the granite to be received by Metro for the stations had been sourced from South Africa. - are we missing a period or comma from the middle of this?
Looks like a few sentences were misplaced during an earlier edit. I've restored and tweaked them for better flow. SounderBruce 00:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, looking good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "served by buses from King County Metro and Sound Transit Express" I did a double take on this as it sounded at first like the names of terminuses, not operators. I suggest changing "from" to "operated by". I also suggest explaining that they are public authorities, not private companies. (I don't know about the US situation, but in Britain almost all public transport is now run by private companies.)
    • In the United States, the vast majority of public buses are run by public authorities, so I don't think this warrants a separate explanation.
  • "Soft openings of the five tunnel stations" What are soft openings?
    • Added a link and synonym (public previews)
  • "The roadway was lowered to 8 inches" lowered by 8 inches?
    • Fixed.
  • No change needed, but a lot of money must have been spent making several major changes to the system in a short period.
    • Despite that, it was cheaper than building a new tunnel for $1 billion. Our light rail system comes out to about $220 million per mile (which is almost as expensive as a proper subway).
  • "has been on hold since 2009." This should be as of a specified date, as it may become out of date in the future.
    • Decided to toss that sentence out, as it is covered in the station article...and the project has been cancelled entirely and handed to a new developer and architect.
  • This is a very good article, but far too detailed in places. Running schedules are liable to frequent change, and belong on the companies' websites, not in a Wikipedia article. Minor glitches in construction are not relevant in a general article about the tunnel. I would suggest you consider hiving off the construction to a separate article with a briefer summary here. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The running schedules for light rail don't change often (only three times over the last 8 years) and are well-documented. I think they warrant inclusion as a pretty basic measure of tunnel service levels (which can be compared to the theoretical capacity listed). As for the construction, I'm hesitant to split or reduce some of the details because I feel the balance of the history section is ideal as it is (with construction and operations being the same length, roughly). SounderBruce 23:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness Comments by Finetooth

Really interesting article. The prose is generally excellent, but I have a few suggestions and questions, as noted below.
  • I don't think so many terms need to be linked more than once in the main text. (I unlinked the only two duplicates that I found in the lede.) WP:DUPLINK has guidelines and exceptions.
  • Removed almost every duplicate link. A few were repeated in the history section to help clarify things (mostly bus-related terms).
  • I like the clickable map in the upper right-hand corner. I didn't know something like this was possible.
  • The magic of KMLs! They work well for road articles, but I think they have potential in other transportation fields.
  • ¶1 "...shared with Sound Transit, who signed..." – "which" rather than "who"?
  • Rewrote the sentence to remove some of the detail.
  • ¶2 " back to the 1910s and 1920s..." – Remove "back", which doesn't add anything?
  • Dropped the "back" and rewrote the sentence a bit.
  • ¶3 "The downtown transit tunnel is planned to lose its bus service during the permanent closure of Convention Place station in 2019; from that point on, the tunnel will be used only by light rail trains." – Recast to replace the passive "is planned to lose"? Suggestion: "Plans call for the downtown transit tunnel to lose its bus service...".
  • Reworded.
Routes and stations
  • ¶1 "There is a total of 11 wheelchair-accessible elevators to the tunnel stations, as mandated by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Department of Transportation." – This sentence stopped me both times through. How about "A total of 11 wheelchair-accessible elevators, mandated by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Department of Transportation, connect the tunnel stations to the surface."?
  • Dropped the part about the ADA and USDOT, since the former did not take effect until after the tunnel opened.
  • ¶2 I may just not be seeing it, but it seems that the three bays are A, C, and D. Why no Bay B?
  • Bay B was removed in 2016, when Route 255 was moved to Bay A. It is still noted on maps, but I can't find a reference to it actually being deleted. (Also, there's still a pole on the platform where it used to be)
How do you know it was removed in 2016? Personal observation, I'm guessing. If you can find a reliable source for this, it would be worth adding. Finetooth (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Personal observation. There is a source showing Route 255 being moved to Bay A, but nothing discussing Bay B being eliminated.
  • ¶1 "subsequent loss of motor vehicle excise tax revenue" - Hyphenate "motor-vehicle"?
  • Most documents and news sources omit the hyphen when referring to the tax.
OK. Finetooth (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Previous subway proposals
  • ¶1 "stations on the line would have additional entrances" – "were to have" rather than "would have" since it didn't actually happen.
  • Fixed.
  • ¶2 "The line would be connected to surface and elevated lines..." – "was to" rather than "would be"?
  • Fixed.
  • ¶3 "instead allocated to Atlanta, Georgia, to build their rapid transit system." – A city is an "it". So "its" rather than "their"?
  • Fixed.
Bus tunnel proposal and approval
  • ¶1 "It was suggested by Metro officials and engineering consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff as part of a series of proposals from a task force on studying solutions to downtown traffic were unable to find suitable alternatives." – I'm not sure what this sentence means.
  • Rewritten, hopefully in a clearer way.
  • ¶1 "The proposal gained further support from Metro Transit in their long-term "Metro 1990" plan, adopted in 1981, in which a transit mall or tunnel under 3rd Avenue carrying buses to be converted for a light rail system was suggested by the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG)." – Split and then flip the passive voice at the end? Suggestion: "The proposal gained further support from Metro Transit in its long-term "Metro 1990" plan, adopted in 1981. It incorporated the suggestion of the Puget Sound Council of Governments (PSCOG) that a transit mall or tunnel under 3rd Avenue should carry buses that could be converted for a light rail system." Or something like that.
  • Rewritten to split Metro from PSCOG.
  • ¶2 "The Metro Transit Committee debated the inclusion of the bus tunnel in the environmental impact assessment of the Downtown Seattle Transit Project well into 1983, with Seattle members opposing the tunnel in favor of a transit mall and suburban members supporting a bus tunnel that would be converted to a light rail system connecting Seattle to Snohomish County proposed by the PSCOG." – This one is confusing too. I think the sentence would be more clear if split into two sentences, but even then I'm not sure what "proposed by the PSCOG" is modifying.
  • Moved the light rail proposal up to the last paragraph and slimmed this sentence down. Should be a bit clearer.
  • ¶4 "were declared "nearly complete", with only minor work left to complete." – Rephrase slightly to avoid repeating "complete". Maybe "only minor work still undone".
  • Done.
  • ¶4 "Tunnel construction was declared complete..." – Maybe substitute "finished" for "complete" here to further reduce the repetition of "complete" in this paragraph.
  • Done.
South African granite scandal
  • ¶1 "Metro determined that replacing the 24,000 square feet (2,200 m2) of granite would cost $500,000 and delay both stations, but would not affect the overall budget or anticipated beginning of service in 1990." – If it cost a half-million dollars, how could it not affect the overall budget?
  • Most projects of this scale have contingency funds (or float) that cover unexpected circumstances. I'll try to fit that note in.
  • ¶1 Was the granite removed? If so, where did it go?
  • The granite was never put into the stations, so no removal was necessary. As far as I can tell, from asking around Metro's archives department and asking people involved, no one really knows where the granite went.
Ah. I think it would be good to add that it had not been installed, if you have an RS for that. Since the quantity of granite is listed in the article as square footage, I assumed that was the total surface area of the installed benches and walls, which then had to be uninstalled, making everyone unhappy.
According to one of the news articles at the tail end of the scandal, the granite was never delivered and returned to the Italian supplier. Added that to the article. SounderBruce 23:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Finetooth (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "Metro Director Alan Gibbs confirmed that the granite was quarried in South Africa during a press conference on January 25, 1989, while preparing an investigative report for the Metro Council Transit Committee scheduled for February 2." – Maybe recast to avoid suggesting that the granite was quarried during a press conference?
  • Rewritten.
  • @Finetooth: Thanks for the review! I think I've addressed all of your points. SounderBruce 04:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
All looks fine with the possible exception of my remaining question about the granite scandal. It may be that there is no RS to answer this question and no RS to say when Bay B disappeared, but if you find sources, please add them. This is a fine article, and I'm switching to support on prose and comprehensiveness, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Steve Biko

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC); Vanamonde

This GA-rated article is about one of the most famous South Africans in modern history, a man who is probably the second most prominent icon of the anti-apartheid movement (after Nelson Mandela, whom I successfully brought through the FAC process earlier this year). The fortieth anniversary of Biko's death (killed in police custody) is coming up on 12 September 2017 and it would be really good if we could get this to FA status well before then so that it can be listed as the TFA on that date. With that in mind it would be fantastic if we could have some comments from other editors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • This text is a simple commandment or warning; there is no reason (that I can determine) for it to be in copyright. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There were a large range of variations on this theme. It does not seem likely that they would have been copyrighted at the time, or that anyone would be likely to claim copyright now or in the future. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Fist.svg: Use seems fine, source information is missing however.
  • The upload date at Wikipedia predates the external website, suggesting that the other website took the image from Wikimedia/Wikipedia rather than vice versa. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it further, so am I. South Africa still has a law dating from the 1970s banning any freedom of panorama for public artworks. That means that this sculpture, and any photographic representations of it, are restricted under copyright. I've removed the image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

No ALT text as far as I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I have gone through and added alt-text to each of the images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support by Gerda

Thank you for undertaking the topic!


  • I think his common name should be above the image, I understand that's Steve Biko.
  • More organizations, fewer children?
  • I've left the children, but added an "Organizations" section listing SASO and the BPC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


  • I suggest to mention the pseudonym later, first say what he did.

Early life

  • How about more chronology, like letting the parents get married before having children? Could be called background, if needed.
  • Preferably I'd like to avoid the creation of a new "Background" section. Here I have followed the example that I have found successful with political biography articles like Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin by adding a little bit of family background into the 'early life'. I'm open to moving the sentence about his siblings, but am unsure where to position it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Xhosa, Afrikaans, and English were all spoken", - can you turn it around, for people who don't know that Xhosa is a language?
  • I would personally rather see Xhosa mentioned first given that Biko was from a Xhosa family. What does Vanamonde93 think? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd agree: Xhosa being Biko's native tongue, leading with that makes sense to me. Vanamonde (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Anything we can do about "The township housed both Bantu African and Coloured individuals, and Xhosa, Afrikaans, and English were all spoken." - I understand that "individual" sometimes is understood as a negative way to speak about a person, and don't like passive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I've changed "individuals" to "people"; and I've changed the structure of the sentence to the following; "Both Bantu African and Coloured people lived in the township, where Xhosa, Afrikaans, and English were all spoken". How does that work? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
That works for me, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "His family were Christians,[5] and he was brought up as an adherent of the Anglican denomination of Christianity." Sounds complicated. I'd say: "His family were Anglican Christians.
  • Mzingaye? Mzingayi?
  • "Alice's family was forced to live on the limited income that she earned." I'd say: "The family was forced to live on the limited income that Alice earned."
  • "Khaya" - perhaps remind us "his brother Khaya" - I had to look it up.
  • quote introduced by "he", switching to "I"
  • Used "He" within square brackets inside the quote. Vanamonde (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Biko developed a growing political consciousness" - developed and growing seem to rather say the same.

Developing SASO

  • "a meeting among themselves" - why not "a meeting"?
  • I believe that "Black is beautiful" is lead material.
  • I'm certainly open to this possibility but am not quite sure where to position it. The third paragraph is likely the most appropriate place, but it is eight sentences long already and if we add anything I think we need to remove something else. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've given it a shot, by moving some other stuff as well. The third paragraph is a bit long, but now at least BC ideology is all within one paragraph. Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

More to come. Again thank you!

Many thanks, Gerda. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for adjusting, all but one fixed. It may take more time until I can read more, please be patient. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Black People's ...

  • Image caption: "Donald Woods, who wrote a book about Biko after the latter's death", - I think we can safely say "after his death" because Wood could hardly do it after his own?


  • I wonder if that is a neutral header. In German, it has negative connotations, while Ideas sounds positive.
  • The term "ideology" does not have the same negative connotations in English (I once heard someone say that "ideology" has negative connotations in German because of the term's association with Nazism and Marxism-Leninism; I wonder if that is true...). I really do not think that "Ideas" would work. "Political thought" might be an alternative, but generally I think that "Ideology" is best; we use "Political ideology" in the FA-rated Vladimir Lenin and Nelson Mandela articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Learning. In German, it means something extreme, which is often intolerant of any other view/idea/philosophy/concept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
In English, "ideology" applies as equally to liberalism or conservatism as it does to more extreme world-views like Nazism. Perhaps that has something to do with the greater political stability that Britain has experienced in the past century or two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "... and forms of Christianity, with black theology being described as Black Consciousness' "twin movement"." - Sorry, I don't understand it. Perhaps a bit more about black theology?
  • I've gone with this, how does this work: "Other movements that have been cited as influences on Black Consciousness include the United States-based Black Power movement and forms of Christianity; one form of Christianity, black theology, has been described as Black Consciousness' "twin movement".". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Makes me happy but for the repetition of the very general "forms of Christianity". Church? Ideas? Suggestion: "The Christian black theology ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I've restructured this whole sentence as the following: "Additional influences on Black Consciousness were the United States-based Black Power movement, and forms of Christianity like the activist-oriented black theology.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "When he met Biko for the first time, Woods expressed his concern" - after a while of talking about Biko, the reader doesn't get that this "he" is someone else.
  • I've moved this sentence to the "The Black People's Convention and Biko's Banning: 1971–77" section, where the wording should not be a problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Similarly: "Because they contained white individuals in dominant positions of control, Biko and his comrades regarded ..." - it's too late that we know who "they" means here, ... followed a bit later by a "he" that is not not clear.
  • I've restructured this sentence as follows: "Biko and his comrades regarded multi-racial anti-apartheid groups as unwittingly replicating the structure of apartheid because they contained white individuals in dominant positions of control." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "One of the ways that Biko and the Black Consciousness sought to achieve this was through community development." - not clear what "this" means here.
  • Replaced "this" to "psychological empowerment". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

See also

  • I don't care much about (any) see also section, - mixed topics. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Happy with changes, support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt - many thanks for both the review and the statement of support. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support by Indy beetle

  • I think the further reading section should not be listed as a component of "References". It's slightly misleading and might be better if given its own section. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Indy beetle, that's a fair point, which I have addressed now. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Indy beetle thanks for your comment. Did you have any other comments, and if not would you consider offering your support for this nomination? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Honestly I only made the comment as sort of a "drive-by" thing but this article deserves to be the best of the best so I'll make a few more. Prose only, really, as I have very limited technical knowledge in this area:

  • In the third paragraph in the lead it says, "The government was concerned by the movement". Generally, one is concerned about something, not by something. Perhaps a word like "disturbed" would be better?
  • I've replaced "by" with "about". Personally I think "concerned" works better with "disturbed", which I find might be a little strong. Certainly open to other possible alternatives though. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll leave this one up to you and the other reviewers, but I find "crèche" to be a rather obscure word for the lead. Would "healthcare facility and day care centre" not be a suitable alternative for that sentence?
  • When I see "day care" I immediately think of the United States. I'm not really sure if it is a term that has a great deal of acceptance outside of that country. The common British term would for instance be "nursery"; I do not know what the usual term in South Africa is, but the RS cited uses "crèche". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Crèche is fairly common usage in S.A. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the early life section it says "He later noted that after this experience, he "began to develop an attitude which was much more directed at authority than at anything else. [He] hated authority like hell."" If Biko's word really were "I began to develop an attitude which was much more directed at authority than at anything else. I hated authority like hell." if might be best to use the "I"s instead of the "he"s for better flow. When it says "He later noted that after this experience," it implies that he would be talking, and people generally speak in the first person about themselves. Hope this makes sense.
  • I get what you mean. I have reformulated the sentence so that "I" is now used in the appropriate junctures rather than "[he]". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Developing SASO section it says "Biko stood down from the presidency after a year". Shouldn't this say "stepped down"?
    That works better. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Response to death and investigation section it says, "Biko's death attracted far more attention worldwide than he had during his lifetime." I see what this means here, but perhaps it could be revised to say "Biko's death attracted far more attention worldwide than he had himself during his lifetime" or "In death, Biko attracted far more attention worldwide than he had during his lifetime." Once again I'll leave this up to you and the other reviewers.
  • I have made some amendments on the basis of your suggestions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That's all I have to say. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

On that note I'm happy to support this article for FA status. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sarah SV

I've moved the previous discussion to the talk page, per WP:FAC. SarahSV (talk) 05:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Remaining issues are: can a few more sentences be added about his death, and can the nominators clarify the issue of his first and middle names? Lots of sources call him Stephen Bantu Biko. SarahSV (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, SV. I am okay with your copyedits, but I would like MBO to look at them before moving on. I will investigate the issue of names. More content on Biko's death may also have to wait for MBO's sources, though I will take a look at that too. Vanamonde (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Vanamonde93. I'll wait to hear from Midnightblueowl. Regarding the name, MBO changed it on 14 June in response to Talk:Steve Biko/GA1 and noticing that RS and the gravestone say Bantu Stephen Biko. See File:StevenBantuBiko'sGrave.jpg. But RS also say Stephen Bantu Biko. This poster says Bantu Stephen, and this one says Stephen Bantu. His book, I Write What I Like, calls him Stephen Bantu. SarahSV (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It might be that there is not a single 'correct' way of arranging his name, and that he used both during his lifetime. Truth be told, I just don't know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl, thanks. The Steve Biko Foundation writes "the legacy of Bantu Stephen Biko". Biko's wife is a trustee, so it looks as though you made the right choice. SarahSV (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Slim. I've removed the recently added Mandela quote from the lede as I was not really sure if it was appropriate at that juncture. In part, Mandela's comments on Biko may have been part of unifying different black factions in post-apartheid South Africa, and thus may have been a form of propaganda or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
MBO, SlimVirgin, and John: While I have no problems with any of your individual edits/suggestions for the last paragraph of the lead, the end result is that to me the paragraph as a whole look very short and insubstantial, almost like it has been tacked on to include material we were not able to fit elsewhere. I think we need to beef it up a little. I think a quote is one option; a statement about his political importance is another; a statement about his status as the first anti-apartheid activist known internationally is a third. Thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is the version of the final lead paragraph that I've preferred so far. We need the introductory sentence to lead into the criticism. And I liked the Mandela quote that Vanamonde93 added. I'm not sure I understood the point about it being propaganda; it seems to be true from any perspective. But if not that, then something else that signifies his importance. SarahSV (talk) 05:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I also think that we need the "During his lifetime Biko attracted criticism from various fronts" wording to introduce the fourth paragraph. However, I feel that the Mandela quote does not come across as particularly 'Wikipedia-esque' when placed at this juncture. It reads like the sort of thing that we would find in a press article rather than an encyclopaedia. A Mandela quote has been selected because Mandela is a 'big name' but the quote in question was produced at a point in time when Mandela was trying to unify various black political factions in the post-apartheid era. He was thus trying to quell rivalry between his ANC and the Black Consciousness movement and his quote must be seen in this context. For this reason I am really unconvinced as to whether it can be regarded lede material; however, I am not totally and utterly opposed to the use of the quote and if everyone else disagrees with me on this point then I will go along with the majority decision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl, if you're not keen on that quote, that's fine by me. Are you or Vanamonde93 willing to add a bit more about the death? There are currently only two sentences in the death section on what is thought to have happened in the hospital (third paragraph): "On 11 September, police loaded him into the back of a Land Rover, naked and manacled, and drove him 740 miles (1,190 km) to the hospital.[140] There, Biko died alone in a cell on 12 September 1977." SarahSV (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it has to be the quote, but I do think the last lede paragraph needs something more. If you folks are not too particular about what that could be, I will try to add something later today or tomorrow (busy elsewhere on Wikipedia and in RL...). Vanamonde (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin and Midnightblueowl: I've pondered this some more, and I think one possible solution would be to break the third paragraph, and combine Biko's death into the fourth. Another option would be to add a sentence about the continued relevance of his thought. The only other alternative I'm seeing is the Mandela quote, which MBO has expressed reservations about, because the other good quotes have either been removed, or are redundant with what we have. Vanamonde (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't really like the idea of moving the death into the fourth paragraph to be honest (in fact I'd rather the Mandela quote!). I think it might be worth mentioning that he has been the subject of various songs and artworks, that various places are named after him, and that political parties have argued over the ownership of his legacy. That would all fit well with the general 'reception and legacy' theme of that fourth paragraph. How does that sound, Vanamonde? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: I've gone with something similar; mentioning those various aspects is a good idea, as individually they would be out of place, perhaps. Since we're mentioning books and artwork I also moved the book and film, which fits better there, IMO. Take a look; if you don't like it, we can work it out. Also, a general question; ordinarily, I think we'd want three or four detailed reviews at FAC, but I'm wondering if we need another for this one, given the importance of the subject, and the contentiousness of some of the material; I had six reviewers for starship troopers, and that was definitely a good thing...Given the level of support it has, we wouldn't be wrong in asking the TFA coordinators to reserve 12 September even while this is here. Vanamonde (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I enquired about reserving the date from a TFA coordinator a few weeks ago; they suggested that I get the article passed as an FA before they would consider it. Generally, I'm happy with the number of reviews that this article has received; certainly it has had enough to pass as an FA. Additional reviews are always useful, but given that time if breathing down our neck on this one, I think it best to get this thing wrapped up as soon as we can. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go ahead and support this because it needs time to be promoted and make its way through the TFA process for 12 September. I would like to see more added about his death, but overall it's excellent work. SarahSV (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


What a super article! I've read it twice and read through this review. I am minded to support, but I may have comments subsequent to the minor copyedits I performed. Great work. --John (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I now support. The article isn't perfect but think it is good enough. --John (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@John: Thanks for the support. Since you mention it, what do you think it would need to be perfect? Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877

Nominator(s): Timothyjosephwood 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is part of a series on the events of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 as they occurred in particular cities. This is my first FA nomination, so feel free to correct anything I haven't done correctly. TimothyJosephWood 16:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009: Some good work here, and a really interesting theme. A couple of quick thoughts:

  • Worth giving it a scrub for metric/imperial equivalents.
  • Also worth checking for abbreviations, e.g "when this wasn't feasible"
  • And for underlinking (e.g. "Springfield breech loading rifle" could be usefully linked)
  • And check that each reference is in a consistent style (e.g. do you give just publisher, or location and publisher etc.)
  • My main issue is the use of the newspapers of the period as reliable secondary sources. In some cases, you're carefully attributing the information to the newspaper, which makes clear that it's not a statement that's been reviewed by a modern historian, but a contemporary piece of press reporting ("On July 26, The Sun reported 3,000 draymen, 600 oil men, and 1,500 stevedores out of work as a result of the embargo.") We don't really know if this is accurate or not, but it is clear that it is a newspaper statement. In other cases, a newspaper account is listed as fact, e.g. "There was a general hope that owing to the imminent increase in traffic due to the transportation of harvested crops, the fireman would be able to make daily trips, and that the company could arrange for them to return home on passenger trains when this wasn't feasible, which would save them from the burden of long layovers away from home." I'd be strongly advising an article on labour disputes in the 19th century to be drawing whenever possible on reliable modern academic sources, and to be extremely scrupulous about attributing any press material to the newspaper concerned. (WP:PRIMARY would apply here).
  • Images look generally fine, but I note that :File:Great Railroad Strike plaque, Baltimore 01 (cropped).jpg is justified by "Marker placed by the Maryland Historical Trust, who retains neither copyright for the physical representation of the marker nor the text." - I can't see any explanation for why this should be the case. The uploader, Permstrump, implies that he/she is acting on behalf of the Trust in releasing the text in the image, but there is no evidence for this, and the licensing then conflicts with the justification, arguing that the Trust owns the copyright to the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I will work to address the issues identified. As to the image, we went around with this for a couple of weeks, and in the end I just emailed them, and they were the ones who confirmed that they don't retain copyright on the markers. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The email confirming that they've released the text under the license on the file needs to be registered on the OTRS system on Wikimedia. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I've largely taken care of the issues above, except for emailing OTRS, which I will take care of tonight or this weekend as soon as I find the email. Just to clarify, the image was taken by the user, I requested it myself, but the copyright issue wasn't the image, but the likeness in the sense that it was a... sort of sculpture for copyright purposes and freedom of panorama only applies to inhabited/inhabitable buildings. TimothyJosephWood 19:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
As an update, the article currently contains 45 separate references to period newspaper articles. Nine of these have not been attributed, because the news article is used along side another secondary source for the claim supported. The remaining 36 citations have been attributed either to the paper by name, or referenced variously as new stories or news reports. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

comments from auntieruth I reviewed this at GA and thought it was interesting and well done at that level. I guess I assumed it would go through the MilHist A class review first, before here, but so be it.

I agree with HcHc2009 that that there is a great reliance on the newspapers, which in the nineteenth century were notoriously unreliable and likely to be owned by a local capitalist. Whether it's too great or not, I'm not sure. It would help to see a separate list of sources that segregates scholarly works from the newspapers. This way we could see where the weight actually lies.
There also needs to be greater explanation of the Long Depression, as a world-wide phenomenon and its impact on wages throughout the US and indeed the world, particularly iin areas of rapidly expanded industrialization. It doesn't need to be much, but we need some greater context other than the
There also needs to be greater clarity of how this strike fits into the broader strikes that spread across the country. I thought the day-by-day blows of what led to the strike could be condensed into paragraphs, instead of their own headings--again, for GA, it worked for me, but for Wikipedia's best work, it doesn't. You mention the Great Railroad strike 1877 in the lead but not in the body of the article, and this strike had a ripple effect across the country, beginning in Martinsburg and spreading outward.
It is underlinked. For example, I added link to Community_College_of_Baltimore_County. there are several others that need linking.
Re the Marker: I suggest you contact [email protected] and ask whether the marker is Fair Use. auntieruth (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Nancy isn't who I contacted originally, but she was who I was eventually put into contact with. I have forwarded the email from September to OTRS for verification.
As to underlinking, I went through the whole thing and linked everything I could think of yesterday. If there's much more I'm afraid I'm missing it.
  • it's better now.
As to sources, the lions share of the article relies on McCabe, Dacus, and Meekins, all secondary overviews of the national riots in which Baltimore is a chapter or two, but all themselves 19th Century, and accounting for a combined 84 citations between them. Stover, Stowell, and Laurie feature most prominently among modern sources, with a combined 20 citations. The heaviest reliance on period news (where there is not also concurrent secondary citation) is in the sections following the end of open violence, because most of the sources start to drop off in detail at this point, and move on to the "exciting stuff" elsewhere, namely things like burning half of Pittsburgh to the ground (see Pittsburgh railway riots), and don't really concern themselves with things like the price of cabbage or how many idle ships are in the harbor.
Part of the problem with nineteenth century sources is their tendency to exaggerate. Such sentences as The first parade of the 5th Regiment through the city following the crisis was on October 15. They marched that day with 400 counted among their ranks could be adjusted with some judicious qualifications: "On 15 October, the 5th Regiment's first post-crisis parade included (according to contemporary accounts) 400 men of the regiment." This way you document what the contemporary sources say without giving them undue weight. auntieruth (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
To the content issues, I can try to work on those after the next few days, and maybe start digging back through the state archives and other sources. Right now I've wasted most of my morning on Commons, and I have to go adult for a while. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Adulting does us all in, doesn't it!  :) You could use a phrase in the lead that refers to the Depression and economc woes of the late 1870s. auntieruth (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. I also tried to address all of your concerns above, by adding more context in the first section, and redoing the headers throughout. As to the newspapers, as I indicate above, I have trimmed some that just wasn't central to the story, some I have left unattributed in cases where the newspaper is only one of multiple citations used for the content (often in cases where many sources are cited as giving estimates), and in 36 other cases the news should now be properly attributed in the prose. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
AuntieRuth, at the risk of being a little pedantic, the Commons can't accept fair use justifications; the questions have to be: a) who owns the copyright to the text on the sign?; and, b) if the Maryland Government does own the copyright, have they agreed to release it under the licence stated? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
To be even more pedantic (it just goes down hill from here), the issue wasn't necessarily the text itself, but the entire three dimensional presentation of the marker as a public sculpture. The picture itself was taken by the editor standing on the street corner (not taken from Maryland's archives), and so they own the copyright to the "image", but freedom of panorama doesn't apply to 3D works of non-human-inhabitable public "art" in the US, so if the "art" takes up a substantial portion of the image (see also Commons:De minimis), then the rights of Maryland to the "representation" or "likeness" of the marker still applies, except they claim no copyright for the representation, and they're the only ones who can, so the original copyright of the image, of which a portion is made up of the "likeness", should be retained by the editor who took the picture. TimothyJosephWood 18:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Under US law, though, you have copyright over your text/work regardless of whether you "claim" it. You can explicitly release your work into the Public Domain, or under various other suitable licences, but that would need to be recorded using OTRS, using the email that you're lodging with the system. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the image pending verification. TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Reviewing the text once more:

  • Vice President (with caps) refers to the political office. Without caps, it refers to a corporate or academic office. This occurs several times....
  • Remember to link the first instance in the body of the article (such as Baltimore). auntieruth (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review (in addition to the marker issues noted above)

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:Camden_Station_in_1865.jpg: reprint was published 1990 - when was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I... fairly thought it was a settled issue since it was taken in the US, and in apparently 1865, meaning that if the author were literally born on the day they took the image, they would have needed to have lived to the age of 82, in order for 70 years to not have elapsed since their death. TimothyJosephWood 22:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
That depends on when it was first published - see this chart. Life+70 isn't a blanket rule in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I've hit a dead end on this one. It's originally credited to the B&O Museum but I was unable to find it on their digitized archives, and the 1990 book doesn't give any other indication about the history of it. It's available from dozens of other sites, but it's been on commons for almost ten years, so they may be taking their lead from us on the copyright status. I have contacted both the original uploader, who is an admin on commons and so hopefully more capable than I, as well as the museum itself via email. TimothyJosephWood 14:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the image for now, pending verification. TimothyJosephWood 16:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria: The uploader has verified the original publication date of the image and added the details to the image description. It has now been added back into the article. TimothyJosephWood 18:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Tintor2

The article is in good shape but there are somethings bothering me:

  • Removing the Google Books links. I have been criticized about them in the past due to copyright violations.
  • Using the archive bot, I archived all references. This is needed for the source review, so don't worry about archiving them
  • Avoid one or two sentence paragraphs long. Imagine you are writing a formal letter.

Ping me when you solved the issues. Also, I would appreciate if you could comment on the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3. Regards and good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Tintor2. I have also archived a few cite webs, and removed the google books urls from works not in the public domain. I have tweaked wording throughout the article, but if there are still places you think need adjustment, feel free to point them out and I will address the issues.
As to Naruto, I'm afraid I'm not much help. This is my first go at FA, and I'm not sure my opinion means very much, expecially given the number of things on this article that I've had to go back and fix thus far. TimothyJosephWood 16:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Giving you my support. Good work with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • The Baltimore railroad strike occurred in Baltimore, Maryland, as part of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, nationwide strikes and civil unrest following the global depression and economic downturns of the 1870s. - I think the Great Railroad strike of 1877 bit should be split off into a separate sentence.
  • Strikes continued mostly peacefully until July 20 - rm mostly
  • Combine the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead
  • The 5th Regiment. marched south from their armory above the old Richmond Market on North Howard Street, to the B. & O. Station. - Is there supposed to be a period after regiment?
  • had far-reaching implications for US industry, shuttering more than a hundred railroads - Does shuttering mean closing down? I've never seen it used this way and I'm not sure it's encyclopedic language rather than slang
  • including violence in Reading, Scranton and Shamokin, Pennsylvania; a bloodless general strike in St. Louis, Missouri; a short lived uprising in Chicago, Illinois; and in the worst case, rioting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania that left 61 dead, 124 injured, and saw much of the city's center burned, including more than a thousand rail cars destroyed - should be separated into a new sentence, and the grammar needs to be fixed
  • In many cases, what began as a peaceful action of organized labor, attracted the masses of working discontent and unemployed of the depression, along with others who took opportunistic advantage of the chaos. - In many cases seems vague
  • State and federal troops followed the unrest along the lines - followed the unrest? along the lines? This makes little sense to me
  • However, the number of unemployed along the line was so great owing to the ongoing depression, the company had no difficulty replacing the striking workers. - Need a "that" or something similar to link the clauses. As is it's a run-on
  • Can you change the header for July 16-19? I don't like the repetition of 'events'; maybe just the dates would be sufficient?
  • Newspapers reported a meeting held of rail workers who were sympathetic to the strike - held by, not held of?
  • That same day in Baltimore, hundreds of manufacturing workers struck. - While this is grammatically fine, I think it would be better if you said went on strike
  • Baltimore saw the first act of violence to emerge from the strike. - more concise as "the first act of violence in Baltimore emerged"
  • The engine caught fire and both the engineer and the fireman were severely injured.[1]:32 - were there passengers? Might want to clarify
  • The crowd grew increasingly restless until stones and pistols once again assaulted the soldiers guarding the area around the depot. - the stones and pistols didn't assault them, people did
  • The sentinels were called in, the soldiers assembled, and the command given to "Load, ready, aim!" at the mob. - was given
  • An unsuccessful attempt was also made to burn a B&O transportation barge at Fell's Point,[7]:739 - Grammar - meant to be a period?
  • To the west, at the Mount Clare Shops of the B&O, a 37 car train - 37-car
  • According to reports in The Sun, that the following day at 3:00 pm, - grammar
  • recounted in the follow day's newspapers - grammar
  • " The Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser report a general hope that, - meant to be past tense 'reported'?
  • I'd tweak the 'Freight resumes' heading to the noun form, so something like 'Resumption of Freight traffic'
  • It was state funded - think these should be hyphenated

Regretful Oppose- Per FA criterion 1a. While I think the article is interesting, comprehensive, and fairly well-written, the prose needs some fine-tuning before this is ready to become an FA. I found a number of grammatical errors which suggest to me that a peer review would help polish the article and give it an extra push towards being ready to be promoted. I'm sorry that it the nomination has been stalled since July, as I do think if it had gotten some feedback since then it would be ready to be promoted. It's nearly there. ceranthor 23:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Ceranthor. It went through the guild of copy editors before GA but there's been quite a bit of tweaking since then. I will attempt to address your issues and give it another thorough c/e, but I probably won't be able to get around to it until the week of the 20th. Maybe that will be enough to bring it up to speed, or maybe not. I guess we'll have to see. TimothyJosephWood 17:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Either way, you should be proud of your work on this article. It shows, and even if it doesn't pass on this go, I would be more than happy to help you with copyediting so that it's ready next time. ceranthor 18:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Ceranthor: I think I've hit most everything. The only exception is the derailed train where the fireman and engineer were injured. The presumption is more-or-less that because these two are mentioned, they were the only casualties. It was likely not a passenger train. Certainly passenger rail was widely used, but in these industrial centers, the unrest was centered around freight, since the prices for the selling and transportation of freight was the volatile bit that was exposed to the fluctuations of the depression, and caused the problems to begin with. In some cities (like Pittsburgh), there was even early resumption of mail and passenger services as an olive branch from the strikers. TimothyJosephWood 13:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Struck my oppose. I will try to read through again tonight and provide more feedback if necessary. ceranthor 21:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • On the way to the from their armory, - missing a word here
  • That night, and the next day, - Might flow better as "between that night and the next day" or something similar, it's a little jarring to me without some sort of linker
  • several buildings were set on fire throughout the city. - Think this would read better as active voice: "X'ers set several buildings on fire..."
  • That summer, tensions erupted in what would become known as the Great Railroad Strike or simply the Great Strikes - internationally or just within the US? The section suggests just the US, which confuses me given the table citing data from other countries
  • In the worst case, rioting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania left 61 dead, 124 injured, and saw much of the city's center burned, including more than a thousand rail cars destroyed - this is a run-on; either split it into two sentences after 124 injured or tweak it to make it work
  • What began in Martinsburg, West Virginia, spread along the rail lines through Baltimore, and on to several major cities and transportation hubs of the time, including violence in Reading, Scranton and Shamokin, Pennsylvania; a bloodless general strike in St. Louis, Missouri; and a short lived uprising in Chicago, Illinois. - including doesn't properly link the first idea. I think it would be better to start with "Violence began... including Xinsert whatever specifically happened in PA; a bloodless general strike..."
  • That summer, tensions erupted in what would become known as the Great Railroad Strike or simply the Great Strikes - Was this in 1876 or 1877? It isn't clear from the section itself
  • In early July, - same question as above comment?
  • Various meetings of working men followed - what is a "meeting of working men"? Sounds dubiously vague to me
  • Most accepted the reduction - most workers I presume? Could you clarify?
  • and had grown to include a variety of mechanics, artisans and other laborers. - keep the serial comma consistent
  • With knowledge that groups of workers had been dispersed - think this needs to be "With the knowledge"
  • At 6:35 pm, as many workers in the city were ending their shifts, - think finishing would be better than ending here; this is a major nitpick

Almost there. ceranthor 23:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through. Please feel free to revert my copyedits if needed.

  • "That afternoon violence broke out in Martinsburg, West Virginia between workers and militia guarding a train, and continued such that the governor of West Virginia appealed to the President for help": "continued such that" is vague, and you don't say whether the governor made the appeal that same day, which seems likely since you're giving the events in chronological order. In that case, "such that" can't mean "for so long that"; does it mean "became so violent [or widespread] that"?
  • You might consider redlinking General James Herbert; my subscription to appears to have expired, but it seems he has an 1884 obituary in the Baltimore Sun and enough other coverage to make him notable.
  • "It was definitively decided that conditions were too dangerous": what does "definitively" add here? I think it could just be cut.
  • "At 9:15 pm another train was sent down the tracks with no one on board, to wreck itself into yet another": The crowd does this? Can we say so, or is the source vague?
  • There are several generals (Howard, Abbott, Hancock) for whom you don't provide either a first name or a link; can we rectify that in any cases?
  • "According to reports in The Sun, that the following day at 3:00 pm": something is not parsing correctly here.
  • "the fireman would be able to make daily trips": presumably "firemen"? And I don't really understand the point of the newspaper's comments, perhaps because I know little about how old trains functioned -- why was it important for the firemen, specifically, to travel?
  • "The Sun between reported between the 30th and August 1, that the strikers who still held out": clearly some editing debris here; I'd fix it myself but I'm not certain of the intended meaning. I suspect it should be: "The Sun reported that, between the 30th and August 1, the strikers who still held out".
  • Not necessary for FA, but it would be nice to figure out a link target for the 6th, 7th, and 8th regiments, even if it's a redlink.
  • The authorization of the 8th regiment is mentioned in passing as being new, but if it's in direct response to the rioting then I think that should be clearly stated. Was the 7th also a newly authorized regiment?

That's everything I can see. The article is an impressive piece of work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

High Explosive Research

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

After Tube Alloys and the British contribution to the Manhattan Project comes the third article in the series, High Explosive Research. Jim, Bernard and Sir Humphrey decide build an atomic bomb. I'm afraid that aspects of the article may make no sense to a non-British reader. Although it is a new article, created in February, it has passed GA and A class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • seems to say that some but not all of the collections are open - where did we get the licensing for File:John_Anderson,_1st_Viscount_Waverley_1947.jpg? Don't see it on the source page...
    Me neither. The Copyright box on the source page is empty. So I'm replacing it with another pic of Sir John Anderson. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In the case of File:John_Douglas_Cockcroft_1961.jpg, the source page actually says PD not CC. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, but there is no PD tag on Commons. I don't know the rules over there. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    Failing all else I suppose you could use PD-because, but have you seen this cat? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, and this one too, but none of them apply. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments on prose by Finetooth

Having reviewed the Hanford Site article many years ago at GAN, this sounds pretty familiar. Even so, I don't know enough to critique the claims involving complex science or engineering. Here are suggestions related to prose, style, and the MOS. Nothing big, but lots of little things caught my eye. The article seems to be in generally good shape.
  • ¶1 Link Quebec Agreement.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "Britain thereby became the third country to test nuclear weapons." – Mention the second for those who might not know?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Tube alloys
  • ¶2 "who ironically could not work" – Maybe drop "ironically" if that is a Wikipedia judgment.
    Deleted. Another editor liked it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "A new directorate known as Tube Alloys was created to coordinate this effort." – Insert, "a deliberately misleading name" after "Tube Alloys"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Manhattan Project
  • ¶3 "but the project would need overwhelming priority" - For consistent verb tense, "would have needed"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶4 "the joint British-Canadian Montreal Laboratory" – En dash British–Canadian to indicate disjuncture?
    Changed to "Anglo-Canadian", which uses the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
End of American cooperation
  • ¶1 "Roosevelt's naval aide, apparently misfiled by someone unaware of what Tube Alloys was, who thought it had something to do with naval guns." – Does the "who" refer to the naval aide or to the "someone"?
    Changed "who" to "and". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "With Portal's appointment came consideration of splitting Anderson's committee, which functioned as both an advisory committee and as an interdepartmental committee." – Recast to avoid repeating "committee" three times followed by three more in the next two sentences.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "In March 1947, the dynamic Roger Makins...". – Delete "dynamic"?
    DEleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "The meeting was about to decide against it on grounds of cost, when [Ernest] Bevin arrived late and said "We've got to have this thing. I don't mind it for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked at or to by the Secretary of State of the United States as I have just been in my discussion with Mr Byrnes. We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs... We've got to have the bloody Union Jack flying on top of it." – Words within direct quotations should generally not be linked, per MOS:LINKSTYLE. Ditto for linked terms in the other block quotes in this section.
    Generally, but the words do not appear in the surrounbding text, and the user may not know what they mean.
  • ¶3 "in charge of the Ministry Of Supply's Armaments Research Department" – Lowercase "o" in "Of"?
    Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶4 "officially requested an atomic bomb in 9 August 1946" – "on" rather than "in"?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "Sir John Anderson and US Ambassador John Winant hammered out a deal with the Belgian government and Edgar Sengier, the director of Union Minière, in May 1944 for the mine to be reopened and 1,720 long tons (1,750 t) of ore to be purchased at $1.45 a pound." – I'd prefer "negotiated" to "hammered out", and I think the sentence would flow better if you started with "In May 1944,".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "the principal reason the Americans reopened the negotiations resulting in the Modus Vivendi" – Should this be rendered as "a modus vivendi" or possibly more plainly as "a provisional accord"?
    No, this was a particular agreement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Nuclear reactors
  • ¶1 "British staff at the Montreal Laboratory designed a larger reactor, known as BEPO, in 1945 and 1946..." – "British staff at the Montreal Laboratory had designed a larger reactor, known as BEPO, in 1945 and 1946..." since BEPO is explained in Uranium metal plant, and the action is in the past?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "Such an event that did indeed occur in the Chernobyl disaster in 1986." – Remove "that"?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Plutonium-processing facilities
  • ¶3 "After 1946, the only source of plutonium was from the NRX reactor in Canada, and irradiated rods from there did arrive in Britain under mid-1948." – Should this say, "did not arrive until"?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Gaseous diffusion plant
Bomb design
  • ¶2 "The first lenses were delivered in 1952, so and there were enough for two sets..." – "so and"?
    Deleted "so". Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "which not until late 1951." – Missing word, "was"?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "while they were spherical to within 0.75 thou..." – Link thou since it won't be familiar to most readers.
    Linked. There is a metric conversion for those who don't know imperial. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "as there was unrest in Egypt" – "Unrest" seems too mild. Would something more direct like "as a revolution there was underway" be better?
    Perhaps in retrospect, but the revolution hadn't yet broken out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "The was desired..." – "This was desired..."?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "led to the United States Atomic Energy Act being amended in 1958..." – Slightly smoother as "led to amendment of the United States Atomic Energy Act in 1958..."?
  • That's all. Finetooth (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • THanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You are welcome. All looks good with the exception of the links within the blockquotes. I halfway agree with you. I wouldn't think it strictly necessary to link "great power", "isolationist", "Secretary of State", or "Foreign Secretary" within the quotes since I think most readers can suss out the meaning OK, but "Mr. Byrnes" is a different matter and possibly "Union Jack". Regardless, I'm happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "The first nuclear reactor in the UK, a small research reactor known as GLEEP, went critical" Is not criticality required specifically for nuclear power rather than bombs? I assume that it is an intermediate stage for a bomb, but clarification would be helpful.
    Nuclear reactors can be used to breed plutonium, which is used in bombs. When a uranium-235 nucleus absorbs a neutron, it splits in two parts, releasing energy and more neutrons. In a reactor, we have a controlled nuclear chain reaction in which the number of neutrons in the system stays steady. In a bomb, there is an out-of-control nuclear chain reaction that blows everything apart. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead is unclear at the end. It should be stated that Blue Danube was designed by HER, and that the hopes for a renewal of the special relationship were because the missile was a failure (if this is true). When did HER end?
    With the development of the atomic bomb. Added a bit to this effect in the lead. Blue Danube was a free-fall bomb, not a missile. It would be nice to have a picture of it, but the only one we have is a fair-use image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Anglo-Canadian Montreal Laboratory" The Canadian role has not been explained.
    The Canadian role in the Manhattan Project is detailed in the Montreal Laboratory article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Attlee set up a cabinet sub-committee, the Gen 75 Committee (known informally by Attlee as the "Atomic Bomb Committee"),[52] on 10 August 1945". As this is going back to an earlier date than the previous section, I think "Attlee had set up" would be clearer.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "which functioned as both an advisory and an interdepartmental body" I am not clear what this means. What was the interdepartmental function?
    An advisory body provides the government with advice; and interdepartmental body co-ordinates the work of different government departments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "had met in Washington, DC, in November 1944, and drawn up a proposal for an atomic energy research establishment" Was this to be a purely British establishment, even though they met in Washington? If so, I would delete the location as confusing.
    Inserted "British". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I got confused about your comments about a reactor and separation plant. You appear to say that Britain could not afford both, and then that a facility for both was approved.
    Slightly re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "was approached by C. P. Snow" What office did Snow hold?
    He was a Civil Service Commissioner. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure any change is needed, but it is interesting that there seem to have been two quite different reasons for building a bomb, Bevin's that it was required for prestige, and Attlee's reasonable argument that at the time it looked as if the USA might revert to isolationism, and Europe have to face an aggressive Soviet Union alone.
    Yes. But note that Attlee's reasons disappeared with the formation of NATO in 1949, but HER continued. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "There was no known alternative fuel for nuclear reactors other than uranium, so securing an adequate supply was crucial to the British atomic energy programme." You have mentioned above plutonium as an alternative for bombs. Does the comment here refer to reactors for nuclear energy?
    Yes, "nuclear reactors" means for energy. You can power a reactor with plutonium; but you need uranium to produce the plutonium, which puts you in a chicken-and-egg situation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "on the site of a poison gas plant" a former poison gas plant?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead you say the project terminated in 1953, but in the 'Gaseous diffusion plant' sub-section you appear to imply that it carried on until 1961. Were weapons of the later 1950s designed under a successor project?
    High Explosive Research built the plants. The plants continued to operate for many years after. The successor project was the British hydrogen bomb programme. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I have abandoned this review. I cannot read pages with flashing images. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    You can disable them in your browser. If you are using Firefox, go into the about:config and set image.animation_mode to "none". In Google Chrome, bring up the "Animation Policy" and disable them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC) I reviewed this article at GAN and again at Milhist ACR and have reviewed all the changes made since then, and consider that it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 16 August 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)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, and those that are should
  • Good point. I have removed the one instance where this appears. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Crowley_unicursal_hexagram.svg is probably not simple enough not to qualify for copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Comments Support a fascinating read. Queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Cameron briefly traveled to New York City to see a friend, there discovering that she was pregnant, and again decided to terminate the pregnancy - could write "have a termination" two avoid two pregnant/cies in one sentence. Also, change resulting in the termination of their friendship - as repetitive..."resulting in the demise/end of their friendship"
I have changed "termination of their friendship" into "end of their friendship". Saying "have a termination" may cause slight confusion for some readers as they may not be clear exactly what she was terminating; instead, I have gone with "decided to have an abortion". The use of that latter term makes it much clearer that it was the pregnancy that was being terminated while also ridding us of the overuse of the actual term "pregnancy". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd link typhoid mary and emphysema.
Done and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Cameron's reputation as an artist grew posthumously -> why not just write, "Cameron's reputation as an artist grew after her death" ?
I personally think "posthumously" works a little more smoothly (one word rather than three), but if you think that "after her death" will be more widely understood then I can certainly make the change, no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I just think using shorter plainer words (as long as no meaning is lost) is always good. You and I know what "posthumously" means but maybe some folks don't. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for he comment, Cas Liber - if there is anything else please don't hesitate to let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hmlarson

I've made some copyedits throughout and added alt text to some of the images. Feel free to modify any changes I have made. I think the article could use a little more copyediting for clarity, but is very close. Hmlarson (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Hmlarson - given the further copyediting that has taken place, would you be willing to support this nomination at this stage? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This is an interesting article about an unusual person. I have a fair number of suggestions about prose and style and a few questions or suggestions about other things. I made several minor copyediting changes as I went; please revert any you think are misguided.
  • The existing alt text for the images would not help someone depending on a screen reader that translates the text into sound. The image in the infobox has no alt text, and the other alts simply clone the caption text. Better would be something descriptive like "Half-length photo of a frowning man of about 30 with dark wavy hair, a moustache, and a neatly trimmed goatee" for the Jack Parsons' image. Could you spruce these up for readers who cannot see the images?
I've added alt-text to all of the images (the previous alt-text captions were just copies of the information included in the image descriptions - very odd). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • You could safely drop "U.S." from the "Died" entry.
  • ¶2 "Elemental woman" - Lowercase "elemental"?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I moved the quotation marks here, but you might prefer "elemental woman" here as well as in ¶1 of the Jack Parsons' section. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Early life (1922–1945)
  • ¶1 "She was their first child, followed by three further siblings..." – Delete "further" since "followed by" already says it?
  • ¶1 "and civic lessons" – I believe that should be civics lessons.
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "Relating that one of her childhood friends had committed suicide, she characterized herself as a rebellious child..." – These two ideas, suicide and rebellion" don't seem logically connected. Did Cameron blame herself for her friend's suicide? Even if so, how was that connected to Cameron's rebellious nature?
I've looked at the source and changed the prose accordingly: "Relating that one of her childhood friends had committed suicide and that she too had contemplated it, she characterized herself as a rebellious child,". Do you think that this now works smoothly or would you rather see the sentence cut into two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It now seems fine to me. Finetooth (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "She enjoyed going to the cinema, and had sexual relationships with various men." – This implies that she had sex with them at the cinema. Is that what the source supports? Or does this simply mean that movies and sex were her two favorite things?
It just refers to the fact that these were activities that she took part in at the time. Do you think that there is a different wording that would make this meaning clearer? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe just splitting them with a terminal period to make clear that they are not necessarily simultaneous. "She enjoyed going to the cinema. Another pursuit involved sex with a variety of men." Or something like that. Finetooth (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it further, I think it best to just cut the mention of the cinema altogether. It wasn't really adding anything. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "After becoming pregnant, her mother performed... " – Her mother didn't become pregnant. Suggestion: recast as "After Cameron became pregnant, her mother performed...".
Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Another good idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "experienced romantic relations" – Is this a euphemism for "had sex with"? If so, I'd use the more direct phrase.
I've trimmed this bit out. The information given in the book is very vague so I think it best to just be rid of this wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "For reasons unknown to her, she received an honorable discharge from the military in 1945, traveling to Pasadena, California, where her family had relocated, with both her father and brothers securing work there at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)." – Too many clauses. Split"? Maybe "For reasons unknown to her, she received an honorable discharge from the military in 1945. To join her family, she traveled to Pasadena, California, where her father and brothers had found work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)."
Good idea. I've made the split.
Jack Parsons: 1946–1952
  • ¶1 "had just finished a series of rituals utilizing... " – "Using" rather than "utilizing" on grounds that the former is more plain.
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "Lowercase "elemental" and put "elemental woman" in quotes to match the way you handle this in the lede?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "spent the next two weeks in Parsons' bedroom together" – Not literally, I assume. They probably left the room for breakfast, for example. Maybe "much of the next two weeks"?
  • ¶2 "It nevertheless became apparent... " – No need for "nevertheless".
Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "Parsons decided to sell 1003..." – I think "The Parsonage" would be more clear than "1003".
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "which was then demolished" – Why was it demolished? Is the fact relevant?
I think that it was just demolished for new development, but I do not think that it is particularly relevant to this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • So maybe just delete the phrase about demolition? Finetooth (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it worth retaining the mention of demolition (after all, there may be readers who decide to go and look for The Parsonage). However, I will add that it was demolished for redevelopment (which I checked was correct with the RS). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶4 "with Cameron attending the jazz clubs of Central Avenue..." – Replace the "with plus -ing" construction with "and Cameron attended..."?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶4 "with a number being purchased by her friend... " – Replace "with plus -ing" construction with "including some purchased by her friend..."?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The Children, Kenneth Anger, and Curtis Harrington: 1952–1968
  • ¶1 "In the hope of communicating with Parsons' spirit, Cameron began performing blood rituals while in Mexico in which she cut her own wrist." – Slightly smoother might be " While in Mexico, in the hope of communicating with Parsons' spirit, Cameron began performing blood rituals in which she cut her own wrist."
Changed to "While in Mexico, Cameron began performing blood rituals in the hope of communicating with Parsons' spirit; during these, she cut her own wrists.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 Is anything more known about the suicide attempt? What did she try? How did it not succeed?
Unfortunately not. Consulting the reliable source cited, all it states us that "Cameron's heartache reached critical mass and she made another unsuccessful attempt at suicide in a derelict house in Altadena. Once she recovered...". I don't think that there's much more that we can include here, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. The wrist-cutting in Mexico is self-injuring and perhaps suicidal. We have to assume that she took it one step further. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "with she and her followers being rescued by a flying saucer that would take them to Mars" – Replace "with plus -ing" with "and that a flying saucer would rescue her and her followers and take them to Mars."?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "on the mind-expanding usages of hallucinogens" – Maybe "uses" which is more direct than "usages"?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "was in correspondence with... " – Tighten by two words to "corresponded with"?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶4 "At the advice of..." – "On the advice of..."?
Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶7 "Having based herself in the Los Angeles area of Venice,[68] it was here that an exhibit of her artwork was held at a local arts shop in August 1961." – Is this Venice different from Venice, California? If not, maybe "After Cameron moved to Venice, California, a local arts shop exhibited her work there in 1961."?
"Venice, California" is a redirect that takes us to Venice, Los Angeles, so I think it best to stick with "Los Angeles" over "California". However, I liked the rest of the suggested wording, which I have implemented. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶7 "He then launched a poster campaign against his former friend, The Cameron File, in which he labelled Cameron "Typhoid Mary of the Occult World"." – Since his friend isn't The Cameron File, I'd recast this. Perhaps "He then launched a poster campaign, The Cameron File, against his former friend, labelling her "Typhoid Mary of the Occult World".
That works. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Later life: 1969–1995
  • ¶2 "The claims regarding a prehistoric matriarchal society devoted to a Goddess which were made in the writings of archaeologist Marija Gimbutas also interested and influenced her." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "She was also influenced by claims made in the writings of archaeologist Marija Gimbutas about a prehistoric matriarchal society devoted to a goddess."
Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That's all for the moment. Finetooth (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Finetooth. I've made most of the changes but for the remaining ones I want to consult the reliable sources first before making certain alterations. Hopefully I'll be able to do it tomorrow. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Switching to support on prose, as noted above. Very interesting article, highly readable. Finetooth (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Pleased to see this here. I suspect the scrutiny over sourcing has only served to improve the article.

  • "The Parsonage" or "the Parsonage"?
  • I've standardised the prose to "The", although do not think it matters particularly which we use, so long as we are consistent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "with Hubbard and his girlfriend Sara Northrup" Ambiguous; whose girlfriend?
  • I've changed this to "Hubbard and Hubbard's girlfriend". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "It became apparent that Hubbard was a confidence trickster, who tried to flee with Parsons' money, resulting in the end of their friendship." I note, given Hubbard's history, that this is potentially a highly contentious claim. Would it be worth saying "x saw Hubbard as a confidence trickster" or something?
  • While I appreciate that Hubbard and his followers may take issue with this assessment, it is something that is backed in the Reliable Sources. Does anyone else have a view on this issue? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "of Sara with her legs severed below the knee" Northrup?
  • " began work at the Bermite Powder Company, constructing explosives for the film industry.[26] They began" Repetition
  • I've changed the latter "began" to "started". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "coming to understand the purpose of his Babalon Working" Slightly too sympathetic to these occult practices, I'd say
  • "By the mid-1980s, Cameron was focusing to a greater extent on her family life, particularly in looking after her grandchildren, who were known to go joyriding in her jeep." It seems a little odd to first mention the grandchildren here.
  • I see what you mean, but I do not think that their births are actually dealt with in the reliable sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Neo-shamanic practices" Why the capital?
  • I understand that "Neo-shamanism" is often regarded as a religion, in which case a capital letter at the start is probably warranted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • At what point in her life did she become open to Thelema? In the section on Parsons, we have "Although she still did not accept Thelema,", but by the later life section we have "she retained faith in the Thelemic ideas of Crowley".
  • I've added a bit about her embrace of Thelemic beliefs in the "coming to understand the purpose of his Babalon Working" sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "According to The Huffington Post" Why not credit author of the piece?
  • "a retrospective of her word" Odd phrasing
Ah, a spelling error. "Word" should be "work". Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Very readable and engaging. If I was being very critical, I'd say that I wanted to hear a little more about her artwork. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think that more information on her artwork would improve the article, but thus far these discussions just do not seem to be provided in the reliable sources. Hopefully further work on the subject will be forthcoming in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Once again, many thanks for taking the time to read through this one Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I had a Google around for potential scholarly sources on Cameron's painting. I didn't find anything, but I did come across Contextual Practice, by Stephen Freman. From page 108: "Berman's friend, the artist and hermeticist Cameron (Marjorie Cameron Parsons Kimmel, 1922-1995), took peyote for the first time in 1954 after hearing Huxley speak. Her peyote session resulted in the "allegorical" drawing of sex between two keeling nudes that was responsible for Berman's arrest and the closing of his Ferrus Gallery exhibition." Sounds like there may be an interesting story there? (The story is even how the author opens the book; p. 1 recounts it.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

J Milburn: I've looked at the book. Unfortunately it does not go into any real depth on her work or life, but I've used it and the Kansa biography to add a few extra sentences on Semina and the exhibition which got shut down because of Cameron's Peyote Vision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but... I know there's already been an image review, but I note that the trailer for Night Tide pretty clearly does not contain a copyright notice, so it will be PD in the United States. The film itself is apparently PD; my only guess is that this is because copyright was not renewed, but I don't know how to go about checking that. This means that we can't really justify a non-free image for the lead; we should use a screen capture instead. I can't reliably identify Cameron, but I think there are at least two close-ups of her face in the trailer (one in a veil, one with maniacal laughter), and likely many more in the full film if its PD status can be confirmed. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I've uploaded File:Marjorie Cameron in Night Tide.jpg and File:Marjorie Cameron in Night Tide (cropped).jpg, in case that's a shot you'd be happy to use. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... the quality of the image is pretty low. Most of the face is shrouded in dark and it is difficult to identify her. To be honest, I do not think that it would be of the appropriate quality for the visual identification of the individual, as is required for the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There's the possibility of another screen capture. I strongly suspect that this image is in the public domain, as I suspect that it was published as a publicity photo without a copyright notice. It'd be hard to prove, though. By the way, there are some valuable-looking sources listed here. In particular, this article by Peter Lunenfeld was in Artforum; perhaps a nice way to expand on coverage of Cameron's work in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I've added several sentences from Lunenfeld, so thank you for bringing that source to my attention, Josh. I've also added citations from a number of the other sources listed in the Cameron-Parsons website that you link to. I'm still having some trouble with finding an image from Night Tide that can be used although I will keep looking. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks- I think those additions are great, and I think the article is very well-written and well-referenced. My one remaining worry is the use of the non-free image. I'm not going to oppose on that basis, but I am inclined to think that public domain images exist (though digging them up may be tricky), and so they should be used. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's an alternative: I would not be opposed to the lead image being a non-free image if it is Cameron's self-portrait. I have seen this done to good effect on other articles about artists, as it means that the lead serves to identify both the person and their artwork. Given that you are already using Cameron's self-portrait, this could be a viable option. A screenshot (such as the one I have already uploaded) could then be used in the article body for the purposes of visual interest. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Wehwalt

All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited. I note the following:

  • I would add state names to the city where the publisher is located. You are inconsistent in this regard.
  • You are not consistent in whether you have the dashes between the groups of numbers in the ISBN.
  • Considerable linking the names of notable periodicals in the refs.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. I have standardised the use of state names (by removing rather than adding them, if that is okay), and also by ensuring that the ISBNs are all formatted in the same way (with the dashes). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows a few spots where paraphrasing could be improved - I'll note that most of the issues are for titles/quotes, but there are a few spots that aren't.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited a couple of minor points; please feel free to revert if you don't like the changes.

  • Between 1946 and 1952 I think a couple more fixed dates would help the reader keep track of events, if the sources can provide the dates. For example, "then moved to the coach house": I can't tell to within two or three years when this is.
  • "On his return to the U.S. from Europe, Anger moved in with Cameron for a time,[72] although in early 1964 the duo moved into a flat on Silverlake Boulevard until he departed for New York City": why "although"?
  • "closely impacted" - I think this is a bit vague. Perhaps "strongly affected" or "had a long-lasting impact on" or something like that?

-- That's everything I can see. The article is in very good shape and I expect to support when the above minor points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 14 August 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 intenteded 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)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47
  • @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)
  • @Aoba47: But Aoba, I only have one FAC open xD. OK, I wasn't aware of this rule. I'll make sure to remember it for the future. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your note. When I posted my comment, your Boogeyman 2 FAC was still open so that is why I put this up. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not sure if the quotes from the critics are really that necessary in the last paragraph of the lead. It may be better to condense this information into a paraphrased sentence, and keep these quotes in the "Reception" section.
  •  Done I tried fixing it. I hope its satisfactory. The main problem is that as I said during the GAN, the movie was praised / criticized for pretty much the same things; with reviewers simply having different opinions.
  • I do not think you need the references for the "losing control" sentence in the lead as the references and information should already be found in the body of the article. Same goes for the sentence on the "interactive movie" in the lead.
  •  Done I have included comments by reviewers on the film's them of control in the "Reception" section. As for the "interactive movie" section I believe it is notable enough to warrant a mention in the lead considering this is a threatically released movie that had an interactive DVD release.
  • In the sentence "The film was a financial success, the highest-grossing film in the franchise when it was released.", I would suggest revising to avoid the repetition of the word "film" twice in close proximity.
  •  Done
  • In the following sentences (Like the previous two installments, Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver. Filming took place during a three-month period, during which, the first month was spent entirely on filming the roller coaster's derailment.), the word "filming" and variations are used three times in close proximity. Perhaps, revise this to avoid repetition?
  •  Done Though the word is still repeated twice.
  • For this sentence (According to Morgan, for Erin's death at the hardware store, he searched the aisles of a local store at Sunset Boulevard for days to get inspiration.) in the body of the article, it may be more beneficial to incorporate this into another paragraph as the one-sentence paragraph is rather awkward.
  •  Done As it refers to how Morgan was inspired for Erin's death, I included it with the paragraph that also discusses story concepts for the film.
  • Please use Wong's full name in the body of the article upon his first reference and link him.
  •  Done I also linked Morgan as well.
  • It may be helpful to add a topic sentence to the second and third paragraphs of the "Critical response" subsection.
  •  Done I tried briefly describing what it is critics found positive / negative about the film with one sentence. I'm not sure they're very good though.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: OK, I believe I've adressed all of your comments. Hopefully the changes I've implemented are satisfactory. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting it promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Bluesphere

Resolved comments from Bluesphere
  • Provide descriptive alts on images
  • I'm not really sure how to do them any better. I suck at ALT descriptions. :(
  • Just try your best on this. I believe alt texts in images are required for FA articles. Bluesphere 04:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done I think. I'm not sure if they're much better now though I did try to be a bit more descriptive.
  • Substitute those <br> markups with the {{Plainlist}} template in infobox. Also, the "release date" parameter requires the earliest release date (which in this case, February 2, 2006); use the {{Film date}} template for this.
  •  Done
  • Its development began shortly after the release of Final Destination 2, Try this one instead, "Development of the film began shortly after the release of Final Destination 2.
  •  Done Should have picked up on that one.
  • ...Wong and Morgan placed control as a major theme in the movie, movie → film (might wanna observe this accordingly on the rest of article)
  •  Done Though I googled it and I think movie is AE, while film is BE.
  • Negative reviews stated that the film was formularic, did you mean "formulaic"? I notice similar typo under "critical reception" section
  •  Done Shit you're right. Honestly, I'd never even seen the word before.
  • ...Casting began in March, 2005... there's no need for that comma.
  •  Done
  • Attention was especially given to the tanning-bed and nailgun death scenes which were favourably received, needless dash for tanning-bed (I also notice this on the rest of the article), and it should be "favorably" since this is an article about an American film, thus should be written in the US English.
  •  Done
  • High-school student Wendy Christensen, needless dash in high-school
  •  Done
  • Like the previous two films, characters are named after horror-film directors, actors and producers. needless dash in "horror-film".
  •  Done
  • Dustin Milligan, Cory Monteith and Harris Allan had small roles in the film. I've already tagged this requesting for an alternate reliable source since IMDb is not considered one.
  •  Done I removed their names since their characters are pretty uniportant to begin with.
  • According to BBC.. the BBC
  •  Done
  • Needless dash in "roller-coaster". Do a spotcheck on this.
  •  Done
  • ...having interesting kills and delivering to audiences what they've come to enjoy from the franchise. Avoid use of contraction in "they've" per MOS:N'T
  •  Done
  • IGN gave Final Destination 3, and Den of Geek called the film need attributions. Also, don't pipelink Den of Geek to the Dennis Publishing article. Try rewording it to, "Den of Geek! (a publication of Dennis Publishing)..."
 Done If it's not satisfactory I can try to change it further.
  • Add a separate column for the references to make the table more presentable.
  • Aren't they already seperated, with the "|30em" addition?
  • I meant those refs by the table under Nominations subsection, not the footnotes. Bluesphere 04:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, OK.  Done

@Bluesphere: OK, I've responded to most of you comments. I still have a few problems / questions with some of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Much better, now Support. Bluesphere 03:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

Comments from Vedant
  • Instead of using "Final Destination" in the lead, you could the first film of the series to avoid the repetition of Final Destination.
  •  Done
  • "in which characters are impaled and decapitated" - not sure how this adds anything to the article, it's rather irrelevant.
  •  Done Yeah, I'm not sure either. It had been there for years.
  • "Wong said that unlike the second film" - "he" would fit better.
  •  Done
  • "envisioned from the very beginning for both the film" - both the film?
  •  Done Don't know how I missed that.
  • "The Ring Two" will need the release year.
  •  Done
  • So would "Instant Star" and "It".
  •  Done I also reworked the wording slightly to indicate Johnson was still starring in Instant Star, as the show was still on air.
  • "the highest-grossing installment in the franchise" bit is not mentioned in the box-office section, you should substantiate the claim there.
  •  Done
  • Information like Chris G. Willingham being the editor of the film are never substantiated in the article's body.
  •  Done Added him in. He actually won an Emmy for 24. Had no idea. No wonder the film looks good. :P
  • Also, the production companies : Hard Eight Pictures, Practical Pictures, Matinee Pictures, and Zide/Perry Productions are never mention in the body of the article. You might have have to incorporate them in the body and source them as well.
  • I don't know if all four are worth mentioning. I did add that two of them had previously worked on either the first film or both. I'm probably gonna need some help rewording it. Also, could I reference IMDb as I haven't been able to find an article about any of these companies and the films they produced.
  • I think the mention of the major production houses associated with the project should suffice. NumerounovedantTalk 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • Can you also possibly mention Jeffrey Reddick somewhere in the article, to make sure that the reader is aware of the original source material?
  • Would it be alright if I just mentioned him in the lead section? Something along the lines of "FD3 is the first in the franchise to be written without the involvement of Jeffrey Reddick".?
  • Sounds good, you might need to source that though. NumerounovedantTalk 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done

The rest look good, fine work. Let me know if you have any questions. NumerounovedantTalk 08:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: OK, I've changed most of the things that you wanted. I hope you like the changes. But I need some help with the last two things on the list.
I can Support this nomination, good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 18:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the support. :D --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Resolved comments from JMilburn

Happy to take a look. I don't think I've seen it, but I may have... I watch a lot of horror and they end up merging into one.

  • "The film is set in 2005, the line "six years ago" is a continuity error as the first film is set in 2000." This feels like OR.
  • I had a discussion with another user regarding this here. The third movie takes place in 2005 as shown with the various props to be found, Jason's grave and the McKinley Tricentenial. As for the first movie, it takes place in 2000, according to both Final Destination 2 (on Officer Burke's computer) and 5 (on Sam's plane ticket). My guess is, since the third movie was filmed in 2005 and the first one in 1999, which is indeed six real-life years apart, is the reason for this continuity error.
  • "roller coaster derailment" It'd be ugly, but that's a compound adjective, so it should be "roller-coaster derailment". Perhaps you could rephrase to "derailment of a roller coaster". ("opening scene disaster" is the same; in the article body, you have "opening-scene disaster", which is correct!)
  •  Done Compounded all of them where necessary.
  • "Casting began in March 2005 with Winstead and Merriman landing the leading roles and continued through April. As with the previous two installments, Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver over a three-month period, during which, the first month was spent entirely on filming the roller coaster's derailment." This is not good writing.
  •  Done Tried fixing it.
  • "Thinking that Kevin is making fun of her, Wendy dismisses his theory and leaves" What theory?
  •  Done
  • "on the night of the accident." Which accident?
  •  Done
  • "by a panicky horse" Informal
  •  Done
  • "Craig Perry and Warren Zide's company Zide/Perry Productions, along with Wong and Morgan's own company Hard Eight Pictures, which co-produced the first film returned to produce Final Destination 3." This needs attention- there's too much going on in this sentence, I think.
  • Should I just remove it?
  • The information is probably important. How about (if I understand what you're trying to say): "The companies that co-produced 2000's Final Destination—Craig Perry and Warren Zide's Zide/Perry Productions, and Wong and Morgan's own Hard Eight Pictures—returned to produce Final Destination 3." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • "According to Wong, the idea of using a roller coaster derailment as the opening-scene disaster came from New Line Cinema executive Richard Bryant and dispelled rumors that it was inspired by a Big Thunder Mountain Railroad incident. Additionally, he said that unlike the second film, which was closely tied to the first, Final Destination 3 was always intended to be a stand-alone sequel with new characters.[5] Morgan revealed that for Erin's death at the hardware store, he searched the aisles of a local store at Sunset Boulevard for days to get inspiration." Again, this isn't good writing.
  •  Done I hope.
  • "further stating that one of the reasons people are afraid of them is because as according to psychologists, "[they] have no control"." Unclear. Who stated? What is the them referring to?
  •  Done
  • "Wong revealed that during casting of the film, they sought actors that were able to portray the main characters as heroic individuals with realistic qualities." Odd comma; unclear what the they refers to.
  •  Done
  • "This sentiment was also echoed by Perry, who stated that for the two lead characters they wanted actors who "had the charisma of movie stars, but weren't so ridiculously rarified that you couldn't feel like you might know them"; casting of the supporting characters was given equal weight, being considered as important as the main characters." I'm also struggling with this. How about "This sentiment was echoed by Perry, who stated that [someone] sought actors to play the two lead characters who "had the charisma of movie stars, but weren't so ridiculously rarified that you couldn't feel like you might know them". The casting of the supporting characters was given equal weight, being considered as important as the casting of the main characters."
  •  Done
  • "won the role because her character's emotion impressed Wong and Glen Morgan" her portrayal of?
  •  Done
  • "Lemche said that Ian "spouts some interesting facts that seem to be just right there on the tips of his fingers", and the actor researched most of Ian's information. During the read-throughs, he often asked Glen Morgan about Ian's facts; Morgan wrote him notes and gave him URLs to research Ian's random insertions of odd information."[12][13]" The speech marks are off, and this is tricky to follow because Ian's facts are yet to be introduced.
  • I changed the speech bubbles to make it flow better with the sentence. Not exactly sure however how to incorporate Ian's fact in another way.
  • "Winstead and Merriman said in an interview that the film required three months of shooting; the first two weeks were spent on filming the roller coaster scene, and the rest of the film was shot out of sequence." This does not mesh with what you write in the lead.
  •  Done
  • "The death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D graphic enhancement, with the roller coaster scene made up of 144 visual-effect shots. The coaster was customized, based on events in the script. Most of the model was hand-built, with MEL scripts aiding specific elements. The coaster crash scenes were filmed on green screen with a CGI background where the actors performed. Several cars were suspended on bungee cords to film the crash, and the deaths required CGI onscreen effects; each actor had a corresponding CGI double.[21]" I'm struggling.
  • I rewrote the paragraph. I hope it's more understandable now.
  • "and Digital Dimension handled the death scenes" Not all of them, surely? You name two others who are involved in death scenes (Meteor Studios and Soho VFX).
  • Actually they did! Mostly though. Basically, three studios were involved. Meteor Studios worked on the roller coaster scene while Digital Dimension was responsible for all of the death scenes; the one exception being Ashley's and Ashlyn's death at the tanning bed which was done by Soho VFX. Should I rewrite it to say that "Digital DImension handled the individual characters death scenes"?
  • Who authored the novelisation? Who was the publisher? These seem like important pieces of information!
  •  Done
  • "The deleted scene is an extended version of Wendy and Kevin's discussion after they are questioned by the police." There's no mention of the questioning in the plot section
  •  Done
  • "James Berardinelli of ReelViews agreed, saying that for fans of the franchise "it's unlikely that #3 will disappoint"." Is ReelViews a publication like the others you mention? A quick glance at the article on the author suggests that it's a book series. (Also- I like Den of Geek, and I agree that it's above the reliability bar, but is this really the best source you have here? I'd imagine a high-budget film like this was reviewed all over the place.)
  • I checked and while James has published books called ReelViews, it's also the name of the website where he posts his film reviews. Regarding better sources, aren't IGN, Variety and The Chicago Sun-Times pretty high review sources?
  • Nail gun or nailgun? (You have a "nail-gun", but that's a compound adjective.)
  •  Done Put them all as nail gun.
  • The writing in the "Analysis" section could use some attention.
  • Is "Dreck Fiction" a reliable source?
  • They appear to have reviewed numerous films of various genres and years, having started in 2010. Would you consider them reliable?
  • On a similar note, have you had a look at the academic literature here? This and this jumped out at me. I may be able to help with access if you don't have access to a university library or similar.
  • Holy shit. These look really useful. Unfortunately I'm not able to view them. One of them is a book I'd have to buy so there's that. As for the article, I checked and apparently my college isn't listed there so I can login.
  • If you email me, I may be able to send you some relevant material. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I tried but unfortunately your e-mail address doesn't appear to be recognised. It could be because I'm using

I made some copyedits as I went. There's a lot to like about this article, but the writing feels a little sub-par for FA standards. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@J Milburn: OK, I believe I've implemented or at least responded to all of your comments. And thank you for copy-editing the article, that was very helpful. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I have a proposition to make. I got both PDFs and they're working just fine. Thank you very much for both of them. I'm sure they'll be very useful with the "Analysis" section. The thing however is, it's going to take some time to read through both of them and write about them in the section. In a few days I'm going off on vacation and won't have WiFi around. And I'd rather not half-ass an analysis paragraph just for the sake of getting a support with this nomination. For this reason, I suggest to either leave the section as it is or remove it until I am able to write a better one. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it's great that you're ready to spend the time to get it right. Perhaps the delegates would be willing to hold off on closing this nomination for a few weeks? I personally don't see the harm in pausing reviews like this for a time (I do it often with GA reviews). I would offer to do it myself, but I'm currently preparing for a move, next week is a complete write-off for me, and I'm not yet sure what the week after will look like! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I'm on mobile data so I'll jeep this short. I read through both books sources and was able to find some information regarding the film which I added in the analysis section. From this point on. All that remains are for corrections to be made. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Great! It's late here, but I'll hopefully find time to take a look soon! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I've made some edits to the analysis section. Three quick comments:
  • What makes Dreck Fiction reliable?
  • That, I don't really have an answer for. Their "About" section doesn't offer much info about them. I guess what makes them better than a mere indivudal's blog is that they appear to focus exclusively on reviewing and analyzing film, video games etc. and the large amount of articles / reviews they've written.
  • I'm struggling to see why this helps them meet the guidelines; see WP:RS. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @JMilburn: I guess it doesn't really meet the requirements. Should I remove the references to Dreck Fiction and keep only Harleman
  • You seem to be missing a quote-mark or two in the paragraph on Brinkema.
  • Oops, fixed it.
  • I appreciate that Brinkema's prose is fairly dense, but I'm not sure I understand what is meant by the description of the deaths as "being durational in nature and not epistemological".
  • After rereading what she wrote I actually got even more confused by that sentence and overall paragraph from the article. Decided to remove it.
  • I'll try to find time to have a look and see what I can draw from it. 22:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for these edits; I will aim to find time to look through the whole article again. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Second look

Ok, I am taking a second look through the article.

  • "As with the previous two installments, Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver over a three-month period" Presumably you mean that it was filmed in Vancouver, like the previous two films, and it was filmed over a three-month period. As written, you are currently claiming that both previous films were also filmed over a three-month period.
  •  Done
  • I wonder if the final paragraph of the lead could mention any subsequent Final Destination films? Also, I wonder if you could add something from the analysis section to the lead?
  •  Done Regarding the sequels. For the analysis I'm not so sure as all three paragraphs talk about different things. If I were to add in information regard analysis should I write something along the lines of "the film proved the source of analysis in regards to its underlying theme of losing control, genre in modern horror and death scenes"?
  • "Wendy learns that her sister Julie and her friend were also on the roller coaster" They were on the roller coaster but survived, or were on the roller coaster but got off before the disaster, or were on the roller coaster on a different occasion, or what? I'm struggling a little with this.
  •  Done
  • "The idea of death omens in photographs was taken from 1976's The Omen." This is important information, but it's out-of-place; it should be mentioned alongside other information about influences, rather than between two facts about early development.
  •  Done
  • "but also because they believed that fire and blood would not" Who is the they, here?
  •  Done
  • "According to Wong, the idea of using a roller-coaster derailment as the opening-scene disaster came from New Line Cinema executive Richard Bryant and was not inspired by a Big Thunder Mountain Railroad incident. Additionally, unlike the second film, which was closely tied to the first, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters from the beginning.[5] Morgan revealed he searched the aisles of a local store at Sunset Boulevard for days to get inspiration regarding Erin's death at the hardware store.[8]" This is all good, but it feels like three random facts thrown together to create a paragraph. Maybe you could move the stuff about standalone sequels to the first paragraph, and bring the stuff about The Omen into the second. Actually, I'd be tempted to merge the second and third paragraphs of this section; they are generally on the topic of themes/inspiration, which fit together neatly, and they're both very short.
  •  Done
  • "perky blonde" I don't like this being in Wikipedia's neutral voice; is it a direct quote? If so, quotemarks?
  •  Done
  • "Johnson said that she wore a rocker jacket<!-- What is a rocker jacket? --> for the second reading and was in a bad mood" You may want to note the comment that someone left! I also note that "second reading" is jargon.
  •  Done
  • "the filmmakers called her back to read for Erin and her dialogue in the scene was sarcastic" I'm struggling to understand what is meant, here.
  •  Done
  • "Lemche said that Ian spouts some interesting facts "that seem to be just right there on the tips of his fingers", and the actor researched most of Ian's information. During the read-throughs, he often asked Morgan about Ian's facts; Morgan wrote him notes and gave him URLs to research Ian's random insertions of odd information." This is a bit all over the place.
  •  Done Tried making it easier to understand.
  • "A custom-designed coaster was created and customized, based on events in the script." I'm guessing this wasn't actual-size; could this be clarified? You could just call it a "custom-designed scaled-down coaster".
  •  Done From what I remember, besides filming on the actual roller-coasters, Corkscrew, they had also created a few coaster cars of their own which they suspended with wires to film the scenes where the coasters cars are flying off and the characters die.
  • "The coaster-crash scenes were filmed on a green screen with a CGI background where the actors performed." This needs some attention; I don't really understand what "where the actors performed" means. I'd just lose it.
  •  Done
  • "Meteor Studios produced the roller-coaster and subway crashes, and Digital Dimension handled the death scenes" I know I picked up on this before, but it's still problematic. As written, it is suggested (even if not strictly implied) that "the roller-coaster and subway crashes" are one category of scenes and "the death scenes" are another; of course, the crashes are themselves death scenes. There's also Soho VX in there somewhere. This all needs to be clarified.
  •  Done
  • "Lemche acting the previous animation" Do you mean something like "Lemche imitating the chosen animation"?
  •  Done
  • "Final Destination 3 is the only film in the series without a released musical score" Really? Are you sure you don't mean "soundtrack album"?
  •  Done If only the film had been a musical. T_T
  • "the film grossed $105,940 for 37th place" In what rankings?
  •  Done
  • You discuss the special edition of the DVD in the lead, but not in the discussion about the DVD releases. This leads to some confusion about whether the choose-your-own-adventure feature was available in the regular release or only in the special-edition release.
  •  Done

Pausing for now; back later. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • On Den of Geek: I agree that it is a reliable source, and actually personally quite like it. I can't help but feel, though, that for a film of this sort, there are more reputable publishers/reviewers to quote. Empire and The Guardian published reviews (the latter actually published two), for example. They're both very well-regarded and well-established sources for reviews of this sort. I wouldn't be afraid of expanding the critical response section, either.
  •  Done Implemented both reviews.
  • I'm really not sold on CinemaGogue or Dreck Fiction, but I am open to being convinced that they're reliable. I wouldn't include them, if I were you.

I definitely want to see this article promoted, but I do think that there remains some room for improvement! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@JMilburn: OK, I believe I've responded to all your comments regarding corrections. As for CinemaGogue and Dreck Fiction, I don't really know how to make them reliable. If you deem them too unreliable I could just remove it and keep the other two paragraphs, considering they both comes from pretty reliable publications. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I hope this doesn't tread on your toes too much, but I've started to rewrite the analysis section. There was a lot of good stuff in Brinkema, but I appreciate that it will have seemed pretty dense to anyone not used to reading that kind of thing (so I'm sorry for dropping it on you!). I'll look at Conrich soon. I have removed Dreck Fiction and CinemaGogue; I think there will be plenty to use in the academic literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'm done; let me know what you think. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@JMilburn: I think it looks great. And you actually managed to connect Brinkema's analysis with that of Conrich's. I do feel kind of weird that the analysis section is somewhat bigger that the "Critical response" section but I'd say it's pretty good as it is. I can always just expand it in the future. Is there anything else that you want me to correct in the article? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
My instinct would be to expand the critical reception section, but if you'd rather keep it short, that's your call. I will aim to have another look through the article soon; we surely can't be far off now! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

One final niggle: Jeffrey Reddick is not mentioned in the article body; just in the lead. This means that the reference for the info about him is unclear. And please double-check the few more edits I have made. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@JMilburn: Your changes look good in regards to grammar and clarification. No problem there. I also included Reddick in the main body and was able to find a source where he briefly talks about this. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Great. I'm now leaning support. Some great work has gone into this article, and it's looking very good. I do think a close source review is needed, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

On hold

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hi, per J Milburn's suggestion, could it be possible to place this nomination on hold or something similar until I am able to read through the article/book for the film's "Analysis" section, in order to ensure it's of good quality? Not being near WiFi might make this take a little longer. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no "hold" process at FAC, and this one is not really in danger of archiving at the moment. But... If there is substantial work to be done, and nothing is going to happen for a time, it may be better to withdraw this for now and renominate it at a later date. Otherwise it could clog up the FAC list a little and might draw attention from other articles in the queue. I'm happy either way, but if nothing happens in the next week, it is probably better to archive. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, I wrote a response to this a few days ago and thought it saved but then again it was on the mobile... ;-) Anyway, Sarastro's thoughts are pretty well identical to mine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Aoba47

  • Earwigs okay, there is a raised score due (attributed) quotes, but that is fine given the context.
  • All of the information and quotes in the article appear to be accurately taken from the sources with proper attribution; it passes a spot check.
  • For Reference 5, please link Parade to Parade.
  • Could you provide any more information in the citation for the Hollywood Jesus source (i.e. author/date/etc.)? The citation just looks a little bare.
  • For Reference 57, please change Seattle Times Newspaper to a link to The Seattle Times.
  • For Reference 50, please link Roger Ebert.
  • This isn't technically a part of the source review, but please switch around References 77 and 78 in the Accolades table as they should be in numeric order.

Great work with this article; once my comments are addressed above, then this will pass the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Alright, I fixed references 5, 50 and 57. I also put references 77 and 78 numerically. As for Hollywood Jesus, the PDF unfortunately doesn't include any information about who wrote it or when. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding to my comments, and that makes sense to me. I just wanted to double-check to make sure if there was not any further information on that particular source. Great work with this, and it passes the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Was wondering on the nomination's status now that it has passed its source review. Are more comments/supports necessary? PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I don't want to be a fly in the ointment, but have you looked closely at the reliability of the sources used? Several comments above picked out questionable sources, and a glance through the list shows a reliance on a lot of websites that look less-than-stellar. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your message; it is understandable. I do not necessarily see any issues with the reliability of the sources, but feel free to do another source review or list the sources that you find questionable. I do admit that I am not that experienced with source reviews so it just may be my inexperience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We still need commentary on the reliability of sources, particularly as J Milburn has raised concerns. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I apologize for not addressing this in my review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from JMilburn

@JMilburn: Could you list the sources in the article that you find unreliable so that I may replace / remove them? PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I'm open to being convinced that I'm wrong about any of these, but after a look through the reference list, I'm particularly concerned about:

  • "Final Destination 3". Moria. Archived from the original on April 18, 2017. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
  • Removed the source and section regarding the characters names being homages.
  • Bossik, Glenn (March 14, 2006). "The Screenplay For Final Destination 3". Scriptologist. Archived from the original on June 19, 2017. Retrieved June 19, 2017."
  • "Final Destination 3 Notes" (PDF). Hollywood Jesus.
  • While the PDF unfortunately doesn't include an author or date of publication, I have checked their website and Hollywood Jesus has been running now for almost 2 decades. And the PDF itself is listed on the website so it is certain that it belongs to them.
  • A website does not become reliable purely by existing for a while. I think what you're actually citing is a press release; there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I'm struggling to find the original source. (I did come across a mention that Tommy Lee contributed to the soundtrack; is that worth including?) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is the website's page featuring the PDF. As for Tommy Lee, I think his only contibution to the soundtrack is that his cover of "Love Train" was used in the end credits. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Final Destination 3 filming locations". Movie Maps. Archived from the original on February 7, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.
  • Replaced.
  • "Final Destination 3 (2006)". Movie Locations and More. April 22, 2013. Archived from the original on April 26, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.
  • Removed.
  • "Final Destination 3, Roller Coaster Scene...". Quick Movie Facts. February 21, 2012. Archived from the original on May 3, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.
  • Removed source and section.
  • Gould, Chris (June 21, 2006). "Final Destination 3". DVD Active. Archived from the original on April 18, 2017. Retrieved February 11, 2017.
  • Gonzalex Jr., Felix (July 22, 2006). "Final Destination 3 (2006)". DVD Reviews. Archived from the original on November 19, 2008. Retrieved February 18, 2017.
  • He is a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic.
  • "Final Destination 3 Awards". Movie Awards. Archived from the original on January 9, 2017. Retrieved January 8, 2017.
  • Removed.

I do think that there are also some formatting issues. I made some tweaks, and perhaps you could redo the Patrick Schmidt citation. There may be others. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@JMilburn: OK, I fixed Schmidt's reference and replaced or removed some of the citations. The ones that stayed are one whose authors / websites I check to see if they're reliable. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:30, 18 August 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)
  • {{u|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)
  • Support I reviewed this at GAN and feel it satisfies FA criteria on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Hmlarson (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review:

  • There were a few news articles that are now deadinks. I linked to the archived versions.
  • I don't know that you need that many citations in the lede if the information is cited in the main text. That said, it's not disqualifying to have them there.
  • Spotchecked fn 22, 85, and 107. Material cited was fine, but the title was off on 107 (I fixed it).
  • Everything else being in order, I think this is good as far as sources go. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. Hmlarson (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments – This is from reading about halfway through the article.

  • From a grammar standpoint, I'm not sure "the" is helpful in "She is a co-owner of the Los Angeles FC."
  • In general, I find the lead section here to be a bit oddly constructed. Usually in FAs, authors see the lead as a summary of the article to come; some try to ensure that every section is represented in some way. Instead, this just feels like a listing of significant accomplishments and milestones. For example, a list of TV programs in which she appeared is probably too much detail for a lead section; it is enough to have a more general statement, with the details in the body of the article.
  • 1996 Atlantic Olympics: "The U.S. won their first-ever Olympic gold medal". Of course it was the first one; they couldn't have won it before, as the women's soccer event didn't exist before 1996. Maybe "The U.S. won the first-ever Olympic women's soccer gold medal" would work?
  • I do think we need to say something in the body about Hamm being iconic, since we make that claim in the lead. My expectation was that I would see something related to this in the section about the 1999 World Cup, since that's when the U.S. women's national team really became well-known to the general population. Instead, this is a straight retelling of what happened in the tournament. For an FA on this player in particular, I feel like we need to have some mention of her popularity/the team capturing the attention of the country. That team became cultural icons for a time, and she was the leader.
  • Added to end of 1999 section. This is also reinforced in the In Popular Culture section. Hmlarson (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • To further the point about how the 1999 section was a straight retelling of events, this book has the interesting point that Hamm was initially unsure about taking a penalty in the China shootout. Perhaps that's worthy of a sentence. That excerpt also had some details that might fit in the playing style section, on her emotions and leadership qualities.
  • Added dehydration element + aftermath. Feel free to add specifics as you see fit. Hmlarson (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand why you based the USWNT sections around the various major tournaments, as they are when women's international soccer players like Hamm get the most coverage, but there are a few gaps that result from this structure. The 108th international goal is tucked in the Honors and awards section, when it isn't really an honor or award, but a notable statistical record. The third paragraph of this section also includes statistical accomplishments, and her 100th career goal (which strikes me as significant) isn't mentioned at all. Also not mentioned is her competition-winning extra time goal in the 2002 CONCACAF Women's Gold Cup, which is probably worth mentioning somewhere even if it wasn't a World Cup or Olympics. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Moved 108th + 150th goals; added 100th. Hmlarson (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • A couple of quick sourcing comments from the last part of the article. First, reference 139 is to a book by Lulu Press, a self-publishing company that would only be considered a high-quality reliable source if the author was considered an expert on the subject (if he had previously published books, for example). I don't know anything about the qualifications of Tim Nash, but if he doesn't have any you'll probably have to replace this cite. Second, IMDB (ref 145) isn't a reliable source for much of anything, much less an FA. You should try to find other sources for her TV appearances; if any can't be sourced by higher-quality references, then they likely aren't notable enough to warrant mention anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Tim Nash bio. I own the It's Not the Glory book - it's pretty good, though I most often recommend Beyond Bend It Like Beckham: The Global Phenomenon of Women's Soccer by Tim Grainey. Hmlarson (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs added to shows. Hmlarson (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose: I'm recusing as coordinator for this one, and I'm afraid I don't think the prose is up to FA standard as we have a lot of redundancy and other prose issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Why do we have references in the lead? They are usually not required as everything should be cited in the main body. The only exception is usually for direct quotations, and when we have a statement "Hailed as a soccer icon" which requires 4 references in the lead, alarm bells should start ringing.
  • There are references in the lead per the fourth paragraph of WP:LEAD and previous GA reviews of this and other articles where they were requested. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hamm held the record for international goals, more than any other player, male or female, in the history of soccer until 2013, when she was passed by Abby Wambach (the current recordholder, as of 2017).[5][6] Her 275 international caps rank third on the U.S. national team, behind former teammates Kristine Lilly (354) and Christie Pearce (311). Her 144 international career assists rank first in the national team record books.[7]": This could be cut right back. "Hamm held the record for most international goals—for both men and women's soccer— until 2013, and she remains in second place as of 2017. She has the third most international caps for the U.S. national team, and the most international career assists (144)."
  • "Twice named FIFA World Player of the Year in 2001 and 2002 (the first two years that the award was given to women players)": Could be simply "Named FIFA World Player of the Year in 2001 and 2002 (the first times that a woman received the award)". Also, this has no connection to the rest of the sentence.
  • The connection is FIFA. I removed the references to women players completely. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hamm and her teammate Michelle Akers were hailed by Pelé as two of FIFA's 125 greatest living players when he included them in the FIFA 100 to celebrate the organization's 100th anniversary": Aside from needing to say a word or two about who Akers and Pele are, there is just too much going on here. The only relevant information is that Pele chose her as one of the 125 best living players. The rest is not relevant for the lead.
  • Connection is FIFA. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 2005, The Washington Post columnist Michael Wilbon called her "perhaps the most important athlete of the last 15 years"": Why is this important? Some context is needed; is he a renowned expert, or just some chap with no real standing in sport?
  • See Dank's comments above about "icon" Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "She was the first woman player inducted into the World Football Hall of Fame." Redundancy
  • Removed "player". Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would expect the lead to summarise her career much more than we do here. The lead should summarise all the main content, but we learn nothing other than her records and awards.
  • See fourth paragraph of WP:LEAD. I don't agree. We learned who she played for, what she won (a lot), about her status in sports history, etc. Is there something specific you want to mention? Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "The family moved many times and resided in several places including San Antonio, Texas, and Italy.": Why chose these specific places? Why not "The family moved several times, including overseas".
  • "Florence, Italy, is where Hamm was first introduced to soccer. Soon her entire family became involved in the sport": Sounds a little too like a magazine article and not an encyclopaedia. Could just be "Hamm first played soccer in Florence, Italy, and her entire family quickly became involved in the sport."

I'm stopping there for now, and these are samples only from the lead and first section. I suspect the whole article may need a going over, and just correcting these issues would not necessarily lead to me striking my oppose. If the nominator has no objections, I may be able to tackle the copyedit myself in the next few days, but in any case I hope to switch to support once the article has had a bit of a polish. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking a look. Comments inline above. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sarastro, please ping me after you've finished your copy-editing because I'd like to take a second look at the article. For now, Hmlarson, I wanted to quickly say that I am in strong agreement with Sarastro about the lead section. I felt uneasy about supporting the article because I had a few misgivings, which have been brought up by Sarastro. In particular, the lead section struck me as not covering the whole article. In fact, it just struck me as I was reviewing the responses to my previous comments that we don't even mention the years of her teams' World Cup and Olympic wins in the lead, when her performances in those tournaments form the heart of the article. I won't speak for what Sarastro would like to see, but I personally prefer the second paragraph of Abby Wambach, a GA you worked on, to what exists here. That article mentions the major competitions she played in and the major events her teams won, a style that goes a long way towards providing a good summary; perhaps the first two paragraphs here could be combined to make room for such a paragraph. Please consider giving this some more consideration, as I am itching to support this article but understand Sarastro's concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

More comments: Like Giants, I'd really like to support this, but I'm still finding issues. I've done a bit of copy-editing, but there are some things I'm still not sure of. First, we spend a lot of time describing team results in the sections on 1991, 1995 and 1996 tournaments. But other than the goals she scored, are there any comments anywhere on the effectiveness of her performance. I'm assuming she played well, but there is nothing in the article to tell me that. It's also disconcerting that in 1998 she scored 20 goals including her 100th international goal; we've only heard about the World Cups and Olympics; presumably she played games other than these, but we hear nothing about them. When did she first play for the US? When was her first goal? We only seem to be getting part of the story: what were these other games? Tournaments? Friendlies? I'm afraid we need more detail here about her, and less about the team results. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks again for your review. I find these comments rather subjective and vague, however. WP:FA? I see you both appear to be men's baseball and American football contributors. Any involvement at all in articles related to soccer? Hamm scored 158 goals in 275 appearances. If you have some specific ones in mind to highlight without writing a new book to add to the reference section, by all means go ahead. Hmlarson (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. Ok then, I consider that this does not meet criteria 1a and 1b for the reasons stated above; and I have specified what I feel should be included. And for what it's worth, both Giants and I have been reviewing sports articles at FAC, including soccer, for many years; and I have never contributed to men's baseball or American football, as even a cursory check would reveal. But that is not relevant, and nor is questioning the ability of the reviewers to review. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In fairness, part of the issue is that the World Cup and Olympics are the two big events in international women's soccer for the U.S., and not much of note happens in the two years out of four that they aren't held (the European teams have a continental championship to contest, but ours isn't anything to write home about). Also, the USWNT wasn't heavily covered by the sports media for much of Hamm's time with the team. I've seen stories about how the players weren't even recognized on the plane ride home after winning the first Women's World Cup. Even in the late 1990s, when the team was receiving coverage, the level of soccer knowledge in the U.S. press was not strong, so I'm not sure how much deep analysis they were doing about Hamm's game at the time. With that said, I do think that some additions could be made to make the article more comprehensive. I would suggest adding (assuming good sources exist) info on her first appearance and first goal for the national team, and looking at the USWNT media guide for ideas. I see a year-by-year stat breakdown there, which may be helpful; even simple facts such as her scoring 18 goals in 1997, or having 20 goals and 20 assists in 1998, help fill the perceived gaps the other reviewers spotted. Her scoring four goals in one 1994 match may also be worthy of mention. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with you, Sarastro, that the article reads as a list of her (admittedly, many) achievements rather than exploring her skill and experience as a player in the sort of depth that a featured article should. I don't see as many prose problems as you do from a cursory read, but I don't think this is quite ready yet, as it doesn't seem fully comprehensive for one of the most iconic soccer players of all time. Hmlarson, what's here is certainly good; it just needs to be fleshed out and expanded. ceranthor 14:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Update Gentlemen, here's what's been added:

  • first international cap
  • first international goal
  • another summary to lead into international section

I'll defer any year-by-year table to you Giants2008 or any other simple facts you think are pertinent to add. You too Ceranthor. I'd like to challenge you to seek the information you think I should include. Hmlarson (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on the FAC to see whether the other reviewers are satisfied with your additions, as that would push me in the direction of supporting since my concerns when reading the article were basically the same as theirs. I don't think a full stat table is needed in the article, so I won't be adding one. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. ceranthor 02:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Prose Comments from Ceranthor

  • the inaugural 1991 in China, 1995 in Sweden, 1999 and 2003 in the United States. - just listing the year doesn't work grammatically here
  • She completed her international career having played in 42 matches and scored 14 goals at these 7 international tournaments. - use of at is awkward, maybe over the course of is better?
  • She currently ranks third in the history of the U.S. national team for international caps - what does that mean? link or explain
  • She was inducted into the National Soccer Hall of Fame, Alabama Sports Hall of Fame, Texas Sports Hall of Fame and was the first woman inducted into the World Football Hall of Fame.[8] - grammar; should be and Texas
  • Hamm has been featured in several films and television shows, including the HBO documentary, Dare to Dream: The Story of the U.S. Women's Soccer Team. - no comma necessary after shows
  • Hamm played sports from a young age and excelled as a football player on the boys' team at junior high school. - should clarify whether american or international football
  • During her tenure with the national team, she competed in four FIFA Women's World Cup tournaments: the inaugural 1991 in China, 1995 in Sweden, 1999 and 2003 in the United States. - same issue as in the lead
  • She completed her international career having played in 42 matches and scored 14 goals at these 7 international tournaments. - same issue as lead... try to avoid reusing the same sentence in the lead and main text
  • Hamm held the record for most international goals scored—by a woman or man—until 2013 and remains in third place as of 2017.[5][6][25] - I tend to think place implies a competition; I'd just say she was ranked third
  • international caps - link or explain again
  • She also scored once in their second group stage match when the defeated Brazil 5–0.[30] - grammar
  • During the quarterfinal match, the U. S. defeated Chinese Taipei 7–0. - should use a non-breaking space for US
  • this was the first Olympic tournament that women's soccer was included.[41] - grammar
  • In 1998, Hamm's 20 goals marked her annual high during her international career.[51] - annual high? Rephrase
  • served an assist to Julie Foudy in the 73rd minute - Can you serve an assist? awkward phrasing
  • head coach Tony DiCicco - linked twice; only link it once at first mention
  • Hamm collapsed in the locker room from severe hydration - dehydration?
  • SARS outbreak.[72] - should clarify its location I think

Prose is almost there, but needs a little more work. ceranthor 16:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I think we are moving in the right direction, but I notice that a few points that Giants made have not been addressed yet. One of the problems seems to have been that, with little information available, the article has been padded out from match reports. But we really need to see more about what Hamm did. Were there really no features on her, or comments about her performances? If she was so acclaimed after these tournaments, how do we know? We currently simply state, for example, that "Her leadership and performance at the 1999 World Cup cemented Hamm as a soccer icon". But... how? What did people say? And she was carried off in one final and ended up on a drip after another; this is huge, she is obviously incredible, so someone must have said something at the time. Can we not give some reaction rather than just baldly stating what happened? I still see quite a lot to do here, and I do wonder if it is achievable in the timescale of this FAC. But I'm willing to help and see how far we can get, whether it is at this FAC or at a future one, for I think there is a FA in here, certainly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 10 August 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)

Support Comments from Cas Liber

Discounting the inclusion of the standalone single "Good Vibrations" and the solo-credited "Gettin' Hungry", only one single was issued from Smiley Smile: "Heroes and Villains". - I'd flip this sentence and put the second part first. Emphasis is a bit wrong as is.
Brian declared to his bandmates that most of the material recorded for Smile was now distinctly off-limits - why "distinctly" - suggest removing...
Smiley Smile possesses a distinct signature sound - I know what you mean but it sounds puffy/advertorial...

Otherwise reads well. Nice work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed those issues --Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
You didn't do the first one but not a deal-breaker. Looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the first part... somehow.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties, not a big Beach Boys fan (the only track I know is "Heroes and Villains", which I don't mind actually) so I think I can be severely objective...

  • I copyedited so pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or if you simply disagree with my wording. Other than that, happy with prose except for:
    • "...Smiley Smile was recorded in a modular approach..." -- sorry but what is a "modular approach"?
  • Overall structure looks reasonable to me, as does the level of detail.
  • I haven't gone through referencing or image licensing.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed "modular" to "fragmented" and added a note explaining what the process was.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, tks -- that helps a lot. I expect to support assuming image and source checks come back clean. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: On that note... Have I missed an image or source review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Van_Dyke_Parks_1967.png: the magazine does include a copyright notice, on page 4
  • All three of the music samples appear to be longer than 10% of the original (see WP:SAMPLE, and contrary to description on two of them?), and all three need improvements to FUR - n.a. parameters should be filled in, and in the latter two the purpose of use needs improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
samples shortened, questionable file removed, filled in n.a parameters --Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I am a little confused by the ALT text for the infobox image, as I am not entirely sure what a "smile shop" is. Would it be possible to clarify this?
  • Something about these sentences read odd to me, specifically the repetition of the word "single" (Only one single was issued from Smiley Smile: "Heroes and Villains". "Good Vibrations" and "Gettin' Hungry" were also released singles, but the former was issued a year earlier, while the latter was not credited to the band.). I would just say "were also released" to avoid any misinterpretation as the "singles" part does not seem entirely necessary.
  • Should the term "LP" in the lead and the body of the article be linked to the LP record article just to make it clear for the reader?
  • The "Media data and Non-free use rationale" box is not complete for the "Vegetables" audio sample, specifically the "Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1)" and "Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2)" portions. The same comment applies to the "Fall Breaks and Back" audio sample and the "Wonderful" audio sample.
  • For the image in the "Legacy" section, I would make the caption more complete by writing "The Beach Boys performing at Central Park, 1971".

This is a really interesting article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Wonderful work with this! Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

done - a smile shop is a shop that sells smiles, of course (you can get a better look at it here) --Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

This is wonderfully written and extremely well informed. Am always impressed by album articles where the context and the placing it within the trajectory of the artist/band's career comes through. This was a fascinating and gripping read, wry in the right places. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 13 August 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)
Images General
  • 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.
Text revisions made to indicate support of report findings by church official and when government funding was first approved. --Dnllnd (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Added additional info about the 1920s and acquisition of schools by the government from church officials. --Dnllnd (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • 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: [33],[34],[35](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 govern