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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Toolbox
  • 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.

Contents

Nominations

Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC) & Boghog (talk)

This article is about a natural product in humans which is used as a medical food ingredient and dietary supplement; it has medical and athletic performance-enhancing applications for preventing/reversing muscle wasting and improving body composition respectively. My previous nomination of this article was archived approximately one year ago. Since then, this article has received minor updates and gone through a thorough GA review (Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/GA1).

This is the second pharmacology article that I've worked on for FA status. My first pharmacology FA was amphetamine, so this article's layout and formatting mirror that article. Like amphetamine, this article includes citations in the lead that are grouped in a citation note at the end of each paragraph. I will not remove the lead references since they cite medical claims.

The section names and the organization of the sections in the article follow MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. Per WP:MEDRS, all medical claims in this article must be cited by recent reviews, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews. Most of the paywalled medical reviews that are cited in the article are temporarily available in this link for viewing/downloading. The file names (without the .pdf extension) of the papers listed in this link reflect the reference names (i.e., <ref name="...">) used in the source code of the HMB article. Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Equestrian statue of Edward Horner

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This one is a little unusual. It's still a war memorial, of sorts, and still Lutyens, but instead of commemorating the efforts of a village or a city or a regiment, it commemorates one individual. I was initially doubtful that there would even be enough to write about one monument in a church in a tiny Somerset village; I certainly wasn't expecting a 2,000-word piece that I'd be bringing here. As it turns out, it's covered in almost all the books about war memorials and several about British society during the First World War. I'd originally planned for this to follow its sister article, Mells War Memorial, but it wasn't quite ready when that one passed FAC. I've given it a quick polish and added a couple of details and I have a gap now so here I am. I hope you like it, but all feedback will be warmly received! Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. However, I'm seeing some odd line breaking in |artist= in the infobox, and I'm not sure "equestrian" should be capped in the lead sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: two images added here and here and image layout also tweaked. Letting you know so the images can be reviewed, but maybe wait and see if any further changes are made, and if these changes stick? Also, does this fix the line-breaking in the infobox? Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, line-breaks solved. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Galobtter

  • "south-western england" Quite rare term, as far as I can see, either "South West England" or just "England" would be better
  • "sculpture executed by Alfred Munnings" is there a more common word to replace "executed" in the case of sculpting - like crafted, carved, fashioned something like that? searching and executed is rarely used alongside sculpture
  • "Edward Horner was the only surviving son and heir of Sir John and Lady Frances Horner of Mells Manor and a member of an extended upper-class social group known as the Coterie..." Lots of ands, far too many of 'em
  • "Shortly after the war broke out, he was a yeomanry officer in the part-time Territorial Force" should either be "became" not "was" or "he was a yeomanry officer in the part-time Territorial Force when the war broke out"
  • "On 19 August 1914, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the North Somerset Yeomanry, a part-time Territorial Force unit with no obligation to serve abroad. At the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914, his regiment was ordered to Hampshire for training." The war started in general before few days before August; I assume the commissioning had something to do with the war?; the sentences don't make much sense to me
  • "As well as dozens of public war memorials in towns and cities across Britain, Lutyens designed several private memorials to individual casualties, usually the sons of friends or clients. Many were heirs to the country houses Lutyens had built earlier in his career, as in Mells where he renovated the manor at the beginning of the 20th century. His work in Mells arose through his friend and collaborator Gertrude Jekyll, who introduced him to the Horners through a family connection. Lutyens established a friendship which led to multiple commissions in the village. As well as his work on the manor, he redesigned its gardens and worked on several related buildings and structures, and after the war was responsible for a tribute to Raymond Asquith (Edward's brother-in-law, also located in St Andrew's Church) and the village's own memorial. As well as the statue, Lutyens designed two others memorials to Horner—a wooden board featuring a description of the events leading up to his death, which was placed on a wall in the..."
  • "He was wounded in May 1915 and did not return to the war until early 1917. He was assigned a staff post but again secured a transfer to the front line." repetitive - "He was wounded in May 1915 and did not return to the war until early 1917. Initially assigned a staff post, he again secured a transfer to the front line."

In general repetitiveness in the prose could be helped by varying sentence structure Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Noswall59

This monument appears to be a touching tribute to the waste of life involved in WWI. But it also strikes me as a monument born out of privilege and commemorating the death of an upper-class soldier, contrasting with many of the more egalitarian memorials put up after WWI; I am not sure I've seen anything quite like it. I wonder whether any authors have talked about it in the context of social class? It is interesting too that the villagers were not keen on the monument being put inside the church, which may be linked to class as well: do you have anymore details on that? (Also, if you know the blazon of the coat of arms, it could be added as a note). Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC).

Comments from Carcharoth

An excellent article. Delving into various obscure corners again:

  • It should be fairly easy to get a photo of the sculpture mould at the Munnings Art Museum (though it is closed until Easter now). That would be a nice addition to the article.
  • Similarly, a photo of it in its original position, or failing that, an indication of where the reader can find such a photo if they want to see it as it appeared in its original location.
  • Have the original design drawings been published anywhere? (glimpse here) And found the images in the RIBA library here and here.
  • The reference to this other memorial to Horner in the church really needs more. This (oak) wooden board. Either a photo, or a quote from the inscription. The best sources I could find on the wooden board are: [1] and [2]. If you think quotes from the wooden board will overwhelm the article, maybe put them in footnotes?
  • The stone tablet in Cambrai Cathedral is relevant and would be nice to include as well. But that will likely be difficult! Any chance of a quote from the Cambrai tablet?
  • Looking on Google Books, there do seem to be some academic sources not used yet. Will try and give examples.
  • Several sources mention the comments made by novelist Anthony Powell describing the statue as an 'Arthurian knight from the pages of Tennyson, riding out on his charger'. This really needs including in the article. See also here, referencing his memoirs (To Keep The Ball Rolling - TKBR).
  • Similarly, see here for a mention of the Horners and their social context in At Duty's Call: A Study in Obsolete Patriotism (1991) by W. J. Reader. (Reader's comments are taken further in 'Masculinities in Victorian Painting' (1995) by Joseph A. Kestner - see page 213).
  • Reader's book is precisely what I had in mind - it recognises the class-inflected context of the monument and highlights how it reflects a certain romantic heroism which was usually eschewed by the 1920s in war narratives (and in memorials). —Noswall59 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC).
  • Couple more: Parish Church Treasures: The Nation's Greatest Art Collection (see the 'remove any sense of triumphalism' sentence, plus it seems the sculpture is called 'cavalry subaltern' and it was quite widely exhibited at the time, and was in Norwich Museum for a while), Public Schools and The Great War (Horner is one of three private memorials discussed, see end of page 202), The Last Pre-Raphaelite: Edward Burne-Jones and the Victorian Imagination (some context for the Souls circle and the impact on them of the war on page 124 as well).
  • Final tidbit: the tribute by F.E. Smith (Lord Birkenhead) can be found here. It is worth a read, and it mentions the statue and that it was exhibited by Munnings before the memorial was erected.

Carcharoth (talk) 04:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. I was a part of the A-Class nomination, can find no further room for improvement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhine Campaign of 1796

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Rhine Campaign of 1796, an important campaign year for the French revolutionary wars against the European coalitions. Four armies worked their way back and forth across southern and central German states in the course of a few months. At the end, the armies ended up where they had begun, but French successes in Northern Italy (where the French army was led by Napoleon), forced the Austrians into an armistice and then a peace treaty. ... auntieruth (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, I was a part of the MILHIST A-class review, and I can find no further improvements to be made. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

James K. Polk

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a president who greatly expanded the United States, but who is controversial for a number of reasons, for example he was a slaveowner. This is a former featured article.Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • White House caption shouldn't end in a period
Done.
  • Per WP:IMGSIZE, don't use a fixed pixel size - use upright to scale instead
Done.
  • File:James_Polk_restored.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:White_House_1846.jpg
Done.
  • File:James_K_Polk_and_Sarah_C_Polk.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, File:State-dining-room-polk-cabinet.jpg
  • File:Oregoncountry2.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Same with File:Mapa_de_Mexico_1845.PNG, File:Mexican–American_War_(without_Scott's_Campaign)-en.svg, File:Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo.png, File:United_States_1845-03-1845-12.png, File:United_States_1849-1850.png
I'm not quite sure how to respond. Presumably the creator of the map obtained the data. I'm open to suggestions on how to proceed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggest adding sources to the image description page to confirm the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I've added supporting information with links. I can't swear to every jot on the map but these seem to contain the same information.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:James_Polk_Grave.jpg should include an explicit tag reflecting the copyright status of the monument. Same with File:James_Knox_Polk_Statue.JPG
Both done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Polk_Place.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published?
Swapped for a better image.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:JamesKnoxPolk.png: given the dates, the author could not have released it under the claimed license
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Standard_of_the_Governor_of_Tennessee.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support All my problems were addressed in the Peer Review. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Much obliged for that, and for your thorough review there.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments from SchroCat
IB

This is a monster of an IB and on my screen the log cabin picture actually breaks the line into the Early political career section, which is something to avoid. There is flexibility to remove the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" fields from the appointments, which may be worth considering, although I leave the decision to you (the Preceded by/Succeeded fields tell us absolutely nothing about Polk himself, and are of extremely limited benefit).

Instead, I've shortened by merging the two congressional districts.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Early life
  • "Samuel Polk died in 1827; his widow lived until 1852, surviving her oldest son by three years.[6]" This slightly jarred when in the next sentence we drop back to Samuel in 1812. Would it be better in a footnote?
  • "Polk opened an office in Maury County and[3] was successful": odd place for a footnote – I would have thought it would follow "County" or the end of the sentence.
Tennessee legislator
  • "time for campaigning,[16] Already" full stop or lower case A?
  • "Her grace, intelligence and charming conversation": as this is opinion in Wiki's voice, I'd be more comfortable with "according to xxx" as part of the sentence.
  • "Polk, though much of his political career": through?

Done to the end of "Jackson disciple", and will continue soonest. Enjoying this – well written and engaging, as always. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and the kind words. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Ways and Means chair and Speaker of the House
  • "Polk, with Jackson's backing, became the chairman of Ways and Means". Is that the Ways and Means Committee? If so, it should be the full name and the link moved up from later in the section
It is linked in the previous section. I've removed the duplicate link and rewritten it slightly.
  • "June 1834, Speaker of the House Andrew Stevenson": link speaker of the house?
  • "assuring his disciple in a letter he meant Polk to burn that New England would support Polk for Speaker": its been a long day and I'm quite tired, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say here
Governor of Tennessee
  • "a Tennessee afire for White and Whiggism" poetically put, but perhaps a word or two in explanation: my first thought was 'who's White?'
Third paragraph of previous section. Do you think the reader needs more of a reminder? Your reaction suggests "yes".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Election Day": do we normally capitalise like this?
Yes, in AmEng

Done to the end of the '44 election, and it's riveting stuff – reminds me of the politics I studied at school and university. More to follow soon. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you are enjoying it ... if I haven't addressed it above, it's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

A few minor formatting points:

  • Ref 16: space required after p.
  • Ref 17: why "Page" not "p."?
  • Ref 114: requires pp. not p.

Otherwise, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Murder of Yvonne Fletcher

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yvonne Fletcher was a bright and popular young police officer who was shot in the back by a gunman firing from a first-floor window of the Libyan embassy in London. It marked the start of an eleven-day siege, six Britons being held hostage in Tripoli for nine months and a break in diplomatic relations between the UK and Libya that lasted until 1999. The police investigation has never closed, and they have strong suspicions on the identify of the gunmen and the co-conspirators, some of their evidence can not be released in court because of national security. It's a shabby story for Fletcher's family, who have never been able to see Yvonne's killer brought to justice. This article has been over-hauled recently and gone through a very useful PR. Any further comments are most gratefully received. – SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)#

  • Thanks for your help and advice at PR on this Nikkimaria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Support. My few, minor, comments were attended to during the peer review, and I have no additional ones this time round. A well-balanced article, clear, evidently comprehensive, thoroughly sourced and well illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 20:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your thoughts at PR, Tim, and your further comment here - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Support All of my issues were addressed at PR. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Eddie891 - your early assistance at the review was very welcome and helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Excellent article, the only thing I might query is the conversion to 1.588 m, I doubt that here height was accurate to within 1 mm Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Very true - I've tweaked accordingly. Many thanks for your comment. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things. I recall the incident though there was perhaps not as much coverage in the US.

  • "to police a" you use police as a noun in the previous section. I might use a synonym here.
  • You use the term "deport" in the lede. Is this the proper term given the diplomatic status I imagine they had? Our article on diplomatic immunity suggests "expelled" might be better.
  • I might link "telex".
  • Consider mentioning that you are quoting from the postmortem prior to the quote, it may read a bit better.
  • "the siege in Tripoli was lifted that day and one of the men arrested the previous day was also released.[40][37] " refs in wrong order.
  • "a spent cartridge and gunshot residue were found at two windows on the first floor." a total of one or two cartridges?
  • "inquiries.[56] When it reconvened, police reported that they had 400 lines of enquiry" no doubt it's a BritEng thing to have both "inquiries" and "enquiry", but I thought I would point it out just in case.
  • Your quotation from Robin Cook seems mostly to duplicate what was said in the paragraph before.
That's it. Looking forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. All addressed in this series of edits. If there are any other thoughts, I'd be happy to address them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

In the "Websites and television" section, the publisher of the Hudson source is missing. Otherwise, everything checks out; sources are of the appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Brian – now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Regine Velasquez

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a Filipino singer and actress who had achieved success in other Asian countries. I've been working on the article and expanded it, with most of the heavy work done between November to December of last year, at which time it received a peer review. I feel ready to give this a shot at FAC. All suggestions for improvement are welcome. Pseud 14 (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:Intramurosjf0305_17.JPG: since the Philippines does not have freedom of panorama, this needs to include an explicit licensing tag for the architectural work
Agreed. Removed image from the article. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Regine_Velasquez_-_Sana_Maulit_Muli.ogg: what is the length of the original song? Same with File:Written_In_The_Sand_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, File:In_Love_With_You_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, File:Fly_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, File:Emotion_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg
Done. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Given the length of File:In_Love_With_You_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg, the sample is longer than 10%. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, My bad, the song length is in fact 4:23 as sourced. Do let me know if this meets criteria. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately it would still be longer than 10%. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, In that case, I have removed the sample. Thanks for confirming. The fewer the better. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This article has quite a few non-free samples - need to consider whether it would be possible to convey adequate information with fewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Fair point. Got rid of the 2, I kept "File:Regine_Velasquez_-_Sana_Maulit_Muli.ogg" for the music career subsection where the song is tackled and "File:In_Love_With_You_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg", "File:Fly_-_Regine_Velasquez.ogg" under Musical style just to illustrate variety in genre under this context. I think a total of 3 in the article can be sufficient. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Support per my detailed review at PR here. I have made some copy-edits here and there. These are my edits. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

FrB.TG, thank you for your thorough review and input at PR. Much appreciate your support. --Pseud 14 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support per my comments at the peer review, here. Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Thanks for your valuable input at PR and for your support --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

As promised, I'll do my best to post some comments within the next few days. ceranthor 23:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hydnum repandum

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the wood hedgehog, a cute mushroom. It was heavily improved by Sasata who has sadly retired. I reckon it was nearly FA-worthy then and have updated it with latest information and done all that I think is outstanding. I feel it is the equal of other fungus FAs - if anything arises I will fix it pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review - Market caption could use editing, licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, looks pretty comprehensive, although white fruit bodied probably needs at least one hyphen Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review: All sources in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

University of Washington station

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a glass box in front of a football stadium that tens of thousands of people enter in order to descend 100 feet and board a train. In other words, a pretty standard train station, though one that had a long and complex planning process that preceded its construction. This article recently passed GA and went through a GOCE cleanup and I feel it's ready to join Seattle's other glass box as an FA. SounderBruce 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disclaimer: This nomination is part of the ongoing WikiCup competition. SounderBruce 01:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 14: Check the page, given here as "p. 2-2" – single page or mistyped range?
    • The reference is on page "2-2" (section 2, page 2). I use endashes and the pp. parameter for multi-page citations.
      • Maybe a "2:2" format would be less confusing, but I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I have decided to replace the citation entirely, since I recently found the original document with that specific map. SounderBruce 02:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 35: I'm not sure how this untitled source supports the statement cited to it: "The FTA rejected the mid-block crosswalk and a compromise pedestrian overpass connecting to the center of the Montlake Triangle from Rainier Vista was adopted in 2011."
    • The first part (about the FTA rejection) is supported by page 5 of Ref 35 (the PDF), which states the following: "Spring 2010 – at-grade crossings not approved by FTA;".
  • Ref 58, also 77: I was denied access to these Seattle Times sources as I had apparently "reached my limit of free articles". Curiosly, I was allowed access to 60, 66, 67 and 81.
    • The older articles (community.seattletimes) are not behind the paywall that newer articles are. You can load them into incognito mode to bypass the paywall.

Otherwise, sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability and in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the review. I've answered your questions above. SounderBruce 23:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

HMS Vanguard (1909)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Other than becoming the only British dreadnought lost during World War I to non-combat causes (her magazines exploded in 1917), Vanguard had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired at the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. The article recently completed a MilHist ACR and I've incorporated the comments from my last few British dreadnought FACs. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining, although I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:British_Battleships_of_the_First_World_War_Q40389.jpg: to use the UK-unknown tag, you need to detail on the image description page what steps you've taken to try to ascertain authorship. Same with File:HMS_Vanguard_postcard.jpg. The former also needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The description field seems a strange place to describe the research for authorship, rather than the author field or even a separate notes section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Not the field, the page - either of those fields would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Was a part of the A-class review, can find no more faults. Please note I modified the copyright license of File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff by removing the OLD-80 and 1923 license and adding a OLD-80-1923 license. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

  • Since there are no sfn templates, it took me a while to comb through the refs to discover there's no source for Gardiner & Gray. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 6: No source defined
  • In ref 13 there appears to be a stray "p." Also, I think the reference should indicate that the link is to a Dreadnought Project page that includes the Times reference, rather than to The Times itself
  • A general point: in a number of cases, e.g. refs 36, 43, 44, etc, you give the website but no publisher. Websites are not publishers – the name of the publisher should be added as you do in, for example, 35 and 38.

Otherwise, no further issues with the refs. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw (1705)

Nominator(s): Imonoz (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a battle between Swedish forces and Saxon/Polish-Lithuanian forces in the year of 1705, involving the power struggle for the Polish throne between Augustus II the Strong and Stanisław Leszczyński. The outnumbered Swedish force managed to beat their foes after a battle outside Warsaw and protect the coronation of king Stanislaw I. This could be the first battle-article in the Great Northern War to receive the FA status. Imonoz (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Nikkimaria, Fixed (I believe) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Per WP:IMGSIZE, don't use fixed pixel size - you can scale images up or down using |upright=
Fixed (can't figure out how to do it with the infobox image, and the doublings however) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Battle_of_Warsaw_1705.PNG: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
Updated source as best as I could (old source is gone) by adding a new one Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Mányoki_Stanislaus_Leszczyński.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Aŭgust_Mocny._Аўгуст_Моцны_(H._Rodakowski,_XIX).jpg, File:Jacob_Burensköld_SP158.jpg, File:Altranstadt_Mittagessen_1706.jpg
Fixed Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Campaign_of_Grodno.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image?
Added source information (should've done that a long time ago) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Svensk_Kavalleriformering_1707.JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Added an English description (previously only in Swedish) Imonoz (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • There are several Harvard errors:
  • Kling & Sjöström 2015 (refs 1, 4, 30, 52)
  • Imhof & Schönleben 1719 (refs 14, 29, 46)
  • Grimberg & Uddgren 1914 (refs 21, 22, 28, 33, 37, 57)
I'm happy you noticed these. Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of the sources appear to be non-English. Their languages should be stated.
Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Notes 1, 3 and 4 are uncited. Perhaps 1 can be taken as purely explanatory, but for 3 and 4 the dates should be confirmed by sources.
Fixed. Imonoz (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources appear to be consistently formatted and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

William Pūnohu White

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about William Pūnohu White, one of the leading Native Hawaiian political leader during the time of the overthrow of Hawaii which has generally been written as a conflict between the queen and American businessmen, neglecting the contributions of Native Hawaiian leaders (other than the queen) in the struggle. His colorful and controversial life is a great illustration of the different forms of resistance during the period between 1893 and 1898 against American imperialism in Hawaii and also the negative repercussions of misaligning against the Euro-American power holders in the islands at the time. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review and Image review done in previous reviews.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Elasmosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC), LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC), Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the first article about a plesiosaur to be nominated for FAC. Elasmosaurus is also the most viewed articles about a long-necked plesiosaur genus, and gets more hits than even Plesiosaurus itself. Therefore it is a good place to start, and to set a standard for how other plesiosaur articles can be written. Elasmosaurus has a well-known, dramatic history, and we have summarised all we could find about the animal here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Iry-Hor

As I was checking the sources to find nice books on Elasmosaurus, I got surprised by how the bibliography is organised, as a mixed of several ways of doing. The book by Everhart 2005 is cited using the sfn template but is the only one to be so (I corrected the harv error by the way). The rest of the bibliography is rich and interesting but looks at bit messy. I have a strong preference for full sfn bibliographies, which separate text references and the books/articles themselves (see Nyuserre Ini for an example).

The way the refs are written poses a serious problem for sourcing claims, for example ref [13] appears four times and all we are told is that the claim sources are in the page span 215–240, corresponding to the entire source. I was told that in FA, claims should be page specific so as to enable the reader to source them and check for his/her-self. The sfn template would definitely allow you to specify both the precise pages for each claim (which I see as a requirement for FA) while at the same time displaying the whole span 215–240 in the bibliography section. It would also make the text references look less messy.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there has been a long back and forth[3] about how long page ranges should be, and there is currently no consensus. I agree page ranges should not be too long, but I have never seen anyone suggest that all citations should be page specific, ranges are very much allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I always give page ranges rather than individual pages for my FAC journal refs, which is normal practice outside wikipedia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
That isn't great, take for example Persson, P.O. (1963), which has 6 refs and a page span of 60pages. It seems that we require a lot of effort on the reader behalf here. My view is that we should help the reader check the source by providing narrow enough page ranges. I would say no more than 5 pages span, although this is obviously arbitrary, yet 60 pages is far too much. Also imagine the pain for whoever is going to do the source spot-check. IN addition, my comment is also about (lack of) consistency: Everhart has specific pages or narrow page spans (this is great), while none of the others have that. I may be wrong, but I feel like this state of fact was "forced" onto the editor(s) by the use of the "< ref >" template as opposed to sfn. I have no doubt that the editors accessed the specific pages and thus would have been in good position to provide optimal narrow page spans or speficic pages while writing the article, yet couldn't do so nicely with "ref", as this would have separated multiple entries to the same work.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
There are a few issues at hand. Journal articles are usually not broken up, unless they are very long. With books, if the page range is short, the few pages used are given for each book, whereas long books from which many different page ranges are used, such as Everhart, are usually broken up. I have never seen anyone ask for consistency in this, see for example earlier FACs Istiodactylus, Smilodon, or Columbian mammoth. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Very well, I understand now that the bibliography format is quite acceptable wiz other articles and the sources themselves are impeccable. Furthermore it is anyway too late to get precise page numbers for all claims. I hope that in the future you will consider using the sfn template throughout. That said, I should clearly state that I enjoyed reading the article, which I found to be well written and complete. I have no reproach to make, it is always a pleasure to see nice additions to wikipedia.
Perhaps I can suggest that you add alt text for all the images?Iry-Hor (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I've myself used various citation styles from article to article, depending on what fit me best at the moment... Yeah, we should be able to add alt-text. LittleJerry, if I fix the pictures down to classification, can you take them from there? FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


Concerning the function of the neck section, I remember reading in a book on dinosaurs that a possibility considered by researchers is that the long neck was an advantage for fish hunting (if I remember correctly what they said, it was because it would allow the head to be close to or in schools of fish, while the large body would remain some distance away). In the section on Feeding you discuss something similar but I am surprised this is not further discussed in the neck section.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll leave this one for LittleJerry, who wrote the section. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • genus of plesiosaur — why isn't it genus of plesiosaurs?
seems consistent with other article FAs of prehistoric animal genera. LittleJerry (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I must admit I've never given this any thought, just copied what was written in earlier dinosaur FAs. But I do think the current wording sounds better. Maybe Casliber can explain, having nominated some of those earlier articles? FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Several technical terms such as "pectoral and pelvic girdles, vertebrae, maxilla, invertebrate, centrum, quadratic/quadrate and sacral" are either not linked at all or not at first use
Linked. Centrum/centra doesn't have a separate article, though, it just links to vertebra. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of places where multiple refs are not in numerical order
Hmmm, is that a problem? Is there an automated way to fix this? Seems very tedious. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Life restoration—I'm not sure about this caption. Life seems inappropriate. Artist's impression perhaps ?
Life restoration/reconstruction is commonly used in palaeontological literature to denote illustrations of an extinct animal in life. Restoration/artist's impression could mean a drawing of a skeleton too, so it is not specific enough. Anyhow, changed to just "restoration", as in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It was long on exhibit—I'd prefer It was long exhibited or It was long on exhibition
Took "long exhibited". FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Barracuda—surely lower case?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
with regard to having multiple refs in numerical order, it's what I get told to do in my FACs, so just passing on the grief (: Otherwise, I'm happy with the responses, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Now we'll at least be prepared if someone else asks... FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Looking now...

Commenting on above, I would leave genus of plesiosaur as singular as it sounds more natural to mine ears...
the necks of elasmosaurids did not attain half the absolute length of the longest-necked sauropod dinosaurs. - why not " the necks of elasmosaurids were less than half as long as those of of the longest-necked sauropod dinosaurs."
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Most of the neck vertebrae were compressed sideways, especially at the middle of the neck. - I'd probably say "Most of the cervical vertebrae were compressed sideways, especially at the middle of the neck."...as there are a new "necks" around this segment of prose...
Yeah, the "problem" here is that we've made a deal out of using common names for anatomical features after first mention, so it would seem weird if we were inconsistent in just this spot? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 3: "Palaentology online" should not be italicised, and you should add a retrieval date.
Fixed, it was formatted as a journal article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 15: Retrieval dates should be consistently formatted – compare with ref 1
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 16: Unformatted url
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 47: What language?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 53: What language?
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 91: The link goes to an error message.
Changed link. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

All should be fixed now, Brianboulton. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer

Nominator(s): AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is my First FA Nomination. I have reviewed many Good articles and have nominated others in the process. I have copy-edited this article and talked to others about the structure. I want to continue the success of Simpsons articles. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Support by Darkwarriorblake

As I don't really know how to do a Featured Article on a television episode, I have referred to an existing one - "A Streetcar Named Marge".

  • The first point I'd raise is that the lead does not mention any of the reception or legacy received by the episode
  • I would rephrase " The episode became the source of the Overlord meme". I kinda guessed what it referred to as a fan of the Simpsons, but to the uneducated reader I imagine this reads as quite random? Maybe other editors can input here. I would suggest something like "A scene from the episode, in which anchorman Kent Brockman mistakes ants for alien invaders, has since gone on to become a common meme for exaggerating submission to other entities". This might be too wordy, but I think explaining what the "overlord meme" means will go along way to helping the casual Simpsons fan or non-fan understand.
Do you think the Overlord part should be in the article? If so why in the lead? It seems better placed in "legacy AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In the Cultural references section, there is a line about "Astronaut Race Banyon is a parody of Jonny Quest character Race Bannon." this is unsourced.
  • As the DVD is sourced quite extensively in the article, you should add time-codes to show where the information is mentioned for people to be able to find it in the future. If you want to know how to do this, take a look at The Shawshank Redemption and Ctrl+f "sfn" for examples.
I did a "sfn" for the commentaries and have the location as "Simpsons World" due to that site being the location for all the commentaries. Finding the timestamps in near impossible and would take hours. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

*I would argue that there is an excuse to include a NFCC screenshot of something to do with Brockman/the ants to demonstrate what the meme is about as it's discussed a lot in the reception section.

Should I keep the meme in the article? AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would check some of the Cultural References sources in general as I found it hard to identify the information it was sourcing.
  • Good luck! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Thanks! AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the meme is fine, it has plenty of coverage, I meant you could include an image of that scene to demonstrate what it is about. If you can't fit it into the article you could fit it into the infobox. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Image has been added. Thank you! AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 2: link goes to an error message
  • Ref 11: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 12; contains a redundant "pp."

Otherwise, the sources seem appropriate and are properly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: All Completed AmericanAir88 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose from Aoba47

  • I would add a reference to the infobox image.
  • Please complete the “Media data and Non-free use rationale” box for the infobox image.
  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • In the infobox, move the link for David Mirkin to the first instance in which he appears (i.e. the “written by” parameter as opposed to the “showrunner” parameter.
  • I do not see the need for the references in the lead. That information and the references should be in the body of the article. Also, none of the information that is cited by the references are controversial to the point that a reference in the lead is necessary.
  • You can just say “Fox” rather than “Fox network” as the first is the more common way of referencing the network.
  • Please include the years in which The Right Stuff and 2001: A Space Odyssey were released.
  • For this part “with many calling it the best episode of the Simpsons”, specify who the “many” is (i.e. critics, fans, the show’s cast and crew?) and italcize “the Simpsons” as it is the name of the show.
  • The plot section is currently 639 words, which is over the new MOS:TVPLOT recommendation of 400 words. This section will need to be reduced and revised drastically to meet the word limit. I have gotten away with between 400 and 500 in the past, but it should be reduced.
  • Please add ALT text for the David Mirkin image.
  • For the same image, I would specify in the caption the year in which the photo was taken.
  • I think that there is a way to combine these two sentences (There was some controversy amongst the show's writing staff during production. Some of the writers felt that having Homer go into space was too large an idea.) to make it read better.
  • Please add the year in which “Fire and Rain” was released.
  • Do you have a source that mentions what lyrics of the song were altered for the show?
  • I am not certain about the inclusion of a “Cultural references” section given that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television discourages the use of “Trivia sections”. I think that the section could be salvaged if you make it clearer that this information comes from episode commentary in the prose or turn it into a “Themes” section or something similar to that. Right now, it looks like a lot of original research to me.
  • I am not sure about certain instances in which Reference 1 is cited. For instance, I checked this sentence (and at the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker into the air – in slow motion, it rotates in mid-air, before a match cutreplaces it with a cylindrical satellite (this parodies a similar transition scene between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the famous Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra).), and I could not find anything in the source to support the “The Dawn of Man” parody.
  • Revise the Aldrin image caption to better illustrate why the image is in the “Reception” section. Right now, it just looks like a random picture thrown into the section. Include in the caption that Aldrin received praise for his guest performance.
  • Add ALT text for the image.
  • For the same image, I would specify in the caption the year in which the photo was taken.
  • I am confused by this sentence (It was the highest-rated show on the Fox network that week, beating Living Single.). If it was the highest-rate show, then it would have beaten a lot of other shows, so why is Living Single singled out here.
  • NASA is linked too many times in the body of the article.
  • The final paragraph of the “Reception” section is interesting, but if the sources do not connect these events with this episode, then it will have to be removed as it is original research to connect these two ideas together on your own without an outside source.
  • Here are a few sources that.I found while doing a quick Google search that could help with expanding this article: 12345678. I found these sources from a rather superficial search online, so I do not think that this is as comprehensive as it should be at this stage.

First, I just want to say that I think that it is great that you brought a television episode to the FAC process. I have personally brought a few television episodes through here successfully, and it is great to see other people work on these types of articles. That being said I will have to oppose this, primarily due to three concerns: 1) the plot section will need to be reworked and revised pretty extensively to meet the word limit, 2) the "Cultural references" section needs to be completely overhauled, and 3) more sources should be added to this article. If I could find eight sources that are not already in this article during a quick and superficial Google search, then there is an issue in my opinion. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I just do not believe that this is ready at this stage. If you would like to continue working on this, I think peer review would be your best option. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I understand why you feel this way about the article. I will address all these issues, in hope that you will see again the potential this article has.

Countering, if you look at other Simpsons articles that are at FA status such as You Only Move Twice It contains 623 words(I fixed the extensive issue) and a cultural reference section.

@Aoba47: Could not find a source for the "Altered Lyrics" section

  • Thank you for the response and good luck with your work, especially with the plot section. This article still requires a lot of work though, but I wish you luck with it (specifically with the "Cultural reference" section and the comprehensiveness of the article). Also, remember that just because another article does something, it does not make it right. I still stand by my statements that the "Cultural reference" section needs some further work, but I could be wrong so hopefully more people contribute to this review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

Nominator(s): Constantine 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

An article on a long and complex blockade of Thessalonica, involving Byzantium, Venice, and the Ottomans, which finally ended with the Ottoman capture of the city. As an event, it was rather seminal, heralding the fall of Constantinople, and showing the limitations of Venice's mercantile maritime empire when faced with a large land power. The article has passed MILHIST's ACR and has had a GOCE review recently, so that I feel it is ready for nomination here. Any suggestions for further improvement are welcome. Constantine 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Since Greece has limited freedom of panorama, images of 3D things should include explicit copyright tags for the original works
  • File:II._Murat.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
  • File:Symeon_of_Thessaloniki.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

You could add OCLC 220583971 to the Apostolos E Vakalopoulos book entry. Otherwise the sources are in immaculate order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ice drilling

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This article will tell you more than you ever wanted to know about how to get through two miles of ice and bring back useful scientific information while doing it. I had to cut a great deal of historical information from the article for size reasons (it may show up here one day in history of ice drilling), but the article is still quite long; I believe it brings together all the key information. I hope you find the topic as interesting as I do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up most of the diagrams
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    You might consider centre-aligning the hot water drill schematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    Done.
  • Suggest reviewing captions for grammar
    I assume I'm missing something obvious, but I couldn't see any problems; can you point me at whatever you're seeing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    The thermal drill caption is unclear to me, 1967 image needs hyphenating, core dog caption is not a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    For the first point I deleted most of the caption and changed the text to specifically refer to the diagrams; there's really not enough room in the caption to explain what the diagram shows. The other two points are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Prairie-dog-drill_lake-vida_cropped.jpg: not sure the FUR presented is strong enough
    Agreed; removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Utah_snow_sampler_(cropped).png: the publisher and the author's article suggest that it is a state rather than federal work - can you elaborate on why it would be federal? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    It's known as the Federal Sampler, which was done under the aegis of the US Soil Conservation Service. Looking into it further, the image comes from this document, which precedes federal involvement, so it is not the work of a federal employee. Do you happen to know what license Digital Commons uses? If it's compatible with Wikipedia licensing perhaps we can still use it. In the meantime I've removed the image from the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    Digital Commons is an IR platform - different institutions use it in different ways, I don't think it has a universal default license. Compare for example Purdue and Georgetown's licensing statements. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Nikki, I've made changes above; can you let me know if you know about the Digital Commons license? And I have another question about image licenses; this image is a very close copy of the original, which is on page 324 of this paper. It's not identical; I eliminated one diagram and redrew everything rather than simply tracing, but the dimensions are close to identical, because they really have to be. For the other diagrams I had more leeway in varying the reproduction so that the design is slightly different; here, partly because these are complex diagrams, I wasn't able to make the diagram as distinct. Is this acceptable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, as always. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • I'll post some comments. Since this is such a long article, it'll take me a few days to get through this reading closely. ceranthor 15:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments through "Flexible drillstem rigs"
  • In the lead, why does ice cores link to The Ice Forest?
    Must have been a slip of the keyboard. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1966, a US team successfully drilled through the Greenland ice sheet at Camp Century, at a depth of 1387 m" - why no conversion into ft? (this will likely continue throughout the article; so the question applies to the whole article)
    I have mostly written humanities articles before this so am not too familiar with the rules on units; I might well have this wrong. This is a scientific article so per WP:UNIT I was thinking I should use SI units. The original sources sometimes use imperial units, but because it's the absolute values that matter here, not the numeric value in a particular unit, I couldn't see any reason to give them (with a conversion of course) in the article. Not sure I've been consistent on this throughout the article, but that's the goal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "such as piezometers,[10] or cameras," - surely if they were just cameras they wouldn't have their own name. I think a slightly more elaborate explanation is warranted here
    The piezometers are to measure pressure. I've made the structure a little more parallel; I hope it's clearer now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • " IceCube, a large astrophysical project, required numerous optical sensors to be placed in boreholes 2.5 km deep at the South Pole.[12]" - unclear why this relates to the rest of the paragraph
    IceCube is mentioned as an example of a huge drilling project -- there were nearly a hundred deep holes drilled. The paragraph is supposed to be an overview of different reasons to drill, and neutrino sensors that require deep holes in ice seems worth mentioning as an unusual example. I've reworded it a bit to make the connection clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The discovery of layers of aqueous water, and of over a hundred subglacial lakes" - why over and not more than? (also assume this will come up multiple times; so more of a question for the whole article)
    Just poor word choice; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • " The fluid must have a low kinematic viscosity to reduce tripping time" - this seems like it would be tough to understand to a general reader; what's kinematic viscosity as opposed to normal viscosity, and what's tripping time?
    I changed it to just "viscosity". Tripping time is defined in the sentence just above -- it's the time it takes to take the drill all the way out of the hole (tripping out) or put it all the way in (tripping in); or generally it's just time spent tripping (doing either one). Tripping time is unproductive time, since you're not drilling, so you want the drill string to move quickly; if the drilling fluid has high viscosity it will slow down the trips. Does this need more clarification? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Many glaciers are temperate, meaning that they contain "warm ice": ice that is at melting temperature throughout." - confused by this... so are they already melting, then? is it still considered ice at that point?
    This is a point that surprised me when I learned about it, but it's true as written: many glaciers are at 0 degrees Centigrade throughout their mass. I assume it's possible because ice has such a high latent heat of melting; it takes a great deal of heat to change ice at zero degrees into water at zero degrees, so the temperature stabilizes across the glacier. This means that water in a hole in a temperate glacier will not quickly refreeze. I didn't want to digress into this in the article, because the article isn't really about glaciers, but perhaps a note would be useful? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "At greater depths, the air disappears into clathrates and the ice becomes stable again" - Definitely think you should provide a brief explanation of clathrate compounds
    Done; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Louis Agassiz used iron rods to drill holes in the Unteraargletscher," - no need to link agassiz twice
    Unlinked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "For holes deeper than about 2 m" - is the about really necessary to describe hypothetical holes? (same with "Drilling deeper than about 6 m")
    I don't see it as a problem, but I don't think it hurts to cut it, so I've removed "about" -- there were four places I'd used it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Sidewinders have proved popular with investigators." - bit unclear to me what you intend by investigators here; like principal investigators?
    Yes, that's what I meant; probably too technical a word to use here. Changed to "researchers". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "inhomogeneous mixture of ice and rock" - while inhomogenous is fine, I think it's an odd word to use, as opposed to something like heterogeneous... could you clarify why you used that particular adjective here?
    Just poor word choice again; changed to "heterogeneous". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Flexible drillstem rigs use a drillstring that is continuous, so that it doesn't have to be assembled or disassembled, " - contraction
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems extremely comprehensive, and it's very clear and well-written. I expect that I'll support once I read the rest of the article. But here are some starting thoughts. ceranthor 16:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 2 require pp
  • Ref 24 requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 25 likewise
  • Refs 33, 34, 39, 85, 86: The publisher should be given, as well as (or instead of) the website address. The publisher is Schlumberger, for which there is a useful wikilink
  • Ref 44: Same issue – the publisher is National Ice Core Laboratory
  • Ref 60: Zagorodnov (1998) - no source listed
  • Ref 64: Publisher is AMS Inc (no wikilink)
  • Ref 114: Publisher is Design World
  • Refs 115 and 170: publisher is British Antarctic Survey
  • Ref 134: Publisher is US Ice Drilling program
  • Ref 160: Zagorodnov et al. (1998) – no source listed
  • Ref 162: Publisher is United States Department of Agriculture
  • Sources list: Something is amiss with the source listed immediately under "Koci" – it appears to have been truncated. The link goes to an error message.
  • I can't find citations to Gillet, Donnou et al
  • Nor to Reynaud and Courdouan
  • Nor to Talalay et al (2015)
  • Nor to Theodórsson

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton: The pp, ndash, and publisher issues have all been corrected. The Zagorodnov paper was missing from the list of sources; I've added it and fixed ref 60 to say "et al." Three of the uncited sources have been removed; Reynaud and Courdouan was mis-spelled in the note and has been fixed.
That leaves the cite below Koci. It was mangled by Citation bot; I'll report it as a bug. I'm uncertain as to whether the format I used (which I've now restored) is the best one for a patent; I think I found it in another FA that cited a patent, but I no longer recall for certain. Do you think it's OK as is? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The format for the patent looks OK, though I seem to remember a piece of ancient wisdom (I think via Ealdgyth} that one should not mix "Citation" and "Cite" templates in the same article – I forget why. If you use "Cite patent" you will get exactly the same output, thus: "ch 240634, Koechlin, René, "Procédé pour sonder les glaciers et installation pour sa mise en oeuvre", published 1 May 1946 " If you're unhappy with this format you could always do it manually to get:
  • Koechlin, René: Patent CH240634 (A) - Procédé pour sonder les glaciers et installation pour sa mise en oeuvre. European Patent Office, 1 May 1946

Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead with the manual format (cite patent gives me a harv error since I don't use anchors). Thanks for the thorough review; much appreciated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Margaret (singer)

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most popular contemporary artists in Poland with some achievements in other European countries and after her participation in Melodifestivalen 2018 she will undoubtedly attract even more attention. I kept working on the article since it has been promoted to GA last year and I believe that it since has evolved quite a lot and now meets FAs criteria. It's been peer reviewed by Ceranthor and FrB.TG in the past few weeks and hopefully with some more help we will achieve our goal of the article being promoted to FA. Any help is welcome. Thanks. ArturSik (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support On the prose per my peer review. Had a go at the nbsps/nowraps here. Good work! ceranthor 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Ceranthor. Really appreciate it. ArturSik (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Freikorp
  • "she was discovered by her manager and signed by her record label" - this doesn't read right to me. Can we say 'she was discovered by manager Sławomir Berdowski and signed by her record label' instead?
 Done
  • "numbers six, ten and eleven, respectively," - too many commas. I'd drop the ones before and after 'respectively'
 Done
  • "(also known as the Gosia Jamroży Project)" - is this really necessary? This section is pretty heavy on bracketed information as it is; I'd drop it.
 Done
  • ""I Get Along" and finished second" - it would be interesting to know how many competitors there were.
 Done
That's all I found. Happy to support this as it is though. Freikorp (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the support. ArturSik (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47

I feel bad for not helping with this article during the peer review when pinged so I will leave a review here. My comments will focus only on the prose:

  • I would be a little more descriptive in the ALT text for the infobox image.
 Done
  • I would change this part “born 30 June 1991 and known professionally as” to “born 30 June 1991, known professionally as” for more concise language.
 Done
  • I would change “she was in” to “she performed in”.
 Done
  • For the last part of the lead’s first paragraph, please add the years in which “Thank You Very Much” and “Cool Me Down” were released. I do not see why you would delay a mention of the year for the first song until the second mention in the second paragraph.
 Done
  • I would spell out EP on its first use in the lead and the body of the article and put EP in parenthesis next to it. After the first mention in each, then you can use EP as the reader will know what you are referencing.
 Done
  • In the lead’s second paragraph, I would add a link to jazz in “a jazz album”. I would also link jazz in the body of the article on its first use.
 Done
  • For this part “voiced a character in the Polish-language version of”, I would name the character.
 Done
  • For this part “Margaret studied singing at the Jazz Academy in Kraków", I would add a comma after Krakow.
 Done
  • For this part “At age sixteen she moved”, add a comma after “sixteen”.
 Done
  • For this part “At this time she”, add a comma after “time”.
 Done
  • For this part “At eighteen Margaret moved to Warsaw”, add a comma after “eighteen”.
 Done
  • The first paragraph of the 2012–2013: Breakthrough with "Thank You Very Much” subsection is rather long; would it be beneficial to split it into two?
 Done
  • I am not sure that this is part is necessary (who worked with The Black Keys, Britney Spears and Kesha). How is his previous work with these artists necessary for this section. I would remove it.
 Done
  • For this part “award-winning director”, I would remove “award-winning” as it may violate POV somewhat. Unless the awards and connected with the music video, then it is not necessary to bring it up.
 Done
  • Make sure to have EP linked and spelled out in the body of the article.
 Done
  • Please add ALT text for all of the images in the body of the article.
 Done
  • I would remove this part (who worked with Selena Gomez, Hilary Duff and Irina Shayk) as I do not see how it is relevant for this article.
 Done

Wonderful work here. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A massive THANK YOU Aoba47. ArturSik (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. Great work with this article. I really should do some work with biography articles in the future. Just for future reference, I think that the use of graphics (i.e. the done checkmark) is discouraged so I would replace those with just text. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Will do that in the future. Thank you and good luck with biographies. ArturSik (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

I have some difficulty in providing a comprehensive sources review, since about 90% of the citations are to foreign, mainly Polish sources. it would be a good idea if someone with knowledge of Polish could review these sources to confirm that they meet our standards of quality and reliability. In the meantime I can report that all links are working and that the references are consistently formatted. I have just a couple of queries:

  • Ref 8: Does not appear to contain the informatioin cited to it ("Margaret studied singing at the Jazz Academy in Kraków")
My bad. Changed it to Jazz Academy in Katowice.
  • In a number of cases the language is not given: see11, 16, 17, 93 and perhaps some others
Done

Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I’ll try to find a Polish speaker who could review the sources. Thank you. ArturSik (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I think one way to do some checking would be to see if the newspapers/website themselves are at-least reliable - don't need to know what the article is about if it is from say the polish-equivalent of the dailymail. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek has kindly agreed to review the sources, so I guess the best thing to do for now is to wait for his review and see what he says :) ArturSik (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. I first reviewed and copy-edited it last year or so when it was yet to be nominated for GA. It grew more since then. I recently took part in its peer review, where I found it much better. I think it is a nice article about a young woman and meets 1a criterion. FrB.TG (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you:) ArturSik (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I was asked to look into the sources. I am a bit busy and not deeply interested in the topic of this article, but I found a few minutes. Here are sources that do not appear bulletproof reliable at the first glance, and the nominator may want to comment and explain why they are used (note: I am not listing interviews, and stuff that appears to be rewritten press releases/marketing materials, just stuff that seems very niche, including two references that seem to be from the subject's blog):
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20141227002155/http://zsinsko.szkolnastrona.pl/index.php?p=new&idg=mg%2C1&id=126&action=show
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20140221015550/http://www.choszczno.pl/content/view/2180/1/
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20171130022053/http://zen.fpiec.pl/post/2015/01/19/margaretpanizplakatutonieja
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20110828104406/http://rockmyband.pl/user/margaret-j-project
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20171130023516/http://margaret-j.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/beauty-breast.html
  • https://margaret-j.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/thank-you-very-much.html
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20141022235841/http://www.mowimyjak.pl/newsy/kto-jest-kim/kim-jest-margaret-czyli-malgorzata-jamrozy-autorka-hitu-thank-you-very-much-to-polka-spiewa-tvn%2C49_53483.html
I am not familiar with ref standards for popculture stars. If we cut tabloids, average gossip portals (pretty much same fare), and interviews, there wouldn't be much left. Shrug. It's not like there are biography books on her, and while there is some coverage in main newspapers/magazines, I am sure a lot of uncontroversial, minor facts are not there. Again, I write bios on different type of people (historical bios) and the sourcing standards are a bit different (most of my subjects died long before they could blog about themselves :P). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Brianboulton here’s the message. ArturSik (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Here's what I have so far, through the start of the 2014 section.

  • "Margaret was approached by future manager, Sławomir Berdowski," missing word, possibly "her" before "future"
Done. ArturSik (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "In May 2012, "Thank You Very Much" was serviced to radio stations in Poland," is serviced the proper word? Possibly "released"?
Done. ArturSik (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The video was removed by YouTube from their services, since it violated the website's no-nudity-and-sexual-content policy; it was later restored with age restrictions.[34] " consider cutting "from their services". I might try to avoid the multiple connected words possibly by "the website's policy against ..."
Done. ArturSik (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Wood stork

Nominator(s): RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the wood stork, a stork found in the Americas. Hope you find the article and its subject interesting! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • Before reviewing, I defintiely think the image selection could be improved. For example, we should always show the eggs[4], and there are other interesting images available of juveniles/nests[5][6][7][8], a mating pair[9], and a foraging individual.[10] This is also a nicer photo of a flying individual than the one currently shown:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I added a picture of a foraging individual (not the one you suggested, as I don't think it shows the wings very well), the one of the eggs, the mating, the flying individual, the photo with a wood stork shading its nest, and one of the juveniles. As always, thanks for your comments on the images in the article. I do wish I had polished the image selection up a bit before sending this to FAC. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Any reason why synonyms aren't listed in the taxobnox?
  • Seems a bis strange that aggressiveness needs its own, tiny section, when it is pretty much just about nesting behaviour.
Removed/merged. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The intro seems too detailed and long for an article of this size.
I tried to cut it down a bit on this. I removed some excessive detail and made sentences more concise where I could. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Good article, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • It was originally described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758.—not sure why this stand-alone fact needs to go in the intro
The reason why I think this is good to include is because it can tell you some things about the bird. First, it can tell you that it wasn't differentiated on the basis of phylogeny. Second, it tells you where the birds were probably described (as only certain parts of the Americas had been explored before 1758). Third, it tells you the obvious, that it was described by Linnaeus in 1758. So, it tells you at least three things. Also, since this is one sentence of two sentences on taxonomy, I think it deserves to be included. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Not totally convinced, but your call Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Of the extant members of its genus, the wood stork is basal, being the first off-shoot from the genus' common ancestor. —again, this technical stuff seems likely to scare off the casual reader. I agree with FunkMonk on this
Removed the sentence. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • It prefers those surrounded by water or over water—those what?
I actually just merged the sentence with another one. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ''They fledge after 60 to 65 days after hatching—"after" repeated
Removed one instance. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't give the etymology of the genus name even though it's on your linked Nellis page
Did that. I managed to compress the etymology of the specific and generic names in the same sentence. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • because it is found in America—I'd prefer in the Americas, otherwise it will be confused with the US
Changed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Regional names include—what regions? US? Caribbean?
Not specified. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • it is found to northern Argentina— add "south to…"
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Para 2 of "Breeding", "greenery" is overworked
Hopefully it's fine now. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • anywhere between November and Augustany time
Done, although I said "anytime". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 62%, meaning that about 62%...—avoid repeating figure
Removed the repetition. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Both of these methods are non-visual.—" perhaps Both these hunting methods are non-visual.?
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The temperature at which this takes place is slightly above the threshold for which panting takes places, the latter of which takes place—repetitive takes place
Reworked. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Where it occurs, the crested caracara—now split. Is this C. cheriway, C. plancus or both?
At least C. cheriway. The paper gives the specific name as plancus, but the study was done in Venezuela, where C. cheriway occurs. Thus, it is before they were split, so where that statement would include C. plancus is unknown. Other caracaras are occasionally nest predators, so I just changed the sentence to start by saying "Racoons and caracaras, especially northern crested caracaras..." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • link levee, thermoregulation at first occurence
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Query need for a separate "Aggression" section, as above
I removed it, as I saw no need for it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with the rest of the responses, so changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Shouldn't the article be written in US English since the species is not found in any other English-speaking nation? LittleJerry (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Bahamas, Belize, Cayman Islands, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and the Turks and Caicos Islands presumably don't count? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 3: The source is largely illegible, but the language does not appear to be English
Latin. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 4: appears to be lacking a publisher
It was published by Catesby. He does seem to be a member of the Royal Society, and this book seems to be accepted as accurate in terms of natural history (considering when it was published, of course). So, I think that it is ok to keep it even if it is self-published. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 21: What language is the source written in? Also, check the page range (given as 96–10)
Spanish. It seems that I (or somebody) forgot to add the final digit. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources are consistently presented and are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nodar Kumaritashvili

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This was nominated a few months ago, but failed mainly due to prose issues. Since then it has gone through a peer review and extensive copy-editing by several experienced editors, so I hope that all those issues have been resolved. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • The 'wall' image caption could use editing for flow
  • File:Jacques_Rogge_at_news_conference_on_death_of_Nodar_Kumaritashvili_2010-02-12.jpg: source attributes this image to AP, not VOA (see watermark). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I cleaned up the captions for both, and as the Rogge image is from the AP, and not that important, I've removed it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • A couple of general points:
  • For newspapers such as the New York Times or the Denver Post, where thre location is included in the title, there's no need to show the location, it simply adds unnecessary clutter to the ref. See 1, 3, 7 and several others.
Done
  • If no author information is provided, then leave the field blank. In instances such as 22, 23 and others you've entered the publishing organisation – BBC, CNN etc – as author. These need to be deleted.
Done
  • Ref 4: The author is not "Xinhua". Either leave blank or expand to "Xinhua News Agency"
Added the author name (it is located at the bottom of the page)
  • Ref 8: telegraph.co.uk is not the publisher of this source, it's merely the host for the pdf. The report's publisher is The International Luge Federation
Changed
  • Ref 13: You give the publisher as "ESPN", but elsewhere you state it as "ESPN.com". You need to be consistent – the former is preferable
Changed
  • Ref 15: Author field should be either blank, or "Telegraph staff", not "The Telegraph" – a paper cannot write itself. The correct name of the newspaper is The Daily Telegraph not The Telegraph – see also 20 and 25. You give the correct name in 30.
I fixed 20 and 25. But I will note that for 15 it specifically states in the article the author is "By Telegraph staff." Shouldn't that be left in?
Yes, "Telegraph staff" is fine – not "The Telegraph" as before. You still need to change the paper's name to The Daily Telegraph. Brianboulton (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed

Please give me a ping when you've dealt with these. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Addressed everything here, except the question regarding note 15. Also want to note that in the previous FAC, the sources were all approved as they were here, so I'm just wondering if there has been changes since then I wasn't aware? Want to make sure I have things ready for future nominations. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
All is well now, apart from the small adjustment required to 15, as noted above. The points I've raised here are minor formatting issues which I could have raised at the earlier review, but I was more concerned then with link errors etc. There being no such errors this time, I was able to focus more on these minor matters. No further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Awesome thanks for clarifying. Was just a little uncertain there. Everything is now in order I hope. Kaiser matias (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw was the Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and was subsequently the first Indian Army officer to be promoted to the rank of field marshal. His military career spanned four decades and five wars, beginning with service in the British Indian Army in World War II, and he is widely regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in independent India’s history. The article has passed a through A-class review at WikiProject Military History. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support; I was a part of the A-Class review before this, can find no further fault with article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 2: What makes "Scoop/Whoop" a high quality, reliable source?
  • Ref 6; the link goes to the News18 home page – no sign of the source article. The same applies to ref 42.
  • Ref 12: Date missing. (Also, consistency is required as to whether you use Times of India or The Times of India)
  • Ref 19: appears to be identical to 12.
  • Ref 22: The link seems to be dead
  • Ref 32: You should give the title in full
  • Ref 40: As this is behind a paywall you should add (subscription required)
  • Ref 50: "NDTV" should not be italicised
  • Ref 51: The link does not go to the stated article.

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I have worked on the most of them, except the dead links. I unable to retrieve them as Internet Archive has been facing some issues for the past few days, I'll get back to you once done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Addressed the issues, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Anne Hathaway is a talented and beautiful actress, who has played roles in a range of films. I started expanding her article (for Wikipedia:WikiCup and what I have stated in the beginning) from New Year's Day. I recently got a very helpful feedback from Ceranthor. Any constructive criticism appreciated. FrB.TG (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

First column:

  • Ref 3: Retrieval date missing
  • Ref 4: Link does not go to the stated page
  • Ref 7: Title should correspond to what's given in the source
  • Ref 13: Likewise.
  • Ref 20: Link not working – error message
Removed.
  • Ref 32: Needs a page number
I do not have access to that and have thus replaced it with an online-available source.
  • Ref 34: It isn't necessary to include a quotation from the source – that is the purpose of the link.
  • Ref 54: The publisher appears to be Ebert Digital LLC, not Chicago Sun-Times.
  • Ref 67: What makes Drew Tewksbury a high quality reliable source?
I thought a lot about removing it during expansion, but believed it would be okay since it's an official interview. Removed now.
  • Ref 70: The paper's proper title is The Daily Telegraph

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Have done all those things above. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Second column

  • Ref 78: link returns an error message
  • Ref 93: link goes to a different Toronto Sun page
  • Ref 100: link goes to a different MTV page
  • Ref 107: I can't find this title on the linked page
  • Ref 111: "Christopher Orr" is not part of the title
  • Ref 132: The linked page is a list of winners, not nominations. Is this the intended source? If so the title should be amended to what the source says.
It lists both winners and nominees.

Final column to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Simply removed "deadurl=no" from these sources to show the archive link as the main one. I have used "Autofill" for titles when citing sources that's why some of the sources titles are different (than their sources); they write what can be seen on the tab as the title. FrB.TG (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • "She is married to businessman Adam Shulman, with whom she has a son." - name?
Removed back per WP:MINORS.
  • Keep the absence or presence of the serial comma consistent throughout. Looks like you're mostly not using it, but I see it in the lead ("Hathaway has also sung for soundtracks, won an Emmy Award for providing her voice in a television show, appeared on stage, and hosted events.")
  • " won an Emmy Award for providing her voice in a television show" - which show?
  • "participated in many plays, including performance as Winnifred in Once Upon a Mattress.[11] " - not grammatically correct as is ("including performance")
  • "She has stated she would have either become an English teacher or psychologist if she were not acting." - stated that
  • "She cites Garland as one of her favorite actresses.[10] " - kind of disjointed within the flow of its paragraph; either tie it in or move it somewhere else
  • 'Hathaway said that "anybody who was a role model for children needs a reprieve", but noted that "it's lovely to think that my audience is growing up with me"' - think it would help to mention when she said this.

More comments forthcoming. ceranthor 17:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

All done. Look forward to the rest. FrB.TG (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • " Peter Travers of Rolling Stone believed that Hathaway "excels at showing Lureen's journey from cutie-pie to hard case" and Todd McCarthy of Variety opined she "provides an entertaining contrast in wifely disappointment"." - comma after hard case"
  • "Meryl Streep, whom Hathaway described as being "just divine".[5] " - probably don't need this bit after "whom"
  • "Charles Isherwood opined that Hathaway "dives smoothly and with obvious pleasure into the embrace of a cohesive ensemble cast".[71]" - needs something like "Of her performance" or "Describing her performance" at the beginning
  • "She also won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance for providing her voice for the episode "Once Upon a Time in Springfield" in The Simpsons.[73]" - what year? I'd also adjust the flow of this sentence by adding "In X year, she also won..."
  • "Hathaway voiced different characters in Family Guy in 2010 and 2011.[74][75] " - I'd move this up to the end of the previous paragraph, since it relates to her voice work with The Simpsons better than the rest of this paragraph
  • "the film grossed $1 billion to become the second highest-grossing of 2010.[80]" - second highest-grossing movie maybe? Missing film/movie makes it read awkwardly.
  • "Preparing for the nude scenes," - the film's nude scenes... adding that word is important, I think, because it currently reads as abrupt by just saying "the nude scenes"
  • 'Hathaway's portrayal, of what Ebert called "warm, lovable"' - grammatically, this doesn't make sense... maybe you're missing a word?
  • "than Franco, who they felt seemed uninterested." - think it should be "whom"
I think who is correct here. If we use "whom" to refer to Franco, it would read as the critics felt Franco (as in feeling him) not that they felt Franco seemed uninterested.
  • "Hathaway was clandestinely given the script as One Day was set in the UK and Scherfig was not looking for any American actresses for the part." - comma after UK
  • ""Sometimes she's from Scotland, sometimes she's from New York, you just can't tell"." - it's implied, but you should be clear that this quote refers to Hathaway per the source
  • " for Audie Award for Best Solo Narration" - an Audie Award
  • "Wanting to work with her favorites, DeNiro and Meyers," - favorites? elaborate?
  • "Hathaway purchased an apartment worth $2.55 million in Upper West Side" - you should clarify that the UWS is a neighborhood in Manhattan
  • "In 2008, she began smoking" - cigarettes?
Doesn't say what she smoked. Maybe everything? ;-)
  • "She later became a vegan in early 2012,[162] but quit while filming Interstellar in August 2014.[163]" - has she tried resuming it at all, or is she still no longer vegan?
Haven't found a source that says she is a vegan again.
  • "Hathaway currently serves on the board of The Lollipop Theatre Network, and is involved with charities The Creative Coalition, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, The Human Rights Campaign.[170][171]' - serial comma issue and I think an "and" is missing
  • I suspect that many of the links in the "Works and accolades" section have already been linked. I'm not sure it's necessary to link them again.

Nice work on this article. This should constitute all of my prose comments. ceranthor 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review here and at Talk:Anne Hathaway#Comments from Ceranthor. Very much appreciated. FrB.TG (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Support per 1a. ceranthor 23:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

The photo is uploaded by MFF but taken by Rene G. Clarified there.
All images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the image review.

Comments by Panagiotis Zois

Lead section:

  • In the lead, the Batman link to the trilogy needs to be fixed. Use this. Also, I'd recommend changing it to "The Dark Knight trilogy".
  • You mention Hathaway's role as the White Queen in the Alice sequel but don't mention the original film. I think you should add that at the end of the second paragraph.

Early life:

  • In the lead, and the infobox, it's stated that Hathaway's middle name is Jackqueline; yet here you refer to her as Anne Jack Hathaway.
  • You refer to Hathaway's mother as Kate first but then as Kathleen. Be consistent.
  • Damn, psychologist or English teacher? I think I love her even more than before.

More comments will come up. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Final Destination 3

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third film in the eponymous franchise about seriously unlucky individuals starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Wendy Christensen. In the film, Wendy has a vision while at an amusement park that the roller-coaster she and her classmates are on derailing. While she saves some of them, as always, Death comes running to collect the survivors' lives. The film did well financially and got mixed reviews from critics who praised its tone, death scenes and Winstead's performance but criticized it for being formulaic.

This is my third FA nomination of the article. I withrew the first one in August due to personal issues and the second one got little attention so it was archived back in November (at least I think it was November, anyway). Hopefully, third time (un)lucky.

Fun fact. One of the DVD versions called "Thrill Ride Edition" actually turns the film into a "Choose Your Own Adventure", allowing you to make various choices throughout the story. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Andrzejbanas

Just checking a bit:

  • Is there some format for the characters in the plot to be linked to the List of Characters page each time? Linking to Wendy Christensen is fine, but linking every character to the List of Final Destination characters seems a bit of an overkill to me, when you have the information ready in the link above.
  • While it is true that besides Wendy, all other characters lack their own articles, I still feel it's for the best to leave the links in as they immediatelly take the reader to the specific character's section of the page. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Never mind. Removed them. :P
  • "According to director James Wong, 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" I understand what is being said here, but its a weirdly written. "According to director James Wong, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters and would ignore the continuity between the first two films." Not sure if mine is better, but I think bouncing between the second, the first and back to the third makes it a slightly jarring sentence. :)
  • I changed the sentence so that it's somewhat similar to how you wrote it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The film was initially intended to be [shot] in 3D, but plans for this were abandoned.[6] Morgan revealed that the this was due to financial reasons, but also because he believed that fire and blood would not be shown properly in the red color filters of anaglyph 3D.[7]" I tried re-phrasing this a bit.
  • Changed the sentence. Your version was definately better. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The source for the home media's date and release in widescreen and fullscreen seems to be the dvd itself. No home video I've ever bought contains details on when it was released (sadly!), could you get a better source for that?
  • I do not think the death image passes fair use. Just illustrating something that is being discussed here. I have not seen this film, but the image itself does not make me understand why this stands out more. WP:FILMNFI sums it up better than I can, stating . "A non-free image can be used to illustrate the target element of the critical commentary only if it cannot adequately be substituted by a free equivalent image or descriptive text. The non-free image should be significant in increasing the readers' understanding of the topic. Non-free images can illustrate technical or thematic aspects of the film. Examples include, but are not limited to: production design, makeup, costume design, camera technique, visual effects, lighting, and iconic shots." Maybe iconic shots falls under this...but just from the image (and the text for that matter), I do not understand what makes this death scene so strong. :/ As an example of when to apply these things, the article I wrote about House (1977 film) has one that I think is acceptable. Star Trek: First Contact also has some good examples.
  • @Andrzejbanas: Would it be better if I moved the image up in the "Themes" section and also stated about how that specific death scene was analysed in regard to which horror genre it places the film? PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That could work, if it somehow got incorporated into something like "The scene utilizes logics of temperature, color, and light to realize the deaths of the characters, as well as to allow Wendy to recognize the threat that they face." I'm not really sure if that image can fit in. To sum up the image rules more easily, its best to have an image that is showcasing something that can not be described by text. It fills a gap. Currently with the "best death" scene, which I do not doubt that they did this, but this image doesn't really suggest why it is that way. For that matter, the prose does not really either. :/ Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Andrzejbanas: That's actually a really great idea. Maybe I could combine the already existing image of Ashley's death with another one that shows the picture Wendy took of her and Ashlyn at the carnival. Both of them use color, light and temperature to show / imply death. Whaddaya say? Granted if I did that I'd like to still use at least two of the references in the "Reception" section to enhance the third parapgraph about the positive response to the death scenes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that would be a really interesting idea! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll investigate it a bit more later, but that's all I got for now. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Alright, I added another image and moved them up to the "Themes" section. How is it looking now? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Great work! I think its much better this way prose and explanation wise. Glad we got to save the image and add some interesting content here. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Andrzejbanas: Awesome :D. Now that that's done, is there anything else that needs improving? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem! I'll try to give this one more read-through tonight. :) Sorry for the delays, I appreciate your patience with it!Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I can not see anything else that is really standing out for me. This has my Support. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47
  • For the phrase “worked on the franchise’s first film in 2000”, I think that you could reduce the link to just “first film”, but this is up to you.
  • Done. I didn't see it necessary but in a previous nomination someone asked it.
  • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you using the Oxford comma throughout the article? I have found a few instances in which it is used (i.e. a shelf falls, trapping them inside, and the girls are burned alive) and it is not used (i.e. includes commentaries, documentaries, a deleted scene and an original animated video).
  • @Aoba47: To be fully honest I don't think I'd ever heard of the Oxford comma before. If I use a comma before a conjunction it's most likely because I'm trying the make the overall sentences easier to understand. At least I hope they're easier to understand. Should I change them?
  • An Oxford comma is one used in a list of three; here is an example with it (x, y, and z) and an example without it (x, y and z). I personally prefer the Oxford comma, but it is really up to you. You just need to be consistent one way or the other as I have noticed instances of both examples used in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe I've removed most of the Oxford commas. As for Ashley's death scene I'd like to get some additional imput from Andrzejbanas before going forward with any changes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me; I will wait to comment further on this until that is resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part “offering its audience what it wishes to see”, would this phrasing “fulfilling its audience’s expectations” be stronger and more concise language?
  • Much better. Thank you.
  • I would combine the following two sentences “Attention was given especially to death scenes involving a tanning bed and a nail gun respectively; these were favorably received, as was Winstead's performance.” into this “Positive attention was given specifically to the death scenes involving a tanning bed and a nail, as well as Winstead’s performance.”.
  • Once again, much better.
  • I do not believe that you need to link the characters again in the “Cast” section as they are all already linked in the “Plot” section. I do not think that you need link the characters again in the “Casting” subsection. It seems like a lot of overlinking to me.
  • Removed all the links except for Wendy.
  • For this sentence “The film was edited by Chris G. Willingham, the Emmy-winning editor of 24 (2001–2010)”, I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of 24.
  • Added that it's a crime / spy series.
  • If you want to keep the tan bed death screenshot, then I would recommend looking for resources that talk about the cinematography and visual style to further support its use. The following Dobbs’ quote "brightly coloured [and] slightly silly meditation on how we're all gonna die one day, so we might as well do it explosively" could be a good start.
  • I would move the “Analysis” section before the “Production” section and renaming it to themes. See the article for Fight Club as an example. It seems pretty standard practice for film articles to be structured this way from my brief exploration of other featured articles on films.
  • Placed it between the "Cast" and "Production" sections.
  • When you mention Mouse Trap, I would clarify that you mean the game.
  • Done.

Wonderful work with this article. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I support this for promotion. You have done wonderful work with this article; it is a very interesting and informative read! Makes me want to work on a proper film article for a change lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you Aoba. :D I'm glad you find the article interesting but more importantly, informative. I hope anyone who hasn't seen the movie and comes across the article will be interested in it. And I'm pretty sure you could easily improve a film article if you wanted to. PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 3: The words "Page 2" do not form part of the title
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 7: Likewise
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 8: Likewise ("Page 3")
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 13: I can't see anything to indicate that "New Line Cinema" is the publisher. In the case of the first source (Gloria Davies) the main link provides no publisher details; the archive link seems to show the publisher as "HollywoodJesus", but also displays a 404 error message. In the second source, the publisher seems to be "2006 Movie Releases"
  • That one's actually a little complicated. The text within the file itself doesn't actually state who wrote it. However, I used PDF Reader and was able to find the information regarding the author.
  • Following your reorganisation, this is now ref 26. It is the publisher, rather than the author, that I am questioning; there is nothing to indicate that "New Line Cinema" is the publisher of the Davies article and, as I say above, the archive link gives different publisher information, as well as yielding a 404 message. Neither is there anytning to show that New line Cinema is the publisher of the reference's second source. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: Alright, I removed the second references and kept just the PDF. I've also altered so that is shows Hollywood Jesus as the website this PDF file was found in. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 23: The publisher is The Oklahoman – NewsOK is the website name.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 24: Neither the main link nor the archive go to the page you indicate.
  • Really? I just checked and the archive link seems fine.
  • This is now 38, and I'm getting the same rubbish as I got before. What, exactly, are you getting from the main and archive links?
  • This. The top image is of the main website. The second website is the one with the ringtones and wallpapers. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Ref 42: Why is Chicago Sun-Times named as publisher. Should be "Ebert Digital LLC"
  • Chicago Sun-Times is placed under the "newspaper=" code.
  • There's nothing in the source that refers to the Chicago Sun-Times. Whether or not that paper ever printed the article is irrelevant – the version you are using is hosted by the Ebert website, which should be credited as your publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed.
  • Ref 53: What makes this a high quality reliable source? I'm worried by the mis-spelling of "patron" which looks amateurish.
  • Is that the James Berardinelli reference?
  • Well, he is a Rotten Tomatoes approved critic here. In fact, he's listed as a "Top Critic". Additionally, "patron" isn't misspelled. That's the website Patreon. PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 72: The page range require an ndash, not a hyphen
  • I think I changed it.

Otherwise sources seem to be in good order and of appropriate reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Okay, I fixed some of the references but I still need to discuss the PDF file, the website and the "patron" reference. Possibly also the hyphen one. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Maybe not the last reference but definately the other three. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

Comments from FrB.TG

An enjoyable film, and I liked some of the death scenes, especially of the girls in the tanning beds.

  • "Casting began in March 2005, with Winstead and Merriman landing the lead roles, and concluded in April" - with + noun + verb+ing is best avoided at FA articles. I would actually take out "with Winstead and Merriman landing the lead roles" as it is pretty obvious they landed the lead roles.
  • I place the "Winstead and Merriman" part in these lines (–) as I still think it's somewhat important. But if you feel it's unnecessary then I'll remove them.
  • "Final Destination 3 was filmed in Vancouver" - probably worth mentioning that Vancouver is a city in Canada since the film is American.
  • That's true. I still am not sure why so many American films and TV shows are filmed there. I think it's cheaper. Maybe, I don't. Anyway, added it in.
  • "the film was released on February 10, 2006, in the United States" - I find the comma after 2006 unnecessary.
  • Removed it.
  • "franchise while others praised it for being enjoyable and fulfilling its audience’s expectations" - we don't use that apostrophe in Wikipedia. ' is more preferrable.
  • Honestly, I have no idea how that got there. Maybe I added it on my phone. Irregardles, fixed it.
  • "They include Kevin; best friends Ashley Freund and Ashlyn Halperin" - the section link for Ashley and Ashlyn goes nowhere.
  • Fixed that.
  • "Wendy learns that her sister Julie and a friend had also been on the roller coaster but got" - be consistent with putting commas after but's.
  • Comma added.
  • "characterized by their move away from the typical horror antagonist and towards the certainty and inevitability of death" - I think toward is generally more preferable in American English (e.g. "Scientists are moving toward the conclusion" here or "One inning Tuesday went a long way toward erasing" here), but I don't think it is that big of a deal.
  • Removed the "s".

Down to the end of Themes section. I hope that you consider reviewing Anne Hathaway, which is also currently at FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Alright, I changed everything you wanted. Have you seen the rest of the article? On a sidenote, I check Anne's article, and will hopefully start the review in a couple of days. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "According to director James Wong, Final Destination 3 was envisioned as a stand-alone sequel featuring new characters from the beginning, unlike the second film which was closely tied to the first film and continued its story,[16] stating:" - the "stating" part looks like FD3 is giving a statement. "He stated" should be much better.
  • Changed.
  • "[W]e really felt that the idea of Final Destination..." Italicize Final Destination. I don't recall any MoS rule advising against using italics in quotes.
  • Italicized it.
  • "Morgan revealed" - no reveal pls.
  • Changed one to "stated" and the other to "declared".
  • "On Winstead, he said that "[she brought] a kind of soulfulness to her role ... control." Citation after direct quote even if it means repeating them.
  • I think I changed it correctly.
  • "Sam Easton, who appeared in Miramax's film Underclassman (2005), played school alumnus Frankie Cheeks. Gina Holden played Kevin's girlfriend and Wendy's best friend, Carrie Dreyer" - played in close proximity.
  • Changed it to "portrayed".
  • "Like the first two installments of the Final Destination series, Final Destination 3 was shot in Vancouver." Per my above comment on Vancouver.
  • Everyone always forgets about Canada. :(
  • " Filming concluded in July but due to negative reception towards" - now that you have changed it to toward, I suggest sticking to it throughout the article.
  • Removed the "s". I also checked to make sure "towardS" didn't exist anywhere else in the article.
  • "Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that the film's" - I don't think Ebert reviewed this in Chicago Sun-Times; just "Roger Ebert wrote" should suffice.
  • Done.
  • "Winstead's performance was highlighted by critics, with the BBC writing" - wiki-link BBC. FrB.TG (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.

@FrB.TG: OK, I made all the changes. Hopefully they're satisfactory. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Support. Let’s hope that third time’s the charm for Final Destination 3. FrB.TG (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Funnily enough, that's exactly what the back of my Greek DVD of the film says. Thank you for the support. :D As I said, I'll try looking at Anne's article within this week. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Henry Petre

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Henry Petre (pronounced "peter") was one of the pioneers of Australian military aviation. Along with Eric Harrison, who you may well see at FAC in the not-too-distant future, Petre founded the original Central Flying School at Point Cook, Victoria, in 1913–14. Unlike Harrison, Petre a) saw extensive service in World War I and was highly decorated for his actions, and b) didn't join the RAAF, resigning from the military after the war and returning to his first profession, the law. He never lost his enthusiasm for flying, though, which he continued to do privately at least up until the 1950s. I took this through MilHist A-Class Review five years ago and have recently polished it and added a few more snippets of info that have become available -- not a long article but I think it's comprehensive, so have at it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • All of the images need info about when and where they were first published, per the tags in use. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Tks Nikki -- I think all available info is there already; the current tags are what passed muster a few years ago, probably we're safer applying PD-AustraliaGov instead? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Sure, that should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Okay, that's done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • "the Australian Flying Corps, predecessor of the Royal Australian Air Force." - might want a "the" before predecessor
    • I thought there might be too many "the"s in there but don't mind adding it.
  • " gaining employment as a designer" - assume you mean airplane designer, but it's a little unclear
    • Fair enough, will do.
  • "and was commissioned a lieutenant in the Australian Military Forces." - might just be me, but seems like there's an "as" missing before a lieutenant
    • The expression as we have is quite common in military articles but I don't minding altering..
  • "he commanded No. 75 Squadron" - given that other proper military nouns received "the" before them, it only seems logical to carry that over here and put a "the" before No. 75
    • I'm afraid numbered RAF (and RAAF) units rarely if ever take the definite article so this really should stay as is.
  • "continued to fly recreationally before his death in 1962" - might just be me, but I think "until" flows better than before
    • Will do.
  • "Petre gave up his legal practice, borrowed £250 and proceeded to build his own aeroplane," - given that elsewhere you've used the serial comma, I'd use it after "borrowed £250"
    • Will do.
  • "to become, as George Odgers described it," - a brief explanation of why Odgers's opinion matters/who he is might be useful
    • Odgers is another official RAAF historian; I introduced Gillison because he had no article and left Odgers alone because he did, but no prob making it consistent.
  • think Indian Government needs an NBSP
    • Okay.
  • "airdrop grain supplies (and a millstone for grinding), medical supplies and equipment" - same note as above about the serial comma consistency
    • Will do.

These are just some nitpicks. Once these are addressed, I'll be happy to support on the prose. ceranthor 20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review, Ceranthor -- I'll make these changes later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the timely fixes. Support ceranthor 04:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources are in good oreder and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Tks Brian! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Pretty minor points all of these.

  • in Early career, his full name isn't given and cited
    • Good point, tks.
  • when first used, RAAF should probably be in full so people don't have to join the dots from the lead
    • Fair enough.
  • when he is first mentioned, perhaps mention that his brother Edward was also interested in flying, as it seems a little abrupt when he is killed in a flying accident
    • Hmm, I felt it was pretty clear given he assisted Henry designing an aeroplane.
  • "established the CFS", I know dropped the definite article for squadrons and wings is standard practice in the RAAF, but I think one is needed here
    • Boy, you army types have never given up the dream of controlling the air arm, have you...? Just kidding, will do... :-)
  • suggest "Sufficient aircrew and supporting personnel were available for only half a flight, so the unit..."
    • Okay.
  • what did he get the MC and DSO for?
    • I'm afraid none of the short bios on the man, nor the Gazette, the AWM, or his personnel file at NAA provide the specifics.
  • Richard Williams could probably just be Williams on second mention, as there doesn't appear to be any other William's mentioned
    • Okay.
  • suggest at the RAAF Museum
    • Oh all right... ;-)
  • Henry Petre could probably just be Petre
    • Okay.
  • date ranges in the infobox in full per the new guideline eg 1919–1920
    • If I recall the new guideline correctly, the abbreviated form is acceptable in infoboxes owing to the space limitations.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Tks for reviewing, PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
No prob. Great article BTW! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Good article – nicely researched and well written. Three tiny points for you to consider, but I leave it up to you what steps (if any) you decide to take with them:
Early career
  • Should née be italicised?
  • Wouldn't hurt.
  • "and later its chief": is "chief" a bit too informal?
  • The source said he "took charge", without proving a formal title, so I said "chief" but it could be "head" or something else -- any thoughts?
  • "Head" would work for me too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Done -- tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Link to World War I?
  • Generally I don't link the world wars when they form the backdrop to a significant part of an article, since we have more granular/meaningful links to campaigns, battles, etc.
  • Fair enough! - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That's it from me – all good otherwise. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Gavin! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Harry R. Truman

Nominator(s): ceranthor 16:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A fascinating folk hero, Harry R. Truman was quite the badass. After cleaning up the prose, expanding this a bit, and fixing the citations, I think this article meets the FA criteria. It also recently received helpful feedback from FrB.TG, Carcharoth, and ArturSik. ceranthor 16:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per my review on its talk. FrB.TG (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, FrB.TG. ceranthor 16:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support Been looking forward to this one. Just a couple of things. Been looking forward to this one.

  • "despite a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages" I think if you say "despite Prohibition", it will be fine. Incidentally, the Volstead Act is what banned alcohol, the amendment simply gave Congress that authority.
  • " but he was too afraid to drink alcohol because of the earthquakes coming from St. Helens.[4]" Not sure this makes sense.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the support, Wehwalt. I think it could make a great TFA for April Fool's, spoofing President Truman. I changed the second comment's sentence to this: "but he was too afraid to drink alcohol because he was unsure whether the shaking was coming from his body or the earthquakes from St. Helens." The source quote is ""She brought him a bottle of Schenley's and he put it in the cupboard and said he didn't dare take a drink because he couldn't tell if the earthquakes were shaking or if it was him," Rosen said." What do you think? ceranthor 20:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that indicates what was going on better.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Nick-D

This is an interesting article, but it would benefit from some tightening:

  • "he contracted a number of injuries due to his audacious and independent nature" - what does this mean? Did he get into accidents or similar due to taking risks? (this is basically peacock prose)
The ref says this: "Because of his risk-taking and independent attitude, he often suffered injuries, yet he refused medical attention and never stayed a night in a hospital." Not sure what else to make of that.
It seems unlikely. Injured soldiers don't get the option to refuse medical treatment. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
So should I nix the part about never being in a hospital? ceranthor 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. A challenge with articles such as this is that the sources tend to be ultimately based on media reports of the recollections of an old man or those of their friends and relatives, and so need to be taken with considerable salt. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "though he reportedly never spent a night in a hospital" - This seems unlikely: armies tend to be pretty strict about sending injured soldiers to hospital for significant injuries, with opting out not being an option. The source appears unlikely to have checked his army personnel papers.
See above. That's why I put "reportedly."
  • "He also survived a torpedo attack on a military vessel off of Ireland" - the source says it was a "troopship" which may have been a chartered civilian ship
Another less reliable source claims that it's the RMS Lusitania. But wouldn't troopship imply a military ship?
No: huge numbers of civilian ships were chartered in both world wars but remained under civilian ownership (for instance, the luxury liners and more humble vessels). He definitely wasn't on the Lusitania if he was in the US Army given that it was sunk 2 years before the US entered the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
So should I change it back to troopship, then? ceranthor 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think so Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • When did he get married? Did he have any children?
Not mentioned in any reliable sources. The only place I could find this was the Rosen book, which some other sources seemed to question the accuracy of, hence why I didn't rely upon it primarily. I can try and get ahold of it by next week so I can search for this information.
  • "After Washington passed" - please identify the body which passed this change, not the state
I changed to "After the Washington state government"; the source says "when the state passed a ruling that changed the sales tax"
  • "A fan of the cocktail drink Schenley Whisky and Coke, Truman owned a pink 1957 Cadillac car" - is this relevant? (and when did he own the car?)
I thought it added to descriptions of his character.
  • "he was also noted for his use of profanity" - noted by whom? The "he was noted" construction which appears a few times in the article is rather imprecise and clunky: could it be changed to "he often swore" or similar?
Changed.
  • "Truman discarded all of his concerns" - these concerns haven't been previously noted: can you please describe what they were? Had he had previous bad experiences with the mountain or similar?
Changed to "Truman displayed little concern about the volcano and his situation" - think that was more what I was going for originally.
  • "he took a helicopter trip to visit them" - where did he get the helicopter from? (noting that helicopter rides are very expensive): presumably the media paid for this?
Source says "Harry’s wish met with enthusiasm at the school, and so a helicopter was arranged to take him there on Wednesday, May 14." Unsure. Will keep looking.
Aha! Found it. Fixed.
  • "He attracted media frenzy" - is this really correct? A media 'frenzy' tends to be a bigger deal, and the previous paras state he was only "a minor celebrity" and "something of a "folk hero""
The source said that media attention kept escalating. I think a frenzy is appropriate.
  • "Truman was also famous for owning 16 cats" - the source doesn't say this was a source of fame (incidentally, it also notes that he was in an evacuation zone and refused an attempt by "state officials" to persuade him to leave the day before the evacuation, which isn't in the article at present)
Thanks for that catch. Fixed to reflect the source, and added this bit to the death section.
  • Has there been any scholarly analysis of why Truman attracted so much public interest? On face value, the man was a petty criminal in his youth and reckless in his last weeks, with the seemingly admiring media coverage of his refusal to evacuate being part of the pre-eruption tendency to downplay the scale of the threat (and may have contributed to his decision to not evacuate). Is he seen as being an embodiment of the west or similar? (independent man on the land, etc).
Precisely. I can add another little bit about this.

Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I've replied to a few of your comments. I will work on these suggestions and get back to you asap. ceranthor 22:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D, I think I've replied to / fixed all of these. ceranthor 23:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, thanks to a related RfD discussion, I've found a more reliable source that discusses Truman's family history in more depth. I'll add some material from that tomorrow. ceranthor 04:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nick-D: I've added some details about his wives and his daughter. Not much, but better than nothing. I also fixed the other two remaining suggestions. ceranthor 13:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed: nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and your support. ceranthor 13:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99

  • Do we know when he gave his name as October 30? Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not clarified in any of the sources I've found.
  • Any more information on what he did in World War I? A link to a battle or campaign would be nice if at all possible. Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not available in any of the existing reliable sources as far as I know.
  • Prohibition did last from 1920 to 1933, but it's not clear if that's the same time that Truman spent as a bootlegger. In fact, the timeline on when he opened up his lodge makes me think he probably stopped before the end of Prohibition. Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll fix that. ceranthor 23:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find any mention of this song in the Legacy section. If it is indeed not there, can you please add it? Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I can try to find it under a reliable source. Added. ceranthor 23:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That should be all. Good work on a fascinating character. Display name 99 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: I think I have addressed these comments. ceranthor 23:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Support-Appears to meet the FA criteria. Display name 99 (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. ceranthor 05:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Sthelensharrytruman.jpg: Image is appropriate, but the source link is broken. I found an archived link. It says "courtesy of" which makes the licensing a little suspect; the US government often hosts copyrighted images as fair use and "courtesy of" is a frequent signal thereof. On the other hand, the photographer is apparently an USGS employee so this time it may actually be PD-USGov if we assume that the photo was taken as part of that employee's job - which given that the other photos of St. Helens's eruption are also attributed to him is likely.
  • Indeed, I see "USGS Photo courtesy of Richard Waitt."
  • Thanks.
  • Replaced with [12].
  • So could you clarify the issue with this, then?
Some images have ALT text and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Fixed/replied to your comments. Fixed the alt text as well. ceranthor 15:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Lack of EXIF is sometimes a sign that the image was taken from elsewhere - such as the linked Flickr stream. In this case it does probably not say much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Let me know if there is anything left for me to resolve. ceranthor 17:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment This article would benefit from a map showing the location of the lodge in relation to the volcano. 81.147.9.221 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but do you know of any public domain or attributable sources that offer such a map? ceranthor 23:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
All what would be needed are precise enough coordinates, and since they are not copyrightable you could derive them from a non-free map as well. With them you can write a map on Wikipedia. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll admit I haven't the slightest idea how to do that. ceranthor 02:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Is there any chance you could walk me through the steps, or link me somewhere that could help me figure it out? ceranthor 01:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd probably add the map myself or ask someone from the commons:Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop to write one up; I've never been good at "walk-through" explanations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, if you could make one, it would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if I can be any help. ceranthor 13:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Can't do it without coordinates, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, unfortunately, I couldn't find them. Thanks for your help. ceranthor 15:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
The lodge appears on various USGS topographic maps of the area (including this one from 1957), which have the approximate coordinates marked. SounderBruce 04:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Fantastic. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: will you be able to make something out of this? ceranthor 18:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Seems like cropping and uploading that map (which is PD-USGov per its own text) would do the job. Is there a source link that isn't a direct file link? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: is there a separate source? ceranthor 20:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I found it using the TopoView tool, but citing the image directly should be fine. SounderBruce 00:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, see above. ceranthor 00:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
[[SounderBruce, is St. Helens on the map you linked? ceranthor 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Depends on the map. At 1:62500 scale, which is the most detailed for the area, the St. Helens caldera is on a separate map from the Spirit Lake area, so it would need to be stitched. Other scales (e.g. this 1:250,000 map) show both areas, but the Lodge itself isn't specifically labeled. SounderBruce 04:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that will be a problem (and it's nonobvious how to get to the file from https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#13/46.2293/-122.1897). Perhaps it's better to simply say "The lodge was close to the outlet of Spirit Lake" and use the file as a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. @Ian Rose: @Sarastro1: Let me know if you think there are any other changes that need to be made here. ceranthor 16:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
To access the files, you drop a pin on the map, then choose from the maps displayed on the right hand panel. Opens in a new window as a full JPEG. There's also the ESRI/USGS explorer, from which higher-quality PDFs (in ZIP files) can be downloaded. SounderBruce 06:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 34 lacks publisher details
  • Some of the "Sources" entries look a little incomplete. You can get more on the Gawande book from WorldCat, here, including the ISBN. You can get a little more on the Foxworthy and Hill book here, including OCLC (no ISBN apparently). There ought to be an ISBN for the Slatta book, but I can't find this volume on WorldCat, Amazon or ABE.

Otherwise, sources are in good orderand of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Should be fixed. ceranthor 22:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from ArturSik

Sorry for such late response. I have thorougly read the article few days prior to its nomination and was really satisfied with its shape and content. I have now had a look at it again and can fully support it. The article is precise and in my opinion doesn't lack any information. I think it's a great source of information for anyone interested in Truman's story. Well done Ceranthor. ArturSik (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, ArturSik. ceranthor 19:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Anbe Sivam

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Anbe Sivam, a 2003 Indian Tamil film starring Kamal Haasan and R. Madhavan. The film is known for its story, screenplay, dialogues, performances and music. A special note of thanks to Dr. Blofeld for reviewing the GAN and to my fellow editors who peer reviewed it. This is my fourth FAC attempt and my first solo nomination. Constructive comments here are most welcome.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792

Lead

I think the infobox shouldn't include dialogue writers.

Plot

You could remove the actor names to reduce the plot, and avoid overlinking (if actors are linked in the plot, they can't be linked in the production section).

Cast

This complies with WP:FILMCAST, so no problem.

Development
  • Don't straightaway mention the film, like "After completing a draft of the film's script in early 2002, Kamal approached the Malayalam filmmaker Priyadarshan to direct the film". The film has to be introduced somehow. Perhaps something like, "After completing the draft of a film script in early 2002, Kamal approached the Malayalam filmmaker Priyadarshan to direct it ... The film's title Anbe Sivam was derived from the Shaivite saint Tirumular's poem Tirumantiram.
  • "In a 2008 interview with The Times of India, Sundar C. stated that Anbe Sivam "changed [him] personally and professionally", making him a more confident person and changing his outlook towards life" - I think this is better put in the Legacy section
Casting
  • A lot of crew members are mentioned here, when they are better put in the development section. Or retitle the section to "cast and crew".
Filming

Nothing much to say here.

Themes
  • You may want to expand upon the "Tennāṭuṭaiya Śivanē pöṛṛi" sentence using info from the source.
Box office
  • "In later interviews with Nakkheeran and Dinamalar, Sundar C. revealed that the failure of Anbe Sivam led him to become almost bankrupt and he remained unpaid for his work. His bank accounts frozen by the income tax department for a year for not being able to pay his taxes" - please ensure that those are actual interviews with Sundar C, and not reproducing content from an earlier interview.
Legacy
  • Now that the article is large enough, I think un-detailed comparisons of other films with Anbe Sivam can be removed.

More comments to follow soon. I would also like to see the article mention somewhere that Sundar C was better known for making commercial films, and Anbe Sivam was dissimilar to those (See where this can fit). --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I have resolved all your comments now. Do have a look and tell me if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Just three concerns remaining: First, mention the film's release date in the "release" section, and move the BBFC source there. Second, Madhan, the dialogue writer, is still in the infobox under the "writer" parameter. But Template:Infobox film says, "This field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by"." I think that credit usually applies to story/screenplay writers only. Third, please try to integrate the large footnote talking about how the movie ruined Sundar C financially into the main text, since it is too large for a footnote. Usually, footnotes include optional info only, but this contains essential info. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Done as asked hopefully.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 15:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Support: I hope this passes FAC. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

  • "The film's story and screenplay were written by Kamal Haasan". Why not directly write: The film was written by Kamal Haasan.
  • The film was released on 15 January 2003 to positive reviews from critics, but it underperformed at the box office.
  • You might want to link Tamil cinema in the lead, as its not linked elsewhere.
  • The budget and BO info should be included in the infobox.

That's it from me, sounds like a must-watch film. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: The budget and BO need not necessarily be included in the infobox. You can choose not to do so in case of edit wars over it. Some random IP editor might keep on changing the values and it would be better not to include them. Nevertheless, I've included the budget like in Enthiran, my other FA, if that's alright. The rest have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see any issue with this article. Great work! Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Yashthepunisher. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

  • The final paragraph of the plot can be structured better to avoid the repetiton of character names, in this part in particular: "After signing the papers, Padayatchi instructs his assistant to eliminate Nalla. However, his assistant has a change of heart as he is about to kill Nalla. Padayatchi's assistant believes that the misdeeds he committed for Padayatchi resulted in the death of the assistant's daughter. Padayatchi's assistant requests Nalla to leave Chennai and stay as far away from Padayatchi as possible; Nalla assents and walks away."
I have stated him as "Padayathi's assistant" as he is not given a name in the film. I've changed a bit. Do let me know how it looks like.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've made some minor changes in the plot. Let me know if I messed up.
  • I think it would be better if you mention that Kamal plays the lead in the Cast and crew section. It's not as obvious we would like at the moment
  • "to be the most favourite roles of his career" - two superlatives aren't standard.
  • I am sorry but what do you mean by "The make-up process"?
  • "Post-filming" might not be the best choice of words.
  • Maybe you could say "Throughout the narrative" instead of "During the journey", as themes being addressed in a journey" reads a little odd to me.
  • "shows Kamal's" - showcases?
  • "By making that choice in the form of humanism against capitalism and globalisation, Kamal indicates that man's transformation into God occurs through the belief that "Siva is love"" - This could be structured better with more text in direct quotes because it isn't a very factual or encyclopedia-like.
  • "Tennāṭuṭaiya Śivanē pöṛṛi" ("Praise Śiva who resides in the ancient land and who belongs to all of humanity" - I am not an expert but shouldn't the Tamil bit be in Italics instead of the English bit?
  • "Kamal and Madhavan reprise the roles played by Candy and Martin in that film, respectively." - Not too sure if "reprise" is the best of choice.
  • Bear with me here: I think the latter half of the second paragraph in the section, starting from "According to Kamal, the characterisation of Nallasivam..." fits better in the first paragraph right after the "Kamal's views as a humanist". Consequently, the second paragraph can begin with "According to M. Kalyanaraman of The Times of India, Anbe Sivam proposes..." and then have the "The film features a Tamil proverb from..." in the same paragraph. I think it'll help with better flow and more thematic unity.

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 07:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: I have hopefully resolved your comments thus far. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I was a little concerned about the critical reception section, but I think you've received substantial commentary on it since. It looks good to me. Fine work Ssven2, Support. NumerounovedantTalk 07:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Numerounovedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Let There Be Sunshine

Some minor suggestions:

  • Remove italics from title translation, since it's not an English language title of the film
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Since it's not patronymic, Kamal Haasan should be mentioned by his last name Haasan
Let There Be Sunshine, please have a look here, here, here and here for further clarification regarding this.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not about the country or how he is often referred, it's a matter of formal and informal mentioning. Haven't you read MOS:LASTNAME. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Redirects needs fixing - Vidyasagar, globalisation, Thoongadhey Thambi Thoongadhey, Film soundtrack, Vijaykanth, Carnatic raga
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "After completing the draft of a film's script" → "After completing the draft for a film's script"
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Priyadarshan wanted to collaborate with the director" - which director ? Is this a sentence error ?
Done. Rectified.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In casting, mention Uma Riyaz Khan and R. Madhavan after the first mention with their last name.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "In an interview with S. R. Ashok Kumar of The Hindu" - is S. R. Ashok Kumar worth mentioning ?
Yes, Let There Be Sunshine. This is because he is the one who is interviewing the producers so it is imperative to include his name irrespective of whether he's noteworthy or not.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
That sentence can be also made without that. Anyway, I'm not going to insist. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Unlink "non-Tamil" in Themes and influences
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Kandasamy Padayatchi utters this" → "Padayatchi utters this"
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove "which cleared it with a "U" certificate," per WP:FILMRATING
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "the Vijay starrer" → "Vijay-starring"
Done. I've reworded it Let There Be Sunshine. Do check it now.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge both paras in Box office, it's a direct continuation
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Correct the "income tax department" redlink
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That's all from my part. Good work. I can vouch for this once these are addressed. Good luck. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

One more thing in Filming, I think that sentence about signing Madhavan for Nala Damayanthi best fits in Legacy. Because it's about how he landed in a role in Nala Damayanthi through Anbe Sivam. Isn't that a legacy ? Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Shifted to "Legacy" section as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I support this for promotion. Good luck. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Let There Be Sunshine. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoa47

  • For this part (Produced on a budget of ₹120 million), do you think that it would be helpful to provide a link for the currency for those unfamiliar with this region of the world and its economy?
Already done so in the infobox. Nevertheless, I have linked it as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a clarification question about the following sentence (Rathod's voice in the film was dubbed by the singer Anuradha Sriram.). Do you mean that Sriram dubbed Rathod's voice throughout the entire film or just for certain portions? Do we know why they had voice dubbing? I was a little confused by this part.
Throughout the film as most actresses working in the south are north Indians who have little or no knowledge of Tamil. Sometimes their voices sound like Jean Hagen in Singin' in the Rain (Hansika Motwani is an example). Only some like Priyamani, Trisha, Samantha to name a few dub for themselves.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • That stills seems rather strange to me, but it is probably a cultural difference that I am not used to. Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (When Kamal was en-route to Los Angeles from Toronto), I do not believe that "en-route" needs to be in italics.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (pined that Nallasivam was "akin to" street theatre artist Pralayan), I do not believe that the quote is necessary, and I think that you can paraphrase in your words here.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (who wanted the song to be sung in such a way that the protagonist is singing according to the situation he finds himself in), there are three variations of the word "song" in a very close proximity. I would revise at least one to avoid this (such as "to be performed in such a way).
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Critical response" subsection seems a little too disorganized for my own personal taste. I can see that the third paragraph is on the negative reviews for the film, but I do not see a cohesive topic or theme for the first and second paragraph. It would be helpful to have more structure for the first two paragraphs to avoid having it read like a random listing of critics and their opinions.
I've shuffled it a bit now Aoba47. Any changes to be made here? Please do tell me if so.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. It sounds like a very interesting film (I have not heard of it before doing this review to be honest). Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion based on the prose. Have a wonderful rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few nitpicks before I supportJimfbleak - talk to me? 11:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Indian Panorama— do we need any clarification of what this section of the IFFA includes?
Indeed, so as to distinguish from the foreign films screened at the festival. This section is exclusively for Indian films.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • authorities at the Toronto Pearson International Airport, —I know from personal experience that, unusually, the US operates its own immigration desk at Pearson; perhaps make it clear that it's the US rather than the Canadian authorities doing the profiling?
Done. Kamal Haasan states them as simply "customs authorities" but there is a hint at the last line of the article where he says, "One can understand the country's anxiety after Spetember 11" referring to 9/11. So it must be the US then. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Siva is love" —effectively "God is Love". If this is the source of the article's title, why is it reversed as "Love Is God" in the translation of the Tamil title?
Haha, because "God is Love" literally translates into "Kadavule Anbu" or in this case "Sivame Anbu". Here, "Anbe Sivam" literally means "Love is God".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 94 is showing message "This video is unavailable"
  • I don't think the link to the film should be under the heading "Bibliography", particularly as it's the only item in the section – a bibliography is by definition a list, normally of books. Why not rename the section "Film"?

Otherwise, all sources look good and appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I've resolved both your comments.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Support by DWB

  • There is a lot of duplicate links following the cast section. Since the cast are already linked in the Cast section it's not necessary to also link them in the production section.
  • I don't know if it's possible but I'd add an image of one or both main actors or the female actor who plays Bala to the cast section, just to stop it being a section dedicated to a bare list. If you want an idea how to do this, look at something like Interstellar (film).
  • It wouldn't stop be me supporting promotion, but in the article body it may be worth adding a dollar amount next to the rupee amounts. I can see you've added a note explaining that 1 dollar in 2003 was equal to about 45 rupees, but I think for your layman reader it's harder to understand what kind of figures we are dealing with. If you choose to add this, don't worry about doing it in the infobox. Again, if you don't want to do it, don't, it won't stop me supporting it.
  • Sources look fine and well archived! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I have hopefully resolved your comments, Darkwarriorblake. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes Ssven. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Darkwarriorblake. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

  • Do we have good sources (eh, better than some cheesy movie review website, I hope) for "Love Is God" as opposed to "Love is Shiva"? See from Google books: "Almost every large Siva temple in Tamilnadu has the words Anbe Sivam (Siva is love) prominently displayed on one, if not more, of its towers. For Sivanadiyars, the love of the lord is unmatchable but they can devote all their attention and love to him and serve him wholeheartedly. In addition to this, Sivanadiyars also serve those who, like themselves, are dedicated to the lord Siva." Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Given the above quote, if "Anbe Sivam" is as culturally rich as the quote seems to suggest, do we need a separate article on the saying itself and its religious significance (and linked to this article by {{about}} atop the page)? Or would that be a section in another article? I personally would feel embarrassed, for example, if I knew that people trying to look up a very culturally or religiously significant concept could only find reference to a popular movie that is only indirectly related to the original saying or phrase... What do the nominators think?
    • Hmm, not necessary. People would be smart enough to differentiate from the phrase and the film. Besides, it's mentioned in the "Development" section that the phrase is taken from the Saivite poem "Tirumantiram".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Again given the above, see the text: "In Vasool Raja MBBS (2004), the character Vasool Raja.." Is this quote referring to the movie or the religious phrase. If it's the latter, the quote is completely irrelevant. If it's the former, I'm still not convinced the quote adds to the article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Ah, it is Kamal Haasan (who plays the protagonist in both Anbe Sivam and Vasool Raja MBBS) himself who quotes. He's parodying his own film and not the phrase in general. I've given a bit more explanation on this.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

  • "The film was released on 15 January 2003 to positive reviews from critics, but underperformed at the box office. However, it is now regarded as a classic and a cult film in Tamil cinema." -- but and however are used back to back. Neutrality goes for a toss, sir. It made me feel as if you are concerned about the film's failure. Rephrase the lines, please.
Done. Tweaked and reworded as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "the other is a scarred, deformed but witty socialist, Nallasivam, alias "Nalla"." -- scared, deformed and witty are not physical. The first two are physical while witty is mental. Why use but?
Done. Tweaked as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "and Nalla so he can deliver" -- "and Nalla has to deliver"
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Nalla and Padayatchi's daughter Balasaraswathi, called Bala" -- Why say called Bala? You were using these inverted commas like Nallasivam, alias "Nalla".
Done. Removed inverted commas for all three.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "When Haasan was en-route to Los Angeles from Toronto, he was detained by the United States customs authorities at the Toronto Pearson International Airport, who suspected him of being a terrorist because of his surname, which he described as sounding "very Islamic". Haasan was left stranded at the airport until the authorities from the American Embassy at Toronto intervened and resolved the issue." -- Tell us how this had an impact on the film's production. Otherwise sir, I am afraid that it would be deemed an unnecessary addition.
Done. Valid point there. Removed the section.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The basic plot of Anbe Sivam bears resemblance to the 1987 road film, Planes, Trains and Automobiles directed by John Hughes, which starred Steve Martin and John Candy in the lead roles. Haasan and Madhavan bear resemblance to the roles played by Candy and Martin's roles in that film, respectively." -- Whose opinion is that, sir? Yours?
Done. Tweaked and reworded as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • First of all Lord Shiva can be Shiva for neutrality. Secondly, a case of over linking. Why sir, why?
Done. Tweaked and removed overlink as asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "before the end of 2002 so that they could enter the film into the 2002 awards list" -- 2002 repeated twice in the same line, sir. Why not annual awards list, sir?
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Haasan is enough for the mention in the Legacy section regarding Vasool Raja MBBS.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Support All my comments have been duly resolved by the nominator. Regards, Pavanjandhyala Trishula.svg 17:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Pavanjandhyala. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Changed the captions.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Libro Los Viejos Abuelos Foto 68.png: Use is fine, but the license seems wrong to me - that image looks like a derivative of a painting and there is no indication of the license of the painting. Especially since the ALT text calls the painter "Diego Rivera" and it's not clear from the file page.
Replaced with another file which says the painting is by Diego Rivera. Hope this one is okay.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Anbe Sivam Portrait Still.png: Use seems fine as is most of the rationale, but I am not certain that it meets the "omission would be harmful to the understanding of the article topic" prong of WP:NFCC#8. Not sure about the caption, either.
It is quite so as people would like to know how the painting looks like to realise the way the protagonist indicates the atrocities committed by the antagonist. The same is also explained in the 4th paragraph of the "Themes and influences" section and I've expanded the "Purpose" sub-section of the image file. As for the caption, I've tweaked it, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Hope its okay now.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it's rather marginal. Are these atrocities a main point in the film? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, they are one of the main points in the film which is why the protagonist (Nallasivam) is against the antagonist (Padayatchi) in the first place. Padayatchi refuses to give his workers a raise, instead only offering them 910 Rupees, which by the then and today's Indian standards, is hardly enough for their survival. Padayatchi also uses corrupt means to run his business, especially through shady dealings with MNC's (Foreign Direct Investment) as he believes the profit from his foreign investment will be more than enough to make money at the cost of the local parties and his workforce. To bring these atrocities to light, Nallsivam uses this portrait to reveal to everyone about Padayatchi.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 11:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. So very marginal. Has anyone else got opinions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think the themes section does not discuss the painting enough to warrant the image. Ssven2, you could add more to the discussion of the painting from varying commentators on the significance of the motifs; it is an interesting picture and could use some elaboration. That said, I see little point in including the image for the painting if there wasn't/isn't any discussion on it. Hope this helps. VedantTalk 14:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Removed the painting, Jo-Jo Eumerus.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Most images have basic ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat

  • Support. Just one comment on this, which will not affect my support, but that you should probably look at:
    • "advertisement filmmaker" (in there twice) is one of the least elegant pairings of words I've seen, and I'm not even sure there is such a thing (Google shows little enough reference) - possibly re-word?
Aside from that, all good - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, SchroCat. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. I have resolved your comment.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt

  • Support I was also one of the peer reviewers, see here. My concerns re prose were addressed, and, though I am not familiar with Indian film beyond what I've reviewed, it seems otherwise to meet the FA criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Wehwalt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 14:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Operation PBHistory

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a CIA covert operation in Guatemala, one of many articles I worked on related to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, which became an FA in 2017. It's based on pretty much every scholarly discussing the subject. I feel it's comprehensive. Shearonink provided a detailed GA review. This is my second effort at FAC; the previous one was archived, essentially for lack of participation. At that FAC, it received an image review by Nikkimaria, a source review by Brianboulton, and comments from Dudley Miles and SchroCat, whom I am pinging to see if they have anything to add. The article has not changed significantly since that review. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation PBHISTORY/archive1. The article was retitled following a discussion there. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley Miles

As I said in comments on the previous nomination, there are still two issues which you did not address. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I apologize for missing your comments: I was away for a few days and did not check the page thoroughly enough on my return. I have tweaked the wording in both cases to try and address your points. Let me know if that helps, or whether further clarification is needed. With respect to your second comment, I've simply removed the phrase referring to Castillo Armas "taking power", because I realized it was ambiguous in this case: Castillo Armas held power both as leader of the junta and as President. Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
My second query has been dealt with but I still cannot see what you are getting at in the last sentence of the lead: "Historian Max Holland stated that 'PBHistory ultimately could not repair the damage caused" by the fact that the US could not hide its involvement in the overthrow of Árbenz,[2] while Bevan Sewell wrote that it was an "ill-fated" operation, and that "the level of discord that US actions had caused in the region overshadowed any attempt to publicize [their] success."' In the first part you appear to say (or quote historians saying) that the US agents unsuccessfuly attempted to conceal their involvement, and in the second part that they attempted to publicise their success. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. My remaining query has been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: I don't believe you've completed the nomination process, as this is not listed on the WP:FAC page Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I have done so now. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

  • No changes to the sources, which I approved last 4th October. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: for the sake of completeness: two sources have been added following a conversation with Finetooth below [13], [14], and one has been moved to further reading. Any comments?

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This generally reads well. I made about 30 small copyedits here as I went, and I have a few other suggestions and questions.
Your copy edits look excellent to me.
Lead
  • ¶2 "The first phase of the operation began soon after Árbenz's resignation on June 27, 1954, with several agents being dispatched to Guatemala beginning on July 4." – Replace the "with plus -ing" construction? Suggestion: "After Árbenz's resignation on June 27, 1954, the CIA sent several agents to Guatemala beginning on July 4."
  • Done
  • ¶3 "In summarizing the impacts of the operation, Historian Max Holland stated that 'PBHistory ultimately could not repair the damage caused' by the fact that the US could not hide its involvement in the overthrow of Árbenz, while Bevan Sewell wrote that it was an 'ill-fated' operation, and that 'the level of discord that US actions had caused in the region overshadowed any attempt to publicize [their] success.' " – I agree with User:Dudley Miles that something here is not clear. I'd suggest recasting this paragraph as follows: "PBHistory documents were used to support the CIA's existing operations Kufire and Kugown, which sought to track Latin American communists and to disseminate information critical of the Árbenz government. Documents were shared with the Kersten Committee of the US House of Representatives, which publicized PBHistory within the US, and the documents helped Guatemalan intelligence agencies create a register of suspected communists. Yet Operation PBHistory failed to find evidence that the Soviet government controlled the Guatemalan communists or to counter the international narrative that the United States had toppled the Árbenz government to please the United Fruit Company." Then I would suggest moving the direct quotations to the last paragraph of the "Aftermath and analysis" section, and recasting them with clarity in mind, possibly omitting the Holland quote altogether since his point seems to be made adequately elsewhere in the article.
  • After reading your comments and those of Dudley Miles, I read the source yet again, and now I have come to the conclusion that the contradiction is in the source itself. I have copied the paragraph below, but in essence it seems as though Sewell is claiming that PBHISTORY was about publicizing the coup, which it was not: it was about justifying the coup. Accordingly, I've just removed the quote. If either of you see a way to salvaging a useful, non-contradictory, non-redundant quote, I'd love to hear it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Further damage to Washington’s image would be done by the administration’s actual covert act of removing Arbenz from offi ce (Rabe, 1988: 42–64). While the inflexible stance taken by the US over economic issues had, undoubtedly, contributed to a deterioration in inter-American harmony, the role of the US in bringing about Arbenz’s downfall had an even greater impact. Paradoxically, this was in spite of the fact that Eisenhower and his advisors considered it one of their greatest successes in the region. Following the overthrow the US attempted to publicize it through the ill-fated Operation PBHistory (Osgood, 2006: 147–148; Holland: 323). The level of discord that US actions had caused in the region overshadowed any attempt to publicize its success. Such sentiments were, as Mark Stoler (2007: 662) has outlined, expressed with great vehemence by Oscar Waiss, leader of the Chilean Socialist Party. ‘It is certain that the United States has lost more than it gained [. . .] it has lost forever the friendship of the peoples of Latin America and the possibility of being considered [. . .] as a “good neighbour” [. . .] Latin Americans will not forget Guatemala so easily.’ And, as the decade wore on, this disconnection between the administration’s rhetoric and actions would continue to intensify. (Sewell, 2008, page 303)

First phase
  • Flip three sets of back-to-back citations in the first two paragraphs of this subsection to ascending order?
  • Fixed. I usually do a check of this, neglected to do so in this case...
  • ¶2 "...purchase of weapons from Czechoslovakia..." – Link Czechoslovakia?
  • Done
Second phase
  • ¶4 "750 photographs of this material..." – The MOS advises against starting a sentence with digits.
  • Done
Operation Kufire
  • ¶1 "Operation Kufire was a wide-ranging operations..." – To avoid repeating "operation", replace the second instance with "effort"?
  • Done, also fixed typo
Operation Kugown
  • ¶2 "...convinced American journalists such as Donald Grant..." – Can you identify him further? Who did he write for? Was he an editor, a publisher?
  • Done, but I'm not terribly happy about this. Holland describes him as "one of the most experienced and respected U.S. journalists covering Latin America at the time", but neglects to mention his affiliation. The cited article of Grant's is from a journal (which I've now cited), and it says he is with the St Louis Post Dispatch, which is a fact I've added. But, there's a slight possibility he was not with the SLPD during the time of the Operation: the source is only good for its time of publication. Nonetheless, an improvement, I think, so I've left it in for now.
  • Looks good to me. Via newspapers.com, I checked for and found Donald Grant articles published in 1954 for the SLPD. One that popped up almost immediately is a March 1954 article about Dulles, communism, and Guatemala. I could add a citation to it, if you like, to make the SLPD part of the claim airtight. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Kersten Committee
  • ¶1 "...the Kersten Committee held a number of hearings" – I'd either add the exact number or delete the vague "a number of".
  • Done
General
  • The mural has alt text. Concise alt text for the other three would be nice even though not required.
  • Done, but I'm terrible at alt text, feel free to suggest modifications.
  • You have all the skills necessary to write them. I modified a couple and added the two missing ones. Finetooth (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No disambiguation problems.
  • No dead URLs.
  • The main text includes duplicate links for Dwight Eisenhower (3 links), United Fruit Company, psychological warfare, and Office of Intelligence Research. You could safely delete the duplicates.
  • Done: I like to use a link at the first use of a term in the body even if there's one in the lead, but I've removed the rest.
  • A map showing the position of Guatemala in the Western Hemisphere might be useful. I didn't find one that I thought was a perfect fit, but there might be one lurking about. Finetooth (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Done: It's only of North America, but it's better than nothing.
  • That's all. Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Finetooth: thanks for a detailed review. I believe I've addressed all your points. Vanamonde (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Switching to support on prose. I don't think you need the Sewell quote unless fresh eyes see something I'm missing. Let me know if you want me to add the Donald Grant (SLPD) citation. Finetooth (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, Finetooth. If it's not too much trouble, please add that newspaper source: do prefer to have things watertight. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

15th Tank Corps

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a Soviet tank formation that fought in World War II, serving in many major actions such as the Soviet offensive after Stalingrad and the Third Battle of Kharkov. I would like to improve this as far as possible, and am attempting to improve coverage of an underrepresented area of World War II. Kges1901 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all maps and providing a legend for the first
  • File:Polozenie_17_09_1939.png: what is the source for the data presented in this map? Same with File:Operation_Star_1.png, File:Operation_Star_2.png, File:Operation_Star_3.png
  • The maps are own work by the users who created them, but they match up with what I've read on the battles. I will post on MILHIST talk asking if there are any users who would be willing to make maps (I don't have the expertise to do it myself), as the books I've consulted have maps that include the corps.
  • File:Bt7_3.jpg: which of the rationales in the given tag is believed to apply?\
  • Rationale #3
  • File:Vasily_Koptsov.jpg: FUR is not adequate for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't have any more information on the image than I did for the A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources appear to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. In the case of citation 12, the details are not clear. What does "fond 38" mean? If I wished to verify this citation, how would I go about it? Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • To verify, one would go to the Central Archives of the Russian Ministry of Defence in Podolsk which is near Moscow, look up fond 38 (a section of the archives), then find opus 11373 (sub-section). In opus 11373 file 150 would include the data. Unfortunately the document is not one of those posted online, and I obtained the data from a fairly decent SPS. I would hate to make the article less detailed on this point as it is a snapshot of the corps at about full strength. Kges1901 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Bill McCann

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Bill McCann, a decorated soldier of World War I, a barrister, and a prominent figure in the military and ex-service community of South Australia during the interwar period. The article successfully went through GAN and Milhist A-Class review in July–August last year, and has been stable since, just waiting to have a run at FAC. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, Nikki! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

I made minor copyediting changes to the article as listed here. Please revert any that you think are misguided. Below are further questions and suggestions.
They look great, particular thanks for editing out the passive voice (which I do have a tendency to fall into). I will get onto the rest of your comments shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Gallipoli campaign
  • ¶1 "During that period, the 10th Battalion suffered casualties of 13 officers and 453 men." – Would it be possible to say how many officers and men were in the battalion before these casualties or to render the losses in percentages?
  • Added and expanded footnote to cover it.
Western Front
  • ¶1 "...fight over the O.G.1 trench system..." - Link or explain O.G.1 trench system?
  • ¶3 "In February 1917 he was evacuated suffering from illness,..." – Slightly smoother as "Suffering from illness, he was evacuated in February 1917,..."?
  • ¶4 "...before being seconded to a training battalion..." – Link "seconded" to secondment?
Interbellum and later life
  • ¶1 "McCann commenced studying as an articled clerk in December 1920, and married Mildred Southcott on 20 August 1921, there being two sons and one daughter from the union." – This sentence bothers me in two ways. The "with plus -ing" construction is awkward, and "from the union" seems anachronistic. Suggestion: " McCann commenced studying as an articled clerk in December 1920 and married Mildred Southcott on 20 August 1921; they had two sons and a daughter."
  • ¶1 "In 1921 he commenced..." – Replace "commenced" with "began" since the sentence before this one uses "commenced"?
  • ¶2 "...defended the status of Anzac Day as a public holiday against protests from the retail sector,..." – Why did the retail sector oppose the holiday?
  • ¶2 "...was a foundation member..." – Should that be "founding" rather than "foundation"?
  • ¶2 "When the National War Memorial design was being finalised, McCann strongly advocated for the inclusion of the names of all South Australians who were killed in World War I inside the memorial;..." – The sentence is a bit wordy, and the South Australians weren't killed inside the memorial. Suggestion: "As the memorial design neared completion, McCann strongly supported including the names of all South Australians killed in World War I;...".
  • ¶2 "...McCann sharply criticised the defence policy of the Federal Government, "[d]efence has been brought down to such a low point," he said, "that it is now an absurdity." – Can you add any specifics? What in particular was he objecting to? Too few soldiers? Too little training? Too little money? Outdated weapons?
  • ¶3 "the Unattached List" – Should that be linked or explained?
  • ¶6 "...resulted in his home being deliberately set alight." – Were the culprits ever identified or charged with arson? What was the extent of the damage to the house?
General
  • Some images have alt text, but others don't. Concise alt text for all of them would be nice even if not required.
  • No dead URLs.
  • No disambiguation problems.
  • Duplicate links in the main text include University of Adelaide, 9th Battalion, counter-attack, and Anzac Day. I don't think you need the duplicates. I doubt that you need the three duplicates in the lead; they are the OBE, etc. in the first sentence, followed by Officer of the Order of the British Empire, etc., in the last.
  • Looks good. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

I can find nothing to quibble about! All sources in good order and of appropriate reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing as coord, I copyedited as usual so pls let me know any concerns; outstanding points:

  • He attended various public schools then Adelaide High School -- sounds like Adelaide High is/was public too, so do we mean various primary schools before Adelaide High?
  • Yes, they were called public schools at the time, changed to primary and linked
  • and "was an inspiration to his men" -- can we attribute this quote inline?
  • Done.
  • he used three tanks to clear the area -- might seem pedantic but this makes it sound like he had three tanks attached to his company which I assume he didn't; can we say that he called upon the tanks from whoever it was that provided them?
  • added that they came from the 5th Tank Brigade and expanded the footnote
  • moving forward by "vigorous action and hard, confused fighting" -- these are Bean's words?
  • Yes.
  • Learning of difficulties due to German positions in Luc Wood -- wonder if we can elaborate on or be more explicit about the "difficulties", as the word sounds a bit odd to me in this context...
  • reworded.
  • clear the area. Along with flanking troops, McCann cleared -- can we avoid the "clear/ed" repetition?
  • Done.
  • In addition to the decorations previously mentioned, McCann was issued with the 1914–15 Star, British War Medal, and Victory Medal for his service during the war. -- I don't think we really need to mention medals that everyone on active service received; not too common in similar articles from memory.
  • included for completeness. I did the same with Raymond Leane, which went through FAC ok.
  • turned his hand to farming the previous month. He farmed at Truro and Manoora but was hampered by his war injuries, and abandoned farming in August -- do you think we could lose one of the "farmed/farming" instances?
  • Done.
  • McCann began studying as an articled clerk in December 1920, and married Mildred Southcott on 20 August 1921; they had two sons and a daughter. In 1921 he began an active association with the South Australian branch of the Returned Sailors' and Soldiers' Imperial League of Australia -- I'm not sure we need connect study and marriage in the same sentence; also can we pinpoint when in 1921 he joined RSSILA as that might influence where we put his marriage info...
  • Split sentence, the source isn't specific about when in 1921 he joined.
  • This led to public criticism by his potential political opponents -- I know we find him going into politics in the next para but this still caught me short; perhaps simpler to say he was subjected to public criticism and leave at that?
  • Done.
  • Now I check the ref, I'm not sure if one letter to the editor quite supports the idea of "public criticism" as I'd generally understand it -- did we lose another ref somewhere for this, as I can't see in the letter where the earlier bit about potential political opponents was supported either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure how to integrate this into the article, but his critic wasn't just anyone, it was A. T. Saunders, well known public figure, an unofficial historian of SA, and a man who courted controversy. I'll have to dig around a bit more to see where that political enemies bit came from, I must have not added the source... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ian, I think I must have conflated the two issues. What I was thinking of was the controversy over the RSSILA prez running for politics. I've added a sentence on that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • His biographer described him -- have to admit that I think of a biographer as the author of a full-length work so would prefer to say "The Australian Dictionary of Biography described him", but happy to discuss...
  • Done.

Structure and comprehensiveness seem fine; I'll take Nikki's image review and Brian's source review as read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Tks for prompt action, PM -- fine with all that except where indicated above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Frickeg

Don't know that I've ever participated in one of these before but I did want to make a few quick comments on the political stuff since that's my area. I believe I may have raised some of these points in the past but I can't find where that might have been. Great to see the article overall looking in such good shape.

  • Could do with some contextualising of Senator Elliott - or does this even need to be here? Senators (even out-of-state ones) helping out with local campaigns is pretty routine. What makes this notable?
  • I have added that they first met at Gallipoli, where Elliott had offered McCann a commission in his battalion.
  • Should give percentages of votes in addition to (or instead of) actual numbers. Should also indicate swing from the last election, mention that the seat was extremely marginal (Price won by fewer than 200 votes in 1928), and contextualise the election as a nationwide Labor landslide.
  • Add a bit of additional context.
  • There seems to be some interesting stuff in Trove about him being sought out as a candidate - presumably his candidacy was something of a boon for the Nationalists, and the sources seem to mention both PM Bruce and Charles Hawker were involved in convincing him to stand. Could be worth a sentence or two.
  • The Nationalists seemed optimistic about his chances, but they would be wouldn't they. Clearly they had not grasped the reality of the swing to Labor. I did have a look for more info on his nomination, but whilst Bruce sent him a telegram when he nominated, and Hawker nominated for Wakefield at the same time, I couldn't find an article that explained how McCann was convinced to run, or who by.

Best of luck with the rest of the process. Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Great work, all looks good. (I found the reason I thought Hawke was involved - an article on Trove titled "FEDERAL ELECTION LIBERAL CANDIDATE FOR WAKEFIELD MR. C A. S. HAWKER SELECTED LIEUTENANT-COLONEL McCANN TO STAND FOR BOOTHBY", which had a line break after "selected" that I didn't observe.) Frickeg (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I almost made the same mistake when I was trawling through Trove! Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Romney Classical Institute

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is the most complete and comprehensive history written about the Romney Classical Institute. I feel this article meets the criteria for a Featured Article, and I would appreciate any guidance and feedback you may have to further improve it! Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Several sources require subscriptions for access, and the (subscription required) template should be added: 18, 25, 26, 40, 50
  • Ref 44: Harvard error

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Brianboulton, Happy New Year and thank you so much for taking time to perform this source review and provide your guidance above. I've added (subscription required) to all the sources that require it, and also fixed the Atkinson source. Please let me know if there is anything else outstanding, or if you have any further guidance to improve this article. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

3 of Hearts (album)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Following my success with putting Pru and Ho Ho Ho through the FAC process, I have decided to nominate this music-related article. It is about a teen pop and country music album by American group 3 of Hearts. The album was managed by American producer Byron Gallimore and was marketed towards a younger audience through the group's crossover appeal. It was released on March 6, 2001, through RCA Nashville. Reviews of 3 of Hearts were mixed; some critics praised the group's vocals and image, while others criticized the songs as generic and lacking an authentic country sound.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this nomination. If anyone is interested, this is what the article looked like before I worked on it: here. I am honestly not a fan of the album or country music in general, but I found a teen pop approach to country music to be interesting and unique so I enjoyed research and writing this. Thank you in advance and have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

  • I understand that it is not mandatory to have a specific number of paragraphs in the lead, but you could use three here (if at all). With the first focusing in the album and the group, the second in the marketing and the genre, and the third obviously the reception. This is just my POV though.
  • I understand what you mean, but I am not certain about it. I think that separating the first paragraph of the lead into two would make two rather short paragraphs and that would look awkward at the very beginning of an article in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Even though this the debut album for the band, I am not too sure about the relevance of the group's entire history in the Background section. I get most of it and how it helps weave a narrative, but it really does belong in the group's page. Although, this too is really just my POV, and you could use a second opinion here as most of the section is fairly well written and does in fact talk about the group's immediate history.
  • I understand what you mean here; I just think that it is important to include all of the information about how the group was signed to the label as this is their debut album so I would find those parts to be relevant in how the album was made. I would argue that it would make sense to this information on both the article on the debut album and the article on the group itself. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe that Walmart is not mentioned anywhere in the article but the lead. You might want to cross-check and then substantiate the sponsor claim in the article's body.
  • The information is already present in the "Release and promotion" section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, the release date of the album is never directly mentioned in the relevant section. You should mention when it was released and in what formats (cassette, CD, digital download) here in prose as you do in the release history table.
  • Added. The release is directly mentioned in the "Release and promotion" section, but I have also added the formats in which the album was release. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Would the "Following the album's release, 3 of Hearts was removed from RCA due..." paragraph fit better in the Reception section considering the fact that it is the commercial reception being talked about. Also, the critical reception as a backdrop for the same would make a lot more sense than the marketing section. Again, POV.
  • I think that the information is best suited for the "Release and promotion" section given the quotes from Joe Galante and the information about the removal of the group from the record label actually deals more with the promotional tactics than with the sales. Sales seemed to be a partial reason, but I found more information on how the group's promotional campaign and their connection with radio audiences shaped the label's decision to remove them. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ocean Way Nashville, never finds a mention the body or did I miss it? You could also substantiate it in the text if it is not already mentioned.
  • Added this part into the "Background and recording" section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Although this is more of a query, but is the list format the preferred manner for arranging the personnel section? I am not familiar with music related articles as such, so forgive my ignorance here.
  • It is a very valid question so no worries; it is a pretty standard practice so someone can easily access all of the credits for the album at a glance. You can look at my previous articles on albums that passed through the FAC process both here and here to see what I mean regarding this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The rest looks great Aoba47! Fine work, as always. NumerounovedantTalk 05:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Numerounovedant: Thank you for your comments; I believe that I have addressed everything. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Hope you had a wonderful start to your new year! Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Very minor: You could avoid repetiton of of in the second paragraph of the lead.
  • Revised somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Again very minor: "some critics praised the group's vocals and image" - The image bit might not be as clear as one would wish (could be just me). Maybe you could say public image or media image or whatever suits it best, just to make it more specific.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I can support the article. Good luck Aoba47, have a great year! NumerounovedantTalk 06:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the help, and have a wonderful rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • "It was released on March 6, 2001, through RCA Nashville" - I'd clarify this is a record label
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Arizona Rain" in the lead should have a nonbreaking space
  • I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, could you clarify this? I apologize if this is obvious. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:NBSP. ceranthor 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh! Thank you for pointing that out. Not sure how I forgot that. I have revised/added this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "3 of Hearts was removed from RCA." - released might be better than removed
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The tape was composed of four tracks; cover versions of songs by Canadian singer Shania Twain and American singer Martina McBride; a gospel song, and "The Star-Spangled Banner" - should be a colon, not a semicolon
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Stroud, McNeil, and Wasdin had received offers from four Nashville-based record labels, including RCA Nashville. They signed their record deal with RCA Nashville shortly after their high-school graduation.[2]" - why "had"? Don't think it's necessary, just received works fine.
  • Very true, removed. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "connecting them with performers Jessica Andrews, LeAnn Rimes, and Lila McCann; and the band Marshall Dyllon, but viewed country radio as a primarily "adult territory".[5]" - two questions with this. First, why the three artists then a semicolon then the band? and why is the last bit about his view relevant?
  • I am not sure why; I think that the semicolons were added during a copy-edit from another user. I have changed the semicolon. I would think that his opinion on the age range for country radio audiences is important as it is a theme that appears quite often in this article. The record label tried to reach a younger audience with the group, but it failed as country radio audiences are primarily older and uninterested in the group. I could remove the last bit though as I am more than open for suggestions. Just wanted to explain my rationale for when I first put it in there. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Prior to the release of the album, 3 of Hearts' song entitled "Just Might Change Your Life" " - no need for "entitled" here
  • Agreed, removed. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "the music from the film had been included on 250,000 promotional samplers, which were distributed through United Airlines to college campuses.[7]" - this should be a separate sentence
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The instrumentals include "fiddles and the big drums that mainstream country favors".[13] " - this shouldn't be a quote
  • I have paraphrased this part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "before it was preponed to March 6 that year.[13]" - think you mean postponed
  • It is not really "postponed" as it was moved ahead of its scheduled release. The word "preponed" is actually the opposite of "postponed", which makes sense in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "3 of Hearts was the first country act Seventeen had partnered with" - reads awkwardly; rephrase so it doesn't end on "with"
  • True; revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • " To further promote their music, 3 of Hearts visited radio stations, and conducted a two-hour interview with Scholastic magazine and appeared on the cover." - run-on; easily fixed by tweaking to "and appearing on the cover"
  • I feel that the interview part is important so I just made it into a separate sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Following the album's release, 3 of Hearts was removed from RCA " - again, I think the verb usually used is "released"
  • Both verbs are used in this context, but I have changed it according to your suggested. "Released" is just the nicer way of saying it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "3 of Hearts' vocals and image received praised" - typo; praise
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Editor Robert Pimm, writing for the American Bar Association, panned the album's content for its "bright, but shallow declarations of puppy love"." - confused why the ABA reviewed an album??
  • The ABA wrote a larger article about how record labels attempt to attract different types of audiences through their acts. I admit that I was surprised to find this source, but it is a very interesting read and shows how coverage on a certain topic can be found in surprising places. I am not sure exactly what you want me to do with this comment though. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be worth it to clarify, either in the text or via a footnote, that this was part of a larger article about record labels and audiences. ceranthor 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have added a footnote about this; I am slowly learning the value of these things and I should think of them more often, especially in these types of situations. I am happy that I double-checked the source as I accidentally credited the wrong article and writer due to the way to the information is split up in the source so I have also corrected that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Prose is in decent shape. These are comments from a first look. ceranthor 02:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments so far. I am looking forward to the rest of your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a wonderful rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Replied to two. ceranthor 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I have responded to both of your responses. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Made a few MOS changes, but I think this looks good. Support on the prose. ceranthor 01:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

  • "They had each performed independently at various venues and had aspirations to pursue music as a career." — Can be rephrased as "They had each performed independently at various venues and aspired to pursue music as a career."
  • Good point; I have revised this according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the name of the gospel song known anywhere?
  • Unfortunately, I could not find the name of the gospel song or the Shaina Twain and Martina McBride covers either. The only song title that I could find from their demo tape was "The Star-Spangled Banner". Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That's about it from me, Aoba47. Other than that, I can provide my support on prose.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • As a general rule you give both newspaper/journal title and the publishing organisation, but in a few instances you don't (ref 1 Texas Monthly; 15 Deseret News; 18 Countryside Standard Time
  • Added publishers for everything. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Refs 26 and 27: despite divergence in titles, the linked sources appears to be the same.
  • They are both linked to different pages. Check them again, and check the upper left corner. Reference 26 has "Hot Country Songs" and Reference 27 has "Country Airplay" as stated in the titles for the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Likewise with 28 and 29
  • See above as the same comment applies here too. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 31: Title of newspaper missing (The Dallas Morning News)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources appear to be in good order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review; I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for your review! I had included the following ALT text for the album artwork (An image of three young women wearing light pink clothing with the album's title in a pink font.). I am not sure why it is not showing up for you; if there is any way to improve it, then please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
    Just a Ctrl+F error, nothing more. It seems OK to me anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification; I have made far worse errors on Wikipedia lol. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Moise

The article is generally well-written but here are some quick initial comments from my first read-through.

  • Thank you for the kind words! I enjoy working on these more obscure articles, as I feel that no one else would really pay any attention to them or work on them this far. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I noticed several instances where the same word is repeated in close proximity (within the same sentence or the next). Could you go through the article and see how many of these you may be able to reduce? (Here is one of several examples: "The record label marketed 3 of Hearts and their album to a younger audience;[6] the group's manager Ken Kragen said, "I'm hoping that 3 of Hearts can bring to country a young audience that has sort of deserted the format".")
  • Thank you for pointing this out; I have read through the article, and I have hopefully reduced this down at least a little. Please let me know if further reduction/revision would be beneficial/appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In the lead and Release and promotion sections, the word "released" is used to describe their being let go from their record label. This is of course a perfectly legitimate usage, but I felt it kind of stands out because there are so many instances of the other usage of "release", i.e., release of an album or single. How would you feel about using "let go" instead of "released"?
  • That makes sense to me. I originally had the word "removed" in this context as the record label removed the group from their roster, and I highly doubt that it would was a mutual decision. I changed "removed" to "released" based on an above suggestion, and I am more than open to changing it again to "let go" (which I have already done), but my only concern is that I feel the language borders on euphemism if that makes any sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Prior to signing 3 of Hearts, Kragen said he almost retired from music after being fired by American singer-songwriter Kenny Rogers." Did he say this prior to signing them, or did he say this later about his situation prior to signing them. The latter seems more likely, but grammatically speaking the former is implied.
  • Good catch! I have always read over this sentence without much though. I have revised it to make the meaning clearer and less ambiguous. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Prior to the release of the album, 3 of Hearts' song "Just Might Change Your Life" was featured on the soundtrack for the film Where the Heart Is (2000);[1][7] the music from the film had been included on 250,000 promotional samplers.[7] The samplers were distributed through United Airlines to college campuses." A little confusing. There were presumably lots of songs on the Where the Heart Is soundtrack, but the article doesn't say how many or which ones were included on the sampler, and does not say explicitly that "Just Might Change Your Life" was.
  • That is a good point. I would assume that "Just Might Change Your Life" is a part of the sampler given that the context of the article (i.e. it would be rather silly to include the information on the samplers in an article about 3 of Hearts if their song was not on said samples). I also interpreted this part from the source (i.e. "and its music was also included") as meaning that the entire album was included on the samplers. However, let me know if this is too ambiguous to support the above sentences about the sampler in the article. Just wanted to explain my reasoning behind it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "preponed": Minor suggestion, but a couple of online sources says this word is primarily used in India. If the subject of the article was India-related and the article was meant to be in Indian English, I'd say by all means use the word. But possibly better not to use it for an American subject?
  • True; the word was actually added by an editor that did a copy-edit on the article (this individual did an absolutely wonderful job and really improved everything so I do not mean to throw this person under the bus). I have changed it for "pushed forward"; a previous reviewer on this FAC suggested "postponed", but it does not make sense in this context. On a random note, this is actually the first time that I saw the word "preponed" so it was cool to learn something new. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Toni Basil, that's pretty cool she was involved with them. Maybe describe her as "singer and choreographer" (or even just "choreographer"—it's up to you). My impression is she's even more famous for her choreography than her singing.
  • I thought that it was a cool point as well! I agree that Basil is probably more well-known as a choreographer than a singer. I have added both titles as suggested. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • ""Love Is Enough" and "Arizona Rain" both made appearances on Billboard charts. "Love Is Enough" peaked at number 43 on the Hot Country Songs and the Country Airplay charts on May 19, 2001; the single remained on both charts for ten weeks.[26][27] "Arizona Rain" reached number 59 on the Hot Country Song and the Country Airplay charts on August 18, 2001, and remained on both for a week."
  • Minor issue: The first instance calls the chart "Hot Country Songs" and the second "Hot Country Song".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Confusing for me: Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay are separate charts, right? Or are they somehow merged to be the same numbers? It seems like a huge coincidence that each of the two songs had exactly the same chart position and number of weeks on each of both charts.
  • I definitely agree with you on that part. Having two songs appear on the same chart position for the same number of weeks and reaching their peak position at the same time is rather dubious. The Billboard website treats both charts as separate entities, as noted by the two separate references. When reading through the Wikipedia article on the Hot Country Songs chart, I noticed this sentence (This 50-position chart lists the most popular country music songs, calculated weekly by collecting airplay data from Nielsen BDS along with digital sales and streaming.), which implies to me that there is overlap between these two charts. The Country Airplay chart does not track digital sales or streaming as done by the Hot Country Songs chart, but I highly doubt that digital sales or streaming was considered with this album's rankings given the time of its release. From this information, it seems that both of the charts are tracking the same information (i.e. airplay data) and that is why they have the same data on the two songs. Due to this, I think it would probably be best to remove the Hot Country Songs information here, and just keep the Country Airplay information, but I wanted to confirm this with you first. I apologize for the length of this response. I just wanted to try and explain what I think is the cause of all of this. It is all pretty opaque and confusing to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Reception section: maybe it would be worthwhile to consider paraphrasing the following, for which direct quotes don't seem necessary. There may be other direct quotes throughout the article that would be worthwhile to paraphrase, but I wasn't really looking for them in this read-through.
  • "well crafted, professionally delivered, and engaging enough on its own terms"
  • "is far from groundbreaking music"
  • "bite or attitude"
  • "some innate talent". Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
That is a good point; I have a tendency to get a little quote-happy so I have tried to reduce them throughout the article. Please let me know if further reduction/revision is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Aoba. I should have time to continue this review on Thursday if I'm not able to get to it before. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No worries; thank you for helping! Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Second read-through:
Lead:

  • "younger audience": Seems vague. Would "teenaged audience" be too specific? Or "teenaged and young-adult audience"? Or might any of your sources give an age range that was targeted?
  • An age range was not provided by any of the sources. I have added the above suggestion though. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "marketed... through the group's crossover appeal": I'm not sure that "marketed through" makes sense. Possibly something like "The album was managed by American producer Byron Gallimore; its marketing focused on the group's crossover appeal to target a teenaged audience." Moisejp (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Background and recording:

  • "Steve Hochman of Los Angeles Times associated 3 of Hearts with a trend towards younger country performers, connecting them with performers Jessica Andrews, LeAnn Rimes, and Lila McCann, and the band Marshall Dyllon, but viewed country radio as a primarily "adult territory".[5] The record label marketed 3 of Hearts and their album to a younger listener;[6] the group's manager Ken Kragen said, "I'm hoping that 3 of Hearts can bring to country a young audience that has sort of deserted the format"." This part seems to say the same thing three or four times. I also specifically found the transition to "but viewed country radio as a primarily "adult territory" " confusing and awkward. I'm not sure what the "but" is trying to say here. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the information is different form one another. The Los Angeles Times source focuses on how younger country artists are signed to record labels, while Ken Kragen source focuses on how the group and the album are marketed for a younger audience, which in my opinion are two separate concepts. I have decided to remove the "adult territory" part as another reviewer took issue with it as well. My original intention was to emphasize how country radio listeners are primarily adults as a way to transition into the later information on the group's removal from the record label. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Aoba, life's been a bit busier than expected the last few days. I have noticed some more points I want to comment on but I just need a window of time where I can sit down and organize my thoughts while typing stuff up. I will try to fit in time soon. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No worries; take as much time as you need. I hope that nothing serious or negative is happening in your life, and good luck with all of your work! Aoba47 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this review is a bit scattered, but I never got a chance to reply to our discussion about Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay. You proposed "I think it would probably be best to remove the Hot Country Songs information here, and just keep the Country Airplay information, but I wanted to confirm this with you first." I agree with you this would be a good idea.
  • No worries; I am just glad that you have helped me with so many reviews so I greatly appreciate all of your help. There is really no time limit on these things so don't feel rush or anything. There are a lot of things in life that should take priority over this lol. I have removed the Hot Country Songs from the article. It was interesting to learn more about the Billboard charts actually. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Background and recording: "3 of Hearts was one of three new artists signed to an RCA label; the others were John Rich and Carolyn Dawn Johnson." This implies maybe Rich and Johnson were signed around the same time as 3 of Hearts, but it doesn't say so explicitly. There's also no context for why it may be significant. Was there some kind of pattern or trend for the three signings, or maybe it was just coincidence? (Record labels sign new artists all the time, plus "signed to an RCA label" implies the signings were across multiple divisions.)
  • I understand your point, and I have removed that sentence. I agree that it does not have much relevance, and I would not be surprised if other artists were signed at this time that were just not reported in the source. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The record label marketed 3 of Hearts and their album to a younger listener;[6] the group's manager Ken Kragen said, "I'm hoping that 3 of Hearts can bring to country a young audience that has sort of deserted the format"." This still feels to me like it could be made more compact, but I see your point that the angle is slightly different between the first part and second. Maybe paraphrasing the quotation might make it feel less superfluous? But if you still disagree, I won't insist on this point.
  • Good idea. I have paraphrased this part to hopefully make it clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 2001, Rogers sued Kragen for allegedly poaching 3 of Hearts from his company, Rogers' Dreamcatcher Management Co.;[8][9] Kragen responded by saying Rogers' company had rejected 3 of Hearts." Any info about the outcome of this legal suit? The reader is kind of left wondering...
  • I have updated this with another source. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding one of the points above where I didn't have a chance to reply to you reply: Maybe remove "the music from the film had been included on 250,000 promotional samplers.[7] The samplers were distributed through United Airlines to college campuses." It seems like a less-important detail, plus the issue of the source not explicitly saying the 3 of Hearts song was on it. (I do understand your reasoning, but I think it's probably safer to remove it.) Will continue soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. And I understand your point of view. I have removed the parts about the samplers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Composition and sound: "The instrumentals include fiddles and drums that are commonly used in contemporary country music." Is this supposed to mean they were are a particular kind of fiddles and drums used in country music—which is implied by "that" but still sounds a bit ambiguous. Or is it supposed to be saying that not just a particular kind but fiddles and drums in general are commonly used in country music? If so, I think "...fiddles and drums, which are..." is more grammatically correct to begin a nonrestrictive clause. But if it's the latter case, I also think (even if grammatically correct) "The instrumentals include fiddles and drums, which are commonly used in contemporary country music" sounds a little awkward. Maybe something like "...fiddles and drums, which AllMusic writer Stephen Thomas Erlewine has noted are commonly used in country music" would give a little more weight to the statement to justify its inclusion. Moisejp (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Revised according to the suggestion above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a little bit torn about the inclusion in this section of brief mentions of the lyrical themes of some of the songs. On one hand, it may be somewhat encyclopedic to include whatever limited info is available. But on the other hand, the descriptions that are included (e.g., "lyrics about the importance of love") are so generic, I wonder if they really add much to the reader's understanding of the work. I'm guessing it's not available, but if more info were available to expand the discussion of the lyrical themes a little, maybe to find some trends across the album as a whole (different variations on the theme of love, with several specifics mentioned??), that would be helpful. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • More information about the lyrics and the song's content is not available. I find the information helpful as it is pointing out a common theme/topic featured over several songs, but if you feel that it is absolutely necessary, I can remove it. There is not much out there on the actually lyrical content of this album. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, let's leave it as it is. More soon. I'm really hoping to finish off this review this weekend. Thanks for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your help as always! Aoba47 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Panagiotis Zois

  • Shouldn't it be "studio album of American group" instead of "by"?
  • For a majority of the album articles that I have read, they have used the construction "studio album by XYZ", but I am not opposed to revising this part if you feel that it would be better words this way. Aoba47 (talk)
  • Nah. I was kind of the fence on that one. Seeing as it's with "by" in other articles then it's fine.
  • Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel like the line about what kind of genre it belongs to require some further expansion / clarrification. Was it listed as teen pop / country music by the group or the record label while critics classified it as pop?
  • I pulled the teen pop/country music identification for the album from the AllMusic review, which is present in the "Composition and sound" section. To the best of my knowledge, the record label marketed the group and their music to country radio, while various music critics felt that the album was more pop than country. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how to improve upon this part to maker it more transparent. I have been looking at this article for a while so I could very well just be used to something at this point that needs more clarification for a new reader if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll try to think of something tomorrow. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to add that multiple critics have identified the album as an example of country music and pop music so I do not see much of an issue here about that as the genres are sourced in the appropriate "composition" section as done in a majority of high-quality album articles. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In "Background and recording", I feel like it would be better to have "suggestions" in singular rather than plurar. Though that's just my POV.
  • I agree that the singular makes more sense to me than the plural so I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: By "four tracks" does that mean they recorded just four song or does "tracks" work like categories and they actually covered multiple songs of Twain and McBride?
  • It is intended to mean just four songs (i.e. the demo tape had a Twain song, a McBride song, a gospel song, and the "Star-Spangled Banner"). I could revise this part if you think that it should be clarified (i.e. use a different word than "tracks") as I can see how it can be interpreted as something else. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best to do that so that leymen like me can understand. Maybe just say the tape was "composed of four songs" rather than "four tracks".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've already gone through the article twice and couldn't really find anything else that seemed like it needed changing. Might do a triple check but for now it seems like a well-written article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for the review as always! I have addressed your comments above. I hope that you are having a wonderful day or night so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: OK, I've gone through the article again and I can't find anything wrong with it. I guess at this point I shouldn't be surprised given that it's you. I'm still curious about how you even found out about the groups existence but that's a discussion for another time. Seeing as how this is a well-written and informative article on a music album I'd it passes. Too bad the group itself didn't pass into mainstream. :P PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words! I cannot remember how I came across this album and the group. I remember that I wanted to do expand the article because I found the whole idea of a bubblegum/teen pop take on country music to be interesting, and I thought the album cover was interesting. I enjoy doing a lot of these more obscure subject matters and bring them to FAC. I am honestly surprised that RCA did not try to at least get one more album out of them lol. Hope you are having a wonderful day or night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 Vegas eRace

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 Vegas eRace, a Formula E eSports race held as part of the Sports Business Innovation Summit at the 2017 Consumer Electronics Show on January 7, 2017. Unlike other races, it was not a championship race and was held on a virtual racing circuit with a lucrative prize fund of $1 million. The twenty professional Formula E racing drivers were pitted against ten sim racers who took part in a four-race challenge competition to enable their participation in the eRace. The race itself had a controversial ending as one sim racer, Olli Pahkala, was discovered to use FanBoost for longer than permitted due to a software bug and the victory was awarded to Dragon Racing's sim driver Bono Huis. This article recently passed its GA review and I have made some edits to polish the prose. Also, it would be the first eSports article to reach FA class if successful as well as the first Formula E related entry as well. I look forward to your comments. MWright96 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • The sources themselves look of appropriate quality and reliability, but there are formatting inconsistencies, particularly in the italicisation of publisher details. These arise I think from inconsistent use of the template fields "work=", "website=" and "publisher=". For institutions such as CNN and Fox News, and other non-print sources such as Würth Elektronik, you should use the "publisher=" field. The "work=" field can be used for the title of newspapers or print magazines, where the publishing organisation is usually omitted for major media such as The Times, Auotosport, etc. If the "website=" field is used, you should use "publisher=" as well, since the website name is not the publisher – an example is ref 9, where the publisher is Motorsport Network, not motorsport.com. I've only checked the first column of references but I think the same issues are apparent in the second.
  • A very minor point with Ref 18: the publisher appears to be Inside Sim Racing rather than Inside Racing Sim.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thank you for the source review. Have made changes where necessary. MWright96 (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Amarte Es un Placer (album)

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

After my successful FA nomination for Segundo Romance, I am now nominating this FA. This is a pop album by Luis Miguel like Aries (which I also got FA). Regrettably, it's also his last good album before they started to go downhill (except for México en la Piel which is also good). I look forward to your comments. Thanks! Erick (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • A few general issues:
  • In a number of cases you provide (subscription required) templates when there is no link to the source – 6, 16, 17 and lots more. There's no point in showing the template in such cases.
  • Page numbers are required for newspapers and journals where there is no online link. You provide these in some cases but not others, e.g. 15, 16, 17, 19 and more.
  • Who publishes Billboard? In some cases you show Prometheus Global Media, in others Nielsen Business Media. In refs 85, 86 and 87 neither is shown.
  • Other points:
  • Ref 2: link goes to "404 error"
  • Refs 56 and 58: should "tronc" be all lower case as in 56, or "Tronc" as in 58?
  • Ref 61: the source has a different headline
  • Ref 65: main link and archive link both go to blank pages
  • Ref 71: main link times out. Archive gives "page not found"

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I've added urls to search on Newsbank which is where I found these articles. Billboard articles prior to 2009 are published Nielsen Business Media while Prometheus Global Media is the current publisher. The albumschart doesn't have a publisher parameter and doesn't work for refs 85-87. Ref 65 requires a download now for whatever reason, but it still verifies the list of winners. Ref 71 works fine on my end. Erick (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Freikorp

  • "which lasted from 1999 into 2000" - I'm really not a fan of this choice of words. I mean, running from 1999 till 2000 could just mean going from December 1999 till January 2000. I'd try and be more specific, say mention when the tour started and then how many months it went for.
  • "Miguel did not show up at the award ceremony and declined an invitation to perform" - this is interesting - is there any indication as to why he declined?
  • I'd at least reduce the amount of times you use the term 'noted' as per WP:SAY, if not get rid of them entirely.
  • 'the production sounds "dated"' - should this past tense? I.e "sounded dated"?

Despite these minor points I'm happy to support this nomination now. Well done on the article. No pressure but I'm looking for comments on my nomination here. Freikorp (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Thanks for your comments and support. I have addressed everything you brought up. I searched everywhere but couldn't find the reason why Miguel refused to perform for the Latin Grammys. He's not known to be a public guy except when promoting his albums. I'll comment on your FAC when I get the chance as I have work today. Erick (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • For this part (Despite the popularity of crossover his comntempraries Latin artists), I am assuming you mean “his contemporaries”. Also the word “contemporaries” is misspelled here.
  • For this sentence (Amarte Es un Placer debuted at number one in Spain, and on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart in the United States.), I would remove the comma after “Spain” as the verb phrase “debuted at number one” is also carried over to apply to the Billboard charts part of the sentence.
  • Would it be possible to move the image of Mariah Carey to the top of the “Background” section to avoid having it clip outside of the section and interfere with the audio samples in the next section? Feel free to say no as this is more of a stylistic preference.
  • For the Mariah Carey image, I would specify in the caption the year in which it was taken.
  • For this part “series on which he covers classic”, I would revise “on which” to “in which”.
  • For this part “absence of two years on the music scene”, I would revise “on the music scene” to “from the music scene”.
  • For this part “The album's final title, Amarte Es un Placer was announced on 17 August 1999.”, I am not sure what is meant by the phrase “final title” as you have not mentioned any tentative titles or working titles prior to this. It may be better just to say “The album’s title” instead, unless there were other titles in consideration prior to the announcement.
  • I would suggest a link to rock ballad when you are describing the track “Tu Mirada” in the “Composition” section.
  • For this part (performed live covers of "Y" and "La Bikina”), I would include the names of the original artists for both songs if known and possibly the years in which they were first released.
  • The link for “AllMusic” needs to be moved up to its first reference in the body of the article. It is currently linked in the “Critical reception” section, but the publication was reference in the previous section on the album’s promotion.
  • I am pretty terrible at writing reception sections so I will leave that section to more experienced reviewers.
  • Ricky Martin is linked twice in the body of the article. Please unlink him in the “Accolades” section.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, which is also about an album. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the comments and a Happy New Year to you too! I believe I have addressed your comments. I will look at your FAC when I get the chance as I have work today. Erick (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • "Despite the popularity of crossover his contemporaries such as Ricky Martin and Enrique Iglesias," - missing a word or two here
  • "including a Grammy nomination for Best Latin Pop Performance and the Latin Grammy Awards for Album of the Year and Best Pop Vocal Album." - I'd invert this, so the awards came first and then the nomination
  • "In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album Romances, the third record in his Romance series in which he covers classic Latin American boleros.[2]" - needs a comma before in which
  • "After an absence of two years from the music scene" - "music scene" may be too informal
  • "He expressed the upcoming album would be a return to pop recordings" - expressed isn't the right word; I think you could pick a more precise verb
  • "The album's title, Amarte Es un Placer " - needs an WP:NBSP
  • Juan Carlos Calderón and Record Plant also both need WP:NBSPs
  • "orchestrated romantic ballads" - this needs an WP:NBSP; same with brass instruments and "No Me Fío"
  • "The opening track, "Tu Mirada"" - need a comma after Tu Mirada
  • " A concert was planned for the San Jose Arena in California on New Year's Eve, but was canceled because the gross income would not meet Miguel's requirements.[32]" - can you elaborate on his requirements, briefly, here?
  • "He later did five shows" - I'd prefer a different verb than did
  • 6 May 2000 needs an WP:NBSP
  • "Miguel was accompanied by a 13-piece band during his tour which included horns, keyboards, guitars and three female backup singers" - keep serial comma consistent
  • 'On 24 October 2000, WEA released the Vivo live album and video, from Miguel's concerts in Monterrey' - no comma after video
  • "two-out-of-five stars" - needs an NBSP (and again in critical reception)
  • number of song titles in the critical reception section need NBSPs
  • "Miguel did not show up at the award ceremony" - show up is too informal

These are some initial nitpicks. More comments pending. ceranthor 22:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Thanks for the comments. I think I did the nbsp, feel free to correct them if they're as I'm not too knowledgeable about utilizing it. The source does not specify the requirements on the box office gross he wanted. Erick (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Magiciandude: Did quite a bit of NBSP cleanup and a little bit more copyediting, which you can see here. I think you were confused by the placement of the nbsp formatting; it's supposed to go between the words you want to keep together (see my edits for what I mean). That being said, I now support based on the prose. ceranthor 05:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Mosaics of Delos

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The mosaics of Delos might seem like an arcane, niche topic but in terms of surviving Greek mosaic artwork it is of prime importance. I created this article from scratch and have since brought it up to GA status. A peer review was also made, although I've decided only to implement a few suggestions from the reviewer there. Overall the article is well-written, stable, fully cited with a decent amount of reliable sources, and in my view the images are all meticulously well-placed, sufficiently relevant, and licensed appropriately. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Some of the images appear to be duplicative - for example, the House of the Trident section could easily lose at least one image if not two without impacting reader understanding
  • File:Delos_cubic_floor_mosaic.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Same with File:Delos_Theaterviertel_21.jpg, File:Delos_Theaterviertel_18.jpg, File:Delos_Theaterviertel_14.jpg, File:Delos_Haus_des_Dionysos_05.jpg, File:Delos_Haus_der_Delfine_03.jpg, File:The_House_of_the_Dolphins_(II)_(5182955988).jpg, File:Ancient_Delos.jpg, File:House_of_the_Lake,_Delos_01.jpg, File:House_of_the_Trident_02.jpg, File:House_of_the_Trident_06.jpg, File:House_Trident_Delos_13M204.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Since you and the peer reviewer both brought up the House of the Trident, I've decided to remove one image from that section that was admittedly rather repetitive. As for the other images needing "a tag for the original work", can you explain that, please? I have no idea what sort of tag this would be or what that would entail. Do you mean a second type of Public Domain license or something? Pericles of AthensTalk 01:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Currently these images have a tag representing the copyright of the photographer; they also need a public domain tag indicating the status of the original work - the mosaic, sculptural work, etc that is shown in the photographs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: thanks for clarifying! I have standardized the licensing for all images as requested, with the appropriate PD tags indicating the status of the original works. Kind regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

  • I'll certainly be supporting this excellent article, based in the 50% of it that I've so far. Comments to follow (its a little late here). Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ceoil: hello! Take your time to review the article, there is no rush. I'm glad that you have enjoyed reading it thus far. --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any gripes to add more than whats been resolved above and below. This is a very nice addition, and glad to Support. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: fantastic! Thanks for the support and once again I'm glad you liked the article so much. Kindest regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

I like this a lot. Short and sweet, and nicely illustrated. Some comments:

  • and subsequently abrupt decline -> and the subsequent abrupt decline?
  • eight millimeters square -> I think "eight by eight millimeters" would help avoid the classic ambiguity that the square notation creates
  • not sure the chip-pavement link is particularly helpful
  • fifty-five -> 55; twenty-five -> 25
  • and appear in mosaics -> appears
  • Although the three major -> although twice in quick succession
  • weren't -> contractions are to be avoided
  • Like the House of the Lake, -> since this has not been introduced yet, this statement doesn't help the reader much. I'd leave it out.
  • ISBN numbers should all be in same format (seems ISBN 13 is becoming de facto standard at FAC). Include hyphens.

Questions:

  • is anything known about where the materials (mostly marble) came from? Locally sourced?
  • how did they get the different colors marble?
  • is it known why these mosaics have survived so well?

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it! To the best of my abilities I have tried to amend the article according to your suggestions. However, I have not changed "subsequently abrupt decline" to "subsequent abrupt decline", because I believe that "subsequently", an adverb, is a modifier for abrupt, an adjective. Adverbs are used to modify both verbs and adjectives. I'm almost certain that the sentence as it stands now is grammatically correct. Also, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to fiddle with the ISBN numbers. For instance, I checked on the very first source, Brecoulaki's 2016 book chapter "Greek Interior Decoration" in A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, which does not include hyphens in its own ISBN number. I'm not sure if adding hyphens would screw things up or not. Perhaps you know more about this than I do, but I will refrain from touching this. You are more than welcome to edit it if you like. Pericles of AthensTalk 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
As for your questions, they are good ones, but I'm not sure if I can adequately answer all of them. I'm not sure about the quarries and places where the materials were gathered for making the mosaics; I don't think I've come across a single article or book that explains this or even mentions it. I can look around, but I can't promise to find information on quarry sites for these materials or the common methods for gathering them.
As for the second question, notice how the article says "white marble" and not any other kind. The rich varieties of color in the mosaics are therefore achieved through the use of pottery fragments, glass, pebbles, and other materials that comprise the tesserae. Although I do provide a link for it for anyone who's curious about this material, should I perhaps also define what tesserae is in the article? Notice how in the "House of the Dionysos" section I state that "The tesserae materials, made of glass, faience, terracotta and natural stones, are fashioned into pieces measuring roughly one millimeter square, allowing for sharp detail and an elaborate color scheme." I wonder: should the materials that are found in tesserae be mentioned further up, in the "composition" sub-section? I don't want to be too repetitive about it, though. --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
"is it known why these mosaics have survived so well?" This is a fantastic question, although I don't think I can answer it right away. I have a suspicion it has something to do with the island of Delos virtually being abandoned until modern times. As the article Delos explains, it didn't have enough local natural resources to sustain a sizable population of its own, relying on outside imports for food and other necessities. Once the island was bypassed as a major trade route and suffered damaging raids by the armies of Pontus, the Romans basically deserted the place. I don't think I've seen a book or article that has explicitly stated that this is why the mosaics have survived so well, but it seems to be the case. For instance, Roman artwork in various other locales have been well-preserved throughout the ages either because of geographic isolation, being buried in a tomb or mausoleum, or because institutions like the Catholic Church decided to preserve architecture (and the artwork tied to them) by converting buildings into churches. Antiquarianism during the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance perhaps played a role as well, but as far as I know this didn't apply to mosaics, only to more vaunted pieces of artwork such as busts and statues that could be easily transported from one private collection to another. --Pericles of AthensTalk 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Great work. With the caveat that I have no knowledge in the field, I support. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Edwininlondon: excellent! Once again, thanks for reviewing the article and providing suggestions for areas needing improvement. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 23:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • General: page ranges require ndashes, not hyphens, per MoS
  • Ref 47: I don't really see the purpose of including this information. Is the translation in the source? If not, it's a bit of editorial OR and shouldn't be here.
  • Ref 57: I suggest you replace this with a short citation, since the link is given in the entry within the References list.
  • References list: Dunbabin, Joyce, Westgate 2000 and Westgate 2007 are all behind paywalls, so you should add (subscription required) to each entry.
  • The link in Hardiman presently goes to an irrelevant page.

Otherwise, sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: hello! Thanks for reviewing the sources. I have removed Ref 47 about the French translation per your suggestion. I've also shortened the citation for Ref 57 (now 56), added the "subscription" tag to the sources Dunbabin, Joyce, and Westgate 2000 and 2007, and provided a different URL for Hardiman (from archive.org instead of Google Books) that goes straight to the relevant page number for his book chapter. However, I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion regarding ndashes versus hyphens. From what I can tell, I have done nothing manually in this article in regards to page ranges. I have only used the Harvard citation template. I'm not even sure how to tinker with the Harvard citation template in order to force it to have ndashes instead of hyphens. If you have some sort of solution for this I'd be happy to implement it, but I'm not going to remove the Harvard citation template and format simply because it cannot currently accommodate ndashes. The Harvard citation format is the chosen one for this article and I don't think we should go about changing that to satisfy some other issue. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 04:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
If you allow me to jump in: all Brianboulton meant, I believe, was to replace the "-" character in the "pages=" with the "–". I just made those changes. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
@Edwininlondon: thank you very much for taking the initiative! Are there any more outstanding issues that need resolving at this point? --Pericles of AthensTalk 00:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

  • Despite the invasions by Pontus, the island was only gradually abandoned after Rome secured a more direct trading link with the Orient, superseding Delos as a pivotal midway point for trade leading to the East - what superceded Delos? Presumably it wasn't Rome or the Orient....
  • The mosaics of Delos are a significant corpus of ancient Greek mosaic art. - what extra meaning is gained by using "corpus" over (say) "body"?
  • On reading it, I don't get a sense from reading the lead as to why/how mosaics of Delos are especially significant in the context of Ancient Greek mosaics in general. Possibly doesn't help that we don't have a specific article on Ancient Greek mosaics in general - only mosaics and Ancient Greek art. The Significance section helps a little, but I wonder if there is anything more that can be added.

Overall, though, a nice read and seems comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. Per your suggestions, I have reworded the bit about Delos being superseded as a conduit for trade to the East and replaced the word "corpus" with "body" in the introduction. As for the lead section not conveying the significance of the Delos mosaics in regards to the overall surviving body of Greek mosaic artwork, I worded things very tersely in order to avoid having a large, wordy lead for such a small article. In addition to the statement "Among Hellenistic Greek archaeological sites, Delos contains one of the highest concentrations of surviving mosaic artworks", what else do you think I should add here to emphasize this point? Perhaps the statement appearing later in the article that roughly half of all surviving tessellated Greek mosaics from the Hellenistic period come from Delos? That would probably hammer the point home, so to speak. --Pericles of AthensTalk 01:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep - all good now. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: thank you for your support! Your suggestions also led to a significant improvement of the lead section. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments: A few minor issues before promotion. The duplinks need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I can't really see that we need them all. This tool will highlight any duplication. Also, the references are not currently in ascending numerical order (e.g. "...and can be found at other sites such as Arsameia (albeit arranged in the opposite direction).[24][12]" instead of [12][24]); some editors prefer to place the references in order of relevance or importance, which is fine, but I'd like to check whether this was intentional or not. Finally, it might be worth looking to see if we can remove the "however"s (see WP:HOWEVER). Once these minor points are addressed, I think we can promote. Sarastro (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: hello! Thanks for offering your suggestions. Per your advice, I have reordered inline citations so that they appear in numerical order. I have also removed all duplicate links that were contained within the body of the article only. I did not remove duplicate links in image captions or if they appeared once before in the lead section, in accordance with the standards outlined in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Duplicate_and_repeat_links. As for your suggestion that we remove "however"s per WP:HOWEVER, I am quite honestly confused as to why you raised this issue. After reading the essay at WP:HOWEVER and skimming my article for such occurrences, I can't think of a single instance where my article is guilty of presenting itself in "thread mode" (i.e. having repetitive counterpoints due to partisan editing, necessitating separate sections or paragraphs for competing if not irreconcilable views). As far as I can tell the article simply contains the word "however" in four different locations. That's hardly a sin worth mentioning, especially since it is an acceptable conjunction for encyclopedias. Dare I cite various instances of the word "however" in Britannica as evidence for my case? Even Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Semicolon before "however" makes it clear that the word "however" can be used in a sentence so long as it is done with proper grammar, syntax, and punctuation. In either case, thank you for trying to speed up the nomination process for this article. I hope you find my recent edits to be sufficient enough. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 05:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

K-25

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Another article on the Manhattan Project. This one is about the gaseous diffusion project, codenamed K-25. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • For the gaseous diffusion process diagram, suggest including a legend in the caption
  • File:Gaseous_diffusion_process.jpg: not seeing this attribution in the given source, is it elsewhere in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    The whole book is in the public domain, being produced by the Department of Energy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    The listed publisher is Penn State - is there a notice somewhere that it falls under the DoE PD default? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    On pp. ix-x. The DOE have it for download on its web page. [15] OSTI says it is a "Comprehensive official history produced by the History Division, now the Office of History and Heritage Resources, of the Department of Energy" and lists the Atomic Energy Commission as the publisher. [16] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 23: minor page range format inconsistency
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 31: requires publisher information
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 102: the link doesn't seem to be working - I'm getting repeated timeouts
    Hmmm. Me too. Added archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 105: "Oak Ridge Today" is the name of the publishing website, not the title of the source article which appears to be "DOE, UCOR demolish last piece of K-25, once the world’s largest building".
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 108: is "The Oak Ridger" a print source? If not, it shouldn't be in italics
    It's a newspaper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 109: publisher given as "United States Department of Energy", while other references to the same source give it as "Department of Energy". There should be consistency.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Only found a couple of minor nit-picks to point out, not counting a couple of source formatting issues that Brianboulton caught. It's a good read.

  • Construction: I see J.A. Jones and J. A. Jones in this section. Pick one and stick with it; the latter usage is my personal preference.
    The problem here is that MOS:INITIALS says that "An initial is followed by a full point (period) and a space" but the corresponding article is not so named. Added a redirect to make the usage consistent in this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Other buildings: "bottled and stored fluorine. Fluorine...". Try not to repeat the same word from the end of one sentence to the beginning of another like this, as it comes off repetitive.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Science isn't my department, but the article seemed clear enough to me and I think it meets FA standards. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM I'm not across the science, so am taking that as read. Not much to nitpick:

What I find interesting is that if I had been asked to design a method of isotope separation, I would have first thought of electromagnetic, and then centrifugal. But the scientists of the day thought first of thermal, and then of gaseous diffusion, harking back to 19th century physics. (I also thought that every reader would look at the number 1.0043 and then reach for their calculator to figure out how many stages are theoretically required in a perfect barrier system. But it could just be me.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • this article should be moved to K-25 (Manhattan Project) per talk, although I recognise that this might need to happen after promotion to maintain the candidate page links
    I was hoping someone else would do it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest SAM in the lead should be Special Alloyed Materials
    Done. It redirects to this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest mentioning that the Einstein-Szilard letter was sent to Roosevelt
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In Organization, the Manhattan District is mentioned, but not properly introduced. It then becomes Manhattan Project without explanation. Suggest adding a para on the genesis of the Manhattan District/Project at an appropriate chronological point in the narrative
    Added a line explaining that the Manhattan District was the Army component of the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest "so that the Manhattan Project"
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "or leaking oil"?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima" could do with some trimming of atomic?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Advance

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 12:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fine folks! This article is about a 2001 video game that Sega released for the Game Boy Advance. It is extremely notable for being the first original Sonic the Hedgehog released on a Nintendo gaming device. After rescuing it from being stuck in start-class for years, I bombarded it and, within a few days, got it up to GA-status. It has just undergone a copyedit by the GOCE and I now think it can stand among our best articles. Enjoy! JOEBRO64 12:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC) I like this article but I think somethings could be further explained before becoming FA.

  • Reference 3 needs lines for the ISBN 9780970646866.
    • I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "lines". Can you be a bit more specific?
  • Can you add a more specific caption to the GameBoy Advance picture. Seems a bit pointless unless you add something "the console was chosen because ____" If not you could add a free image of Yuji Naka
    • I wasn't really able to find a specific reason why the GBA was chosen, so I changed it to the Yuji Naka picture.
  • Can sales be more specific? Like the game sold "1.21 million copies" but was it in the entire world or just in North America?
    • That's from the US alone, I've clarified this. The only source that provided worldwide sales was VGChartz, which is unreliable.
  • While many people know of Super Mario World's popularity, you could expand it a bit for newcomers like saying "compared them positively to Super Mario World (1990), a highly acclaimed video game"
    • Done.
  • Reference 17 needs translation, just go to the article and add "trans-title= TRANSLATED TITLE". Same thing writh reference 26
    • Done.

Other than I don't find other notable issues. Just ping me when you have solved and I'll give you my support. By the way, if you have free time one of these day, could you comment on my peer review here? It's Holidays season so take your take. Cheers.

@Tintor2: I've resolved all your concerns except for the ISBN one; I'm just a bit confused by what you mean. Thanks for reviewing! I'll take a look at your peer review soon. JOEBRO64 14:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'll support. Good luck and Merry Christmas.Tintor2 (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Please add ALT text for the image in the infobox.
    • It already does, it was just at the bottom of the infobox. I've moved it.
  • For this part (as they journey to save their homeland and stop Doctor Eggman from taking over the world), I am not sure what the difference is between “save their homeland” and “stop Doctor Eggman from taking over the world”. I think that you could remove the “save their homeland” part and preserve the same meaning.
    • Done.
  • For this part (The story follows Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, and Amy) in the lead, do you think that you should use their full names (i.e. Amy Rose, etc.)?
    • I didn't use their full names because it kinda bloats up the first paragraph and, in my opinion, is a bit harder to read since all the names are grouped together.
  • For this part (The game takes place over six levels called zones.), I would add a link for “levels”.
    • Done.
  • For this part (As the Sonic games released for the Dreamcast allowed players to download the Chao Garden minigame onto the VMU,), I would spell out “VMU”.
    • Done.
  • For this part (Sega announced Sonic Advance and two other GBA titles, ChuChu Rocket! and Puyo Puyo, on January 30, 2001), I would suggest adding a note to clarify that ChuChu Rocket! was rereleased on GBA in 2001, but it was originally released in 1999. Otherwise, it is a little confusing if someone clicks on the link to the game.
    • Done. I turned it into a footnote since it makes it easier to read.

Wonderful work with this article. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to promote this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look through my FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for reviewing another one of my FACs! I've responded above. I'll comment at your FAC soon. Thanks again, and I hope you have a good holiday season. JOEBRO64 20:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Image review:
ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Source review
  • Fn 23, what makes Siliconera a reliable source? I can't find anything about their editorial or fact-checking procedures, editorial staff, etc.
  • Fn 29, what makes The Magic Box a reliable source?

Otherwise looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Laser Brain: Thank you for taking a look! Both Siliconera and The Magic Box are listed as reliable per WP:VG/S. JOEBRO64 00:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Laser brain: Messed up the ping. Sorry! JOEBRO64 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm generally willing to read and accept WikiProject consensus discussions on RS issues, but in these cases I don't see any additional information or discussion on why these should be considered reliable. Can you point me to where such discussion has occurred? In particular, I'm looking for specific evidence of how these sources meet WP:RS. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
@Laser brain:
  1. The most recent discussion on Siliconera was in September. Basically, their staff members all have experience at other reliable publications, and the site itself is usually cited by other reliable sources. From the discussion's participants, "they do tend to fill a niche of Western-centric coverage of the Japanese games market even smaller titles" and "it is a very good source for Japanese-only games".
  2. The Magic Box translates sales data from the Japanese sources Famitsu and Media Create, both of which are reliable. Most recent discussion is here. They're useful because Media Create continually refreshes their lists on a weekly basis and the only way to get access to their backlog is limited to businesses/organization, and Famitsu is not only in Japanese, but pre-2003 issues are very hard to find.
Hopefully that clears things up. Again, thanks for reviewing. JOEBRO64 20:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! I am satisfied with these responses and have no further concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Livyatan

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a really big whale from the Miocene. I think it's up to standard, and I'd like to remind people that news sites are reliable sources. ISBN's and doi's aren't the sole recipients of the mark-of-reliability   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the spermaceti image
  • File:Livyatan_melvillei.jpg: what source or data was used to create this image? Same with File:Sperm_whale_head_anatomy_(transverse_%2B_sagittal).svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
got the source for File:Livyatan_melvillei.jpg, still working on the other one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

I have made a few copyedits. Feel free to revert if you disagree.

Research history
  • The holotype and Beaumaris tooth are mentioned. Parts of the content imply other specimens exist. Any idea of how many and from where?
there aren’t   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Phylogeny
  • Conversely, the modern sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) lacks enamel, teeth in the upper jaw, and the ability to use its teeth to catch prey. I could not find anything in the cited reference saying that the modern sperm whale lacks the ability to use its teeth to catch prey.
the ref says that the tooth reduction trend is seen in the sperm whale, and then it says the sperm whale uses suction feeding, and it says the upper teeth are in contrast to the sperm whale which only have teeth in the lower jaw   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Teeth
  • ...the largest tooth of the holotype was the second and third on the left lower jaw... Number inconsistent. Teeth?, were?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
OK.
Basin
  • Tense: The fossil skull still exists? Should tense not be present when referring to fossils? (or refer to the animal in past tense).
should the entire Description section just be in present tense?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

More later. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  • villain— Moby is as much victim as villain, the subject of Ahab's desire for vengeance. I'd prefer the less loaded and less anthropomorphic "antagonist"
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • hyper-predatory macroraptorial— two technical terms in the first paragraph, neither is linked or glossed to help us
hyper -> into overdrive, predatory -> predator, macro -> big, raptorial -> fancy way to say predator   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Though it has not been given a species designation, the tooth...— perhaps Although as of late 2017 it has not been given a species designation, its tooth...
nope, still into 2018   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • "similar in size to the modern sperm whale". Since you're technically comparing a genus to a species, would it make more sense to make the comparison after you name the one species in Livyatan?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the book". Should probably be "by the book".
that doesn't seem right   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "implies either". How about "implies that either".
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "and so forth". Seems a bit casual.
that is the formallest I can get   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "A characteristic of raptorial sperm whales, Livyatan had functional". Technically this says that Livyatan was a characteristic of raptorial sperm whales.
are you sure?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It looks like that to me too. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Its total size was estimated to be around 13.5 or 17.5 m". You mean length?
changed but's there actually a difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "It is distinct from the other raptorial sperm whales by the basin on the skull, and how it spans the entire length of the snout." First, "distinct" should be "distinguished". Second, what spans the entire length of the snout?
"distinct" means "unique" but I changed it anyways, and the basin on the skull spans the snout   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "used in biosonar and communication". I think "for" should be used instead of "in"
I guess both're acceptable here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "It may have interacted". Although you mean the whale, "it" technically refers to the the spermaceti organ.
fair point, changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "caused by climate change which caused food populations to drop". Two uses of "caused" is awkward.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The whale was featured in the animated movie Ice Age: Continental Drift." This comes out of nowhere, and feels like you're just tacking on some pop culture. It would be more relevant if you could say, for example, "The bigness and hugeness and viciousness of the whale has ingrained it within the popular imagination, and has led it to be featured in such things as..."
I feel like saying it's because of its hugeness that it was featured in the movie is somehow OR. I'll be back in a couple hours to finish the other comments   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Research history

  • "containing teeth and mandible". I don't know the answer, but can you say "containing mandible", or does it have to be "containing a mandible" (or similar)?
could be either   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "stumbled across them". Should it "it" (it's a skull).
it's talking about the teeth and the mandible so it's plural   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "on the final day of a field trip there." "there" is redundant, not to mention awkward considering the next sentence also ends in "there."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The fossils were prepared in Lima, and are now part of the collection of the Natural History Museum there." Were they also prepared at the museum?
The fossils were prepared in Lima   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "author of the book Moby-Dick". Needs a comma after Moby-Dick.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "million years ago (mya)". You already did "(mya)" in the lead, so just delete "million years ago" and the parentheses.
whatever's wikilinked in the lead needs to be wikilinked again in the main text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Phylogeny

  • "This group is known for having large, functional teeth on both the upper and lower jaws which were used in capturing large prey, and had an enamel coating." You need either a comma after "jaws", or a "which" before "had an enamel coating" (or both).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "a characteristic of sperm whales". Are you referring just to the development of the spermaceti organ, or also the size increase? If the latter, "a characteristic" should be "characteristics".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Since fetal modern sperm whales have enamel on their teeth before being coated with cementum". The whales are coated with cementum?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Description

  • "is not known for certain." How about just "is unclear", since you already use "known" and "unknown" in the sentence.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "(44 short tons)". How about wikilinking "short tons"?
it's the imperial version of tonnes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Livyatan is the largest fossil sperm whale discovered, and was also one of the biggest known predators, and it had one of the largest bites of any tetrapod, and possibly of any vertebrate." and, and, and, and, and...
I removed an "and"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Skull

  • "The skull of Livyatan was 3 m (9.8 ft) long in the holotype." Do you mean "The holotype skull of Livyatan was 3 m (9.8 ft) long."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "like other sperm whales." Should probably be "like [or as] with other sperm whales."
I don't see the problem here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Teeth

  • "The wearing on the teeth". How about "The wearing on its teeth"?
are there other teeth?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "As well as this". One word—furthermore, moreover, additionally—would work.
changed to "also"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "which were adaptations to holding struggling prey." This seems off. Maybe "adaptations that made it easier to hold struggling prey."?
I'm not seeing a difference   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "it has the lowest tooth count". This paragraph otherwise uses the past tense, so "had" should be used.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "in each side of the jaw." How about "on each side"?
teeth are in the jaw aren't they?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "The first right tooth was the smallest". Smallest, or shortest?
there's a difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
There could be. length is only one way of measuring size. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "measured around 30 cm (12 in)." Should be "...(12 in) long."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "These teeth are thought to be among the largest of any known animal". You go further in the lead, saying "The tallest tooth ... is the largest tooth of any known animal."
in the main text it says that as, "and the largest teeth of the holotype were..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "30.5 cm (12 in) ... 18 cm (7 in)." Also needs words indicating that this refers to height.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Some of the lower teeth have been shown to contain a facet". What's a facet? Is there an appropriate wikilink?
the source used "facet" which I take to mean an indent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "due to wearing throughout its life." Should be "their life."
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "onto the teeth throughout its lifetime." Same.
that's in reference to the whale "its lifetime"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "the fourth being the largest at around 197 mm". Are the measurements here referring to depth? It's unclear.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Basin

  • "was the most deep and wide". Could be "was deepest and widest".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "It was defined by high walls on the sides, and the antorbital notches ... were inside the basin." Is this supposed to be saying two distinct things, or are you trying to say that two things did the defining, the high walls and the antorbital notches?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "and was defined by a groove". What about a fresh phrase, since "was defined by" is used twice.
I got nothing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "dwarf and pygmy sperm whales". There should be a comma after "whales"
that'll get confusing because it'll separate the whales from the number of foramina   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hunting

  • "consisted of mainly". How about "mainly consisted of"?
I don't see why but done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "ranging from 7–10 m". Again, doesn't specify length/width/arm span.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "It was contemporaneous". Should be "contemporaneous with".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Spermaceti organ

  • "target animal to shutdown". You want "shut down" (verb), not "shutdown" (noun).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "due to exposure to the intense sounds." How about "from" instead of "due to", to avoid the "to ... to"?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Another theory says ... modern sperm whale." I would split this into two sentences.
that seems unnecessary   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "to support this". Should be "in support of this".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • An alternate theory ... to the surface." Again, suggest two sentences.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Palaeoecology

  • "including over 3500 shark teeth". Should be "more than", not "over".
changed but is there a difference?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "hammerhead sharks; and to a lesser extent". The semicolon doesn't work here. I'd suggest ending the sentence after "3500 shark teeth", and beginning a second with *"These mainly belonged to".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Livyatan and Megalodon were likely the apex predators of this area during this time." Not sure why this is here in addition to in "Hunting"?
seems relevant in both places   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "5 mya in Pliocene." Should this be "in the Pliocene."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "Beaumaris Bay is". It's sort of implied, but what about "Beaumaris Bay, within the Black Rock Formation, is..." or alternatively "Its place of discovery, Beaumaris Bay, is..."?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "have been discovered". Should be "have been discovered there".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "becoming coextinct with the small baleen whales it fed on." Something's off with this grammatically, but also, are you saying that a species of baleen whales went extinct, of that just small baleen whales went extinct? If the latter, I think you should go for a work other than "coextinct."
seems fine to me, a lot of baleen whales went extinct, so Livyatan went coextinct with them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


Overall

  • Looks good. Most of the points above are grammatical/stylistic, so feel free to take with a grain or spoon of salt as appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • I want to review this, but I'd like confirmation that Dunkleosteus77 is still around, as it seems it will otherwise get archived soon. FunkMonk (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
coming back Friday or Saturday depending on if I can book the plane   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright, ping me when one of the above reviews are finished. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: okay looks good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: The culture section seems too insignificant. LittleJerry (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

at what point is culture considered significant?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd have to agree here, it is a very minor appearance (WP:trivia), and even if it wasn't, there shouldn't be single sentence sections, per:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
at what point is culture considered not trivial? Also I can add more sentences if you’d like   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
For a culture section to be justified, the subject must have significant cultural impact or if the appearances have made the animal a household name (e.g. Jurassic park for Velociraptor and Dilphosaurus). LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
such as an animated movie aimed for kids   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it is not culture itself that is insignificant, it is the cultural appearance listed here that is insignificant. And again, even if it was significant, a single sentence wouldn't warrant a section. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Ice Age has made Livyatan a household name. LittleJerry (talk) 03:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
most everyone’s seen the giant whale in Ice Age   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That's not the same as making it a household name. Sorry, but the consensus is that the section should be removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Setting aside the issue of notability for a moment (which is covered by WP:in popular culture), consider the following MOS guideline: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading."[18] FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I still feel like pop culture is underrated in prehistoric animal articles, but it's been deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
As long as it isn't just a random list of media appearances (as is discouraged by WP:in popular culture), meaningful sections can be written for some animals. I wrote one for woolly mammoth, and most recently for Dilophosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the images under description could be rejigged so that the section headers aren't squeezed by the images. If you right align the life restoration, and move the skull image up to the beginning of the teeth section, and the image of the teeth down, it would be fixed.
  • "The discoverers originally assigned the English name of the biblical monster" State which year.
  • " However, the scientific name Leviathan was also the junior homonym for the mastodon" How did they find out?
  • It seems very unclear what is actually known of the animal. First you mention a partial skull, consisting of the mandible and teeth. Do you mean including a mandible and teeth? In which case, how much of the actual cranium itself is known?
  • The second issue is how many specimens are known. First you indicate it is one specimen, therefore one fossil. But later you say fossils in plural. But then later you say specimen, singular.
  • Lacks "the ability to use its teeth to catch prey" But isn't that what modern sperm whales do? This article even indicates it is unknown how they catch squids:[19]
  • Since the title is Livyatan, and the genus is monotypic, you shoudl use this name throughout, rather than the abbreviated binomial. Now you use a random mix.
  • "when using the modern sperm whale for scaling" I think you can explain how this is done. I assume it is from extrapolating from a known element the two have in common, and figuring out the proportions from there?
  • "The Beaumaris sperm whale was estimated to have been" I think you can reiterate that this is probably the same as Livyatan.
  • " The right maxilla in the upper jaw became slightly convex towards the back of the snout, whereas the left maxilla became slightly concave towards the back of the snout." Does this mean the skull was asymmetrical, or that the two are just not equally preserved?
  • "which connects the two mandibles" There is one mandible, so it connects the two halves of the mandible.
  • You give scientific names for the two modern dwarf sperm whales, but not for the regular sperm whale.
  • "no tooth roots were entirely present in the premaxilla portion of the snout" Not sure what this means. That were were no tooth roots in the premaxilla? "Entirely" makes it seem like parts of them were in the premaxilla or something...
  • "and the teeth of Megalodon" You could give the scientific name too.
  • "and the biggest diameters of the teeth were around" At what part of the teeth were they thickest?
  • There is some overlinking outside the intro.
  • When you list scientific names of extinct genera, you should be consistent in whether you write the full binomials or just the genus names. Now it is very inconsistent.
  • "and the book Moby-Dick by Herman Melville" The name wasn't inspired by the book, the name honours its author.
  • "which stars a gigantic sperm whale" Stars? Seems hyperbolic.

Family Trade

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I present Family Trade, a short-lived American reality series that aired eight episodes on the Game Show Network in 2013, chronicling the daily activities of a GMC/Ford used car dealership in Middlebury, Vermont that employs the barter system in many sales of their vehicles. I have no idea why I'm so fascinated with this show; it's probably due to my affinity for a similar show, Pawn Stars (speaking of which, if the show had aired on the History Channel instead, I'm fairly confident it would have had a longer run). I've spent a long time extensively researching this show as best I can (even snapping a photo of the G. Stone Motors dealership while passing through Middlebury this summer), and I now believe it is the most extensive summary of the show one can find on the Internet. Considering this is what the article looked like when I began my work, to quote Gardner Stone himself, "I'm proud of what we have built." I think this final step will help polish the article even further and bring forward any final improvements. As always, all feedback is welcomed and greatly appreciated. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • For this sentence (The dealership is operated by its founder, Gardner Stone, his son and daughter, Todd and Darcy, and General Manager Travis Romano.) in the lead, I would substitute “business” for “dealership” as the word “dealership” was used in the prior sentence.
  • I would include information on the show’s critical reception in the lead, and possibly a short part on its ratings.
  • In the “Format” section, please use Gardner’s full name on the first use and provide a short descriptive phrase to identify him to the reader as this is the first time you mention him in the body of the article.
  • I am not sure about the following phrasing (to be made that might otherwise end up in vain), particularly the “otherwise end up in vain” part.
  • For this sentence (The customers then negotiate the value of their items, usually with Gardner, but occasionally also with other members of the shop's staff.), I do not believe you need “then”.
  • Provide a descriptive phrase to introduce Darcy and Travis when you first introduce them. Also, I would use Travis’ full name when you first reference him.
  • I would identify that Eli Frankel is an executive from Lionsgate.
  • I would change (ordering a pilot show) to (ordering a pilot episode).
  • For this part (GSN then proceeded to order eight episodes of the series on August 9, 2012.), I do not think you need “then”.
  • I would link Middlebury on its first use in the body of the article.

Great work with this article. My review is focused on the prose. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your review. I have addressed all your comments. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Very little to raise here. Ref 5: I imagine that "Addison County Independent" is a printed source and should therefore be italicised. Otherwise.sources look in good order and of the requisite reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I have amended this issue. Thank you for your review! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Comments from MWright96
  • Wikilink upfronts to Upfront (advertising) the first time it is mentioned
  • "however, on February 1, GSN pushed the premiere date back a week to March 12." - I am assuming that no reasons were given for the change of debut, and if so, it should be clear
  • Consider archiving the remaining sources that have not already been archived.

Overall the majority of the prose is easy to read and engaging. Just the minor issues from me. MWright96 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@MWright96: Archived the majority of the remaining links, fixed the two minor prose issues. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing my queries Ben. Nothing else from me so I am more than happy to lend my support for this article to be promoted. Good work! MWright96 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AmericanAir88

I will 100% support when these are fixed AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Could you elaborate more on the reselling part at the end of "Format"?
  • "His son Todd also claims" is a Weasel Word as it connects with "might". Rewording would be a good solution.
  • In format, you do not need to mention that Travis is the general manager as it is stated in the lead.
  • The cast section should go above the production
  • "Filming for the eight episodes began September 1, lasting around five or six weeks." Awkward Sentence
@Bcschneider53: Perfect

Support AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments: Unless I've missed it, I think we still need an image review. Also, I'm not sure we've had sufficient depth of review yet. Aoba47 has gone into some detail on prose, but I'm not sure we are covered on FA criteria 1b, 1c and 1d. Therefore, I'd like a few more eyes on this. Sarastro (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Thank you for the update. I pinged Carbrera a couple days ago, so hopefully that review will come in soon. Perhaps Mike Christie and Jo-Jo Eumerus could provide another prose and image review respectively? (Please don't feel obligated, it's just, since you've reviewed my other GSN FAs, I think you'd be well-suited to look at this one too.) --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Carbrera
  • The prose looks excellent; I can't find anything to improve on or suggest
  • Everything in the infobox seems to be supported by citations in the article, with the exception of the episode lengths; I think you should add this in the article's body somewhere – perhaps under 'Production'?
  • I believe a comma should be added after "network's upfronts on March 21, 2012" as you continue the sentence with additional text after stating a date
  • From my history with television series and episode guides, generally the line color matches the color used for the header above; could this be corrected?
Bcschneider53 – This looks very good. I'd be glad to take another look after you address my minor suggestions above. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC).
@Carbrera: Thank you for your comments; I have amended the minor issues. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your swift changes. I can fully support this one. Carbrera (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC).
Image review
ALT text is there, although you may want to describe the image content a bit more than the image topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Many thanks. I have expanded the ALT text for both images. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment from Reywas92

Can you provide some more details in the episode summaries? For a show that probably isn't on streaming or DVD (or is it?), I'd really prefer more information than a TV guide listing. Reywas92Talk 06:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reywas92: I have made a couple of minor additions, but only based on my memory from nearly five years ago. Unfortunately, the series is not available anywhere on DVD or otherwise as far as I know (though if it is and you find it, please let me know!), and I have researched this show extensively. Furthermore, I don't want to risk being overly-detalied either. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

  • stating this on the dealership's website and on an episode of the show: why do we need to say this in the article?
  • Country music artist Jamie Lee Thurston writes a jingle for the dealership (which would later become the show's theme song) Since this is the last episode, "later" is confusing. I assume that the explanation is that the events in the last episode take place before the first episode is aired, but it would be nice to have this clearer.

That's all I can see for prose. I have not checked for other sources so I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • @Mike Christie: Fixed both. I am happy to add further sources if you do end up coming across them, though I have researched this show so extensively that virtually every reputable source I have found is used in the article. Thanks again for the review! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    Fixes look good to me. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for status update

@Sarastro1 and Ian Rose: We have received five supporting reviews now complete with an image and source check. Would either of you mind giving this nomination a run-through to see if it's ready for promotion? Many thanks in advance for all you do here at FAC. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator notes: I don't think we are there yet. A few issues with the first part of the main body:

  • "The series features customers bringing in anything they believe is resalable[1] within reason to the dealership to help cover the cost of a new or used vehicle (including pigs, maple syrup, and collectable dolls)": Given that this is the first sentence of the main body, we need to explain what the series is and what the dealership is. "within reason" doesn't seem to be in the source given and is very vague. Also, should we not start with more context? Who commissioned the series? When? Why? And maybe start with a little on the dealership itself rather than just stating it was part of a series. So many issues in the first sentence worries me a little. Sarastro (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sarastro1: Are you suggesting the production section be moved above the format section? I believe most of the information is there, it's just a matter of where we should place it in the article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Possibly. I think the start of the main body needs to fully set the scene for what is going on. As it, we kind of jump in and assume the reader knows what is going on. It would seem to make more sense to give the background first. Sarastro (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: I just noticed Pawn Stars (currently a B-class article for a similar series) uses a section combining the two areas ("production history and format"). Should we do a similar thing here? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Panzer Dragoon Saga

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Panzer Dragoon Saga, a 1998 role-playing game for the Sega Saturn. Saga is the most critically acclaimed Saturn game and appears on many lists of the best games of all time, but was released in very limited quantities and few people got to play it.

The article became a GA a couple of years ago. Since then, I've greatly expanded the Reception section, restructured the article a bit, and tightened up the references. Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through.

  • Not keen on "have effects including". How about something like "The dragon's "berserks" [...] can inflict powerful attacks, heal Edge, or boost..."?
  • Since you only use the "BP" abbreviation once I'd drop it and spell out "berserk points" on the second occurrence.
  • Certain enemy attacks inflict status-changing affects: Unless I've misunderstood the sentence, I think this would be better as "Certain enemy attacks can change Edge's status: the "stun" status..."
  • After battles, the player earns a ranking: I think it would be better to have "battle" and "player" agree in number; probably "After a battle, the player..."
  • The plot section seems to just fade out. I assume the destruction of Grig Orig is the climax of the game as far as battles are concerned? Perhaps some signposting would make this clearer.
    • The final battle is: Edge and the dragon defeat the network's "anti-dragon" programs. Is this obscure?
      It's not clear to the uninformed reader that this is the climax of the plot. Perhaps if you end the paragraph after that sentence, and make it clear that what follows is abstract and without a clear resolution, as you say below, then that would be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      Forgive my being difficult about this, but I'm not sure what it is you're suggesting here. Do you think we should literally write something like "The following events are abstract and do not end with a clear resolution"? Because that would be inserting personal interpretation, a violation of Wikipedia plot summary rules. I think if you read the events as they're described and come away thinking "that sounds weird", then the summary is probably a pretty accurate reflection of events.
      Having said all that, I rewatched the final sequence and rewrote the article to hopefully made some things a bit clearer. I made the fourth wall breaking element more explicit, and I'd forgotten that the sequence pretty explicitly says why Azel is asking directions. I hope this makes things a bit more useful. Popcornduff (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
      I think all I'm asking for is a clear indication that the defeat of the network's "anti-dragon" programs is the climactic battle. As someone who's never played the game, I read through the plot and took that sentence as indicating another step in the progress of the plot, expecting the plot to end in combat, as so often happens. Just adding "... in the game's final battle sequence" or something like that to that sentence would do it. I'm not a regular video game player, so perhaps my expectations aren't in sync with how games are actually plotted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
      I appreciate the difficulty of having to come up with arguments about this when you're not familiar with the subject matter, and I do take the point that this is exactly who we should be writing for.... but I can't see eye to eye with you on this, I'm afraid.
Is it important to know it's the final battle? I don't think it's the important takeaway here, when we're summarising the plot. It's not even that climactic - it's this very abstract, almost ambient sequence that doesn't have a lot to do with the rest of the game's battles. The actual important event here is that Edge disappears into Sestren. If other editors have other opinions I'm all ears though. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you mean by "just seems to fade out". The end of the game is pretty abstract, and ends without a clear resolution... Popcornduff (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      That's what I meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the timeline in the first couple of sentences of the "Development" section. If it took two years, and was released in 1998, then they began work in 1996. They started development at the same time that the Panzer Dragoon II Zwei team began development, but that game was released in 1996. So Panzer Dragoon II Zwei was released the same year it began development? Not impossible, but surprising enough I wanted to verify I had it right.
    • Nice catch. I went back and checked the sources and they don't agree. Gamespot says two years, but an interview with the developers in the strategy guide says three. I'm assuming the developers know best, and that makes more sense, as you point out - plus I found some more detail to include about how they split the teams. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Both subplots were cut for time.: a bit compressed -- this could mean lack of development time, or to eliminate a slow period of gameplay. I think it's the latter, but I'd suggest clarifying.
    • Done. I've reworked the entire Development section so you might want to reread the entire thing. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In the graphics paragraph in the "Reception" section, Sega Saturn Magazine praises the '"stunning" visual effects', and Steve Key praises "some of the greatest visual effects on any home system". Could these comments be combined, so we get the statement first, and once only? Personally I think it's OK to drop the attributions into the footnotes unless they're important, but my main point here is the repetition.
  • The music and sound also received praise, with Mielke likening it to the quality of Hollywood productions. Suggest "Mielke considered the music and sound to be of Hollywood production quality", or something similar; the first half of the current sentence is the paragraph topic, but I think Mielke's comment is strong enough that it can stand as the topic sentence without introduction.
  • The paragraph starting "Several critics..." has some repetitive sentence rhythms: "Key felt... Edge wrote:... Mielke concluded:".
    • I know what you mean but I don't know to fix this yet. The easy solution for this, I think, leads very quickly into purple prose. I'm already uncomfortable with the number of attribution verbs used, and I'm about to leave you a Talk page message about that "noted" you added, since I don't want to distract from the discussion here... Popcornduff (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      When we've resolved the "noted" point we can revisit this. I wouldn't hold up support over this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      How about joining the Key and Edge quotes, which are both very positive, with some appropriate connective tissue? That would be easier with Key as the second quote, since Edge is a magazine and Key is a person. Maybe: 'Edge wrote: "It's a tragedy that the Saturn's standing will ensure Team Andromeda's adventure, with a radically different approach to FFVII, will enjoy a fraction of its rival's success", and Key was also impressed, arguing that if the game were released on PlayStation it would "fly off the shelves".' Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • and illustrated why the Saturn was seen as lacking compared to PlayStation: not very fluid. How about: "and illustrated the Saturn's shortcomings, compared to PlayStation"?

Overall this is very clean, and I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support. Meant to come back to this a few days ago; this is FA quality now. I had a couple of remaining points under discussion but both were very minor and don't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Revival (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an American comic book series that ran for 47 issues before ending earlier this year. The plot is a twist on the zombie genre. It became a GA in June and has been mostly stable since then. Most of the recent changes were suggestions from the previous two FACs. The first one failed because some sources were challenged. I was encouraged to work with the oppose before re-nominating. I provided detailed explanations of each challenged source here and invited the opposer to discuss. They have never responded. The second FAC did not attract enough comments to pass. Third time's the charm, right? Pinging previous commenters @Aoba47: @1989: @Ian Rose: @Ealdgyth: @Slightlymad: Argento Surfer (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • For the first sentence in the lead (Revival is a horror-science fiction comics series described by its creators as "a rural noir”.), I would specify who the “creators” are (i.e. Tim Seeley and Mike Norton) in order to avoid potential confusion.
  • I am not certain about the following sentence (Set in central Wisconsin, Revival follows the aftermath of one day when the dead came back to life and the ensuing intrigue.). I am not sure if that “of one day” part is absolutely necessary as the phrase could be shortened to (Revival follows the aftermath of the dead coming back to life). Also these two parts (the aftermath) and (the ensuing intrigue) seems to be talking about the same thing so it seems a little too repetitive. If these two ideas are different, then it needs to be further unpacked.
  • For this part (, but touches on religious, moral and social themes), I would change it to (, while touching on religious, moral and social themes) as I am not sure if the “but” construction is the best approach for this context.
  • Are you using the Oxford comma in this article? You do use it in this instance (with art by Mike Norton, coloring by Mark Englert, and covers by Jenny Frison) but not in this other instance (but touches on religious, moral and social themes).
  • For this sentence (Although the conclusion was determined from the beginning, the exact length of the series was determined by sales.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “determined”.
  • This is more of a nitpick, but I would change the ALT text for the main infobox image. I think it would be more valuable to provide a brief physical description of the character rather than just say the character’s name. If a reader has not read this before, then just saying “Em” may not be that helpful in the end.
  • This is more of a clarification question. For this sentence (Everyone who died within a few miles of Wausau, Wisconsin, on January 1 returns to life on January 2.), does the comic provide a year for these dates?
  • I am a little confused by this part (It is led by Detective Dana Cypress). First, you identified Dana as a police officer in the lead. Second, I am not sure if “Detective” needs to be capitalized or not.
  • I am not sure about this sentence (The revivers are now immortal and heal from all wounds.). Something about the “now” reads a little weird to me, and I am not sure if it is needed.
  • I would introduce the concept of “Revival Day” in the first sentence just to make it clear what it means.
  • Do you think it would be more helpful to move the image in the “Plot summary” section to the top so it would be closer to the part in which the “creeps”/“glowing men” are first introduced.
  • In this section, you refer to some characters by their first names “Dana” and “Em” and others by their last names “Majak” and “Holt”. It is not a major issue for me, but I wanted to point it out to you.
  • Should Revival Day be in quotation marks? There are a few instances where it is in quotation marks, and a few instances where it is not in quotation marks.
  • I was a little confused by this sentence (He also considered using her in Hack/Slash, but that version eventually became Acid Angel.), particularly this section (but that version eventually became Acid Angel). Could you possibly explain what you mean by this?
  • Please link White Noise in the following sentence ( They were inspired by Don DeLillo's novel White Noise, which follows people trying to escape an approaching cloud but no one knows what it actually is.).
  • “The Walking Dead” is linked multiple times in the article.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

    • I have made the requested changes. I prefer to refer to characters by last name, but used "Dana" and "Em" in this case because they share a last name. If you find this distracting, I do not oppose using first names for everyone. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you for addressing my comments. As for the point on names, I understand what you mean now and I think that it makes the most sense. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I support this for promotion, and good luck this time around with this article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC? Either way, have a great day and I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Refs 3, 19, 25: What makes "Bleeding Cool" a high quality, reliable source?
  • Ref 18: The link seems to go to the wrong page – I can't locate the source title there.
  • Ref 35: What makes "SKTCHD" a high quality, reliable source?
  • Ref 47: Ditto "Comic Crusaders" – it advertises itself as "by fans for fans"
  • Ref 63: Why the italics (see 4, 46, 55)? Also, the retrieval date format should be consistent with all the others.

Note: questioning a source's reliability does not mean I'm assuming it's unreliable. I just need more information. Subject to the above queries, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton:
    • Bleeding Cool has been referenced by reliable sources like Comics Beat, Newsarama, Multiversity, and The Week (magazine) [20].
    • That's...bizarre. CBR seems to have deleted it. I have replaced it with a new link to Multiversity.
    • SKTCHD writer David Harper is regularly referenced by other reliable sources.
    • Comic Crusaders is a review site with editorial oversight. The reference is paired with another from Newsarama to show that multiple reviewers felt it stood out among other zombie comics at the time. I'm ok with removing it if need be.
    • Two of the italic references were due to templates. I have corrected them. The last one is italic because it's actually a print source, not a website like all the others. I can change it too, if you think that would be best. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I accept what you say re Bleeding Cool and SKTCHD. On Comic Crusaders it might be wise to remove it, since the relevant text is covered, but I'll leave that to you. All other matters OK Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments from Moise

Hi Argento, just working my way through the article.

Production:

  • “Although Frison was planned to create the covers from the beginning, Norton provided the design for the cover of the first issue”: Here “was planned to” feels a little awkward to me. Is there another way to word this? Moisejp (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Does "Although the team planned for Frison to create the covers from the beginning..." work better? I have already made the edit. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That looks great, thanks.

Lead:

  • "In late 2012, Seeley and Norton were approached by more than one major network to develop Revival into a television series. The deal fell through when ABC Studios announced they were moving forward with a different property that dealt with similar themes." This doesn't seem precise. The deal with ABC fell through at this time, but presumably discussions with NBC did not result in anything due to other circumstances.
    • I have rewritten this to be more precise. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary:

  • "Meanwhile, various townspeople begin to see glowing ghost-like figures in the surrounding woods (referred to as "creeps" in writer Tim Seeley’s scripts)." I wasn't sure why you mentioned about them being referred to as creeps in scripts, when elsewhere in the article they are always called glowing men.
    • I kept the phrase in the first instance and in the image caption, but updated later references to "creeps" Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Production:

  • It says that in 2015 they were planning 48 issues, but elsewhere we learn they stopped at 47. Is there information available about why they stopped one short?
    • There is not. I assume the extra issue wasn't needed when Seeley actually wrote out the scripts, but I haven't been able to find a source that addresses the discrepancy. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviews:

  • The section is mostly very good, but the second paragraph seems a bit repetitive, and could use more variety in sentence structure.

Those may be all my comments. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks good. I really enjoyed reading this. Moisejp (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Beginning the image review. I'm trying to follow User:Nikkimaria/Passing an image review and am working my way through all the components. To begin:

  • File:Creep meets Em.png is currently set at 250px but apparently hardcoding the size is not good, and using upright= is better. On my computer upright=1.4 seems to be about the same size as what it is currently.
  • The infobox image has alt text, but File:Creep meets Em.png currently does not seem to.
  • File:Creep meets Em.png is near the beginning of the article, but are there any other free images you can find that are relevant that would help break up the text and create visual interest? I randomly clicked on the link for Craig Thompson and think the images of him could be possible candidates, although I don't know if there are better ones out there. Moisejp (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The sizing issue was corrected by User:Curly Turkey (Thanks buddy!)
  • I added alt text to the creep image per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images#Captions and nearby text.
  • I added images of the writer and artist (from their articles) to the early inspiration section and an image of the minimate toy to the end of the publication section. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Argento. I'm not an expert image reviewer, but I wonder whether the third non-free image that you have uploaded (File:Em Cypress Minimate.png) is warranted. When I do music-related articles, the only non-free image I ever use is the album/single cover, but I can understand for comic-related articles, using maybe one non-free image to show the style of art makes sense. But is it common among recently(-ish) promoted comic-related articles to have as many as three non-free images? The image of the minimate seems possibly superfluous, and not crucial to the reader's understanding of the comic as a whole. But I'm happy to be convinced if you make a good argument for why it's valid or there is a strong precedent for doing such. If in doubt, would it be better to replace the minimate with another free-image artist such as Craig Thompson (I'm not fixated on him, by the way—it's just his name falls in a pretty good place in the article where an image could go)?

Also, if you do keep the minimate image, there is a notice on the page that says "This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version"—you would need to fix that. Additionally, I'm a little confused that at the bottom of the Non-free rationale for the image, it says "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license..." Is this correct? It sounds possibly contradictory, unless the meaning is actually completely different. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done two previous comic FA articles. Archie vs. Predator is ~20k and has one non-free image, The Fade Out is ~28k and has two. This one is ~38k. I'd be fine with removing it - I only added it because I thought you were asking for more images.
I chose it because it seemed like a good place for another image (pretty close to Craig Thompson), and because I thought it would be a good visual aid for readers who aren't familiar with what a minimate is. The rationale was one of the options when I was uploading. This is the first time I've worked with this type of image, so it's quite possible it was done incorrectly.
I think good alternatives would be Craig Thompson's alternate cover or an interior image of Dana and Ramin. I've been looking for one, but haven't found a suitable one yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm, your point that readers may well not know what a minimate is, and thus is a good visual aid, is convincing (I didn't know what it was). Since there are no exact specifications for how many non-free images are allowed, only general ones, I think three is not pushing the limit too much more than two. Let's leave it in for now and see if any other editors jump in and disagree. Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I see User:Theo's Little Bot reduced the size of the image, so that problem is solved. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added a sentence to the Purpose of use description to hopefully make the non-free image rationale stronger. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I did a couple more minor tweaks and am now satisfied the images are all in order. Moisejp (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson was one of the most prominent Americans in the early 19th century. As a young lawyer from Tennessee, he helped the territory gain statehood and served briefly in both houses of Congress. He later became a Federal judge and commander of the state militia. During the War of 1812, Jackson led an army that defeated first the Red Stick Indians and later the British at New Orleans, securing the American frontier and granting the country one of its greatest military victories at the time. His controversial invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 was done without explicit orders, but the end result was the acquisition of that territory by the United States. From 1829 until 1837, Jackson served as president. He led a popular movement consisting largely of poor workers and farmers against what he saw as undemocratic control of government by the elites. Jackson replaced officeholders, preserved the union during the Nullification Crisis, waged a successful war against the Second Bank of the United States, secured favorable agreements with foreign countries, instigated the forced removal of thousands of American Indians, supported slavery, and recognized the Republic of Texas. Amongst historians and the general public, Jackson is extremely divisive. His reputation has fluctuated considerably, and scholarly assessments of his life and presidency in particular are remarkably varied. Display name 99 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Indian Removal Act map, Democratic cartoon, and Panic of 1837 images
I scaled up the Indian Removal Act and Panic of 1837 images, but decided against doing the same for the Democratic cartoon. That's mainly because it aligns so well with the 1832 election map. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Flag_of_Tennessee.svg could do with half as many copyright tags
I got rid of two of them. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Andrew_Jackson_bust.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson_Tomb.jpg
Added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks like there are some template issues - the former is now showing a USGov tag for the photo, which doesn't seem to mesh with the original information? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Must have put that in there by accident. It's out now. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Andrew_Jackson_Portrait.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson,_by_Ralph_Eleaser_Whiteside_Earl,_c._1788_-_1838.png, File:WilliamCRives.png, File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, File:Isaac_Brock_portrait_1,_from_The_Story_of_Isaac_Brock_(1908)-2.png
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
For File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, is there an earlier publication to support the new tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I removed the tag. The photographer is unknown. The source cited is a book from 2000. I have no publication date earlier than that. But everything's cited, so I don't think there should be a problem. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Per the life+70 tag currently in place, we do need an additional tag indicating the work's status in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:JacksonAssassinationAttempt.jpg: source links are dead, tagged as lacking author info
Added new link. Regrettably could not find author info. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:USS_Porpoise_(1836).jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
Added new link and tag. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:US_$20_Series_2006_Obverse.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info, and can you confirm it meets point 1 of the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with this one. I can't find a URL that shows a bill with the same serial number. The "author" is obviously just the US Treasury Department. Not sure what else can be done here. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. The immediate source is a user-generated scan, and the original source is a design from the Treasury - we just need to write that out, with details (eg. which design version) to make things explicit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I have responded to all of your above points. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Initial comment: There's an awful lot to trawl through here, which will take some time. Meanwhile, a couple of general points could be dealt with:

  • Format: Five columns for the citations is too many – it squashes the information unnecessarily. I'd recommend reduce to three, or four at most.
  • Many (if not all) of your page ranges show hyphens. These should be converted to ndashes.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll be back with a more detailed report when I've gone through the list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Nit: It's just setting the width of the columns (I have 9 columns across), it'll be as many columns as your resolution can support. That said, 15em is a little tight, so I just amped it up a tad to 22em. SnowFire (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI: I'm a college freshman and finals are starting to hit this week. So please give me some time with coming up with responses and implementing recommended changes. Display name 99 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Brianboulton, thank you for your review. Your comments have been addressed. Do you think you can get to the rest of the review anytime soon? Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at it now. Expect comments in a day or so Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Detailed sources comments

Here are my comments from my first pass of the source section:

  • Although you say you've replaced the hyphens in page ranges with ndashes, you've not done this thoroughly – there are many hyphens still present.
Done Hoppyh (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Try 143, 148, 236 Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. These weren't there at the time, and I have to remember to put dashes in the correct format when adding new sources. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 17: how is this a high quality, reliable source?
The biographical info on Remini I have reviewed indicates he is a widely published, award winning academic on Jackson and other presidents. Hoppyh (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hoppyh, he was referring to something else. The citation numbers got changed up a bit after he did his initial review. What was previously citation 17 came from an online source that I ended up removing. But thanks for your help on the article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Of course. Hoppyh (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 20: appears identical to the source in ref 3
Looks ok. Hoppyh (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I replaced one of these sources. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 25: These genealogy websites are not generally considered as reliable. Try to find anopther source.
I think this is now #24 and I believe we can remove the sentence which utilizes this ref. Thoughts? Hoppyh (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I decided to keep the sentence-it's important contextually. But I did get a new source. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 36: page range requires pp. not p. (There may be others similiar, take a careful look)
Done. All look good. Hoppyh (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 39: This looks on the face of it to be a university source, but on examination it seems to be a student project. Read this. I thus have doubts about its quality and reliability
Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 43: I don't see any reference to "The Andrew Jackson Foundation" which you name as publisher
Changed to "The Hermitage." Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 91: appears identical to 31
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 117: The publisher appears to be "ThoughtCo". I don't know where "About Education" comes from
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 139 and 140: Titles not represented in the source
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 147: What makes this a high quality, reliable source?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 149: Link not working
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 153: needs subscription template added
Added journal template. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 160: A page number is required - the book has 1,928 pages
Removed. Unable to find relevant information in source. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 162: Needs publisher. Not "Books.google" which is merely the online facilitator. Who published the book?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 164: Not working. I get "The Andrew Jackson site has been retired from pbs.org."
Source replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 177: Syrett needs a "p." A publisher is required for "President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832"
Syrett removed. Not needed. Publisher added. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 180: p. range format inconsistency
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 181: Website blocked - "potentially dangerous content"
Not sure what to say here. I tried it and did just fine. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's 174 now. I'm still getting the "website blocked" message, but the archive link now takes me to the source, so perhaps it's some local temporary hitch. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 203: Publisher details missing
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 213: Not working: "404 File not found"
Click on where it says "Archived." Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Now 206: that's not good enough, you should use the working url as your main link. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 218: Not working – repeated timeouts
It works for me. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Now 211: I'm still getting timeouts on the main link, although the archive link works. See my comment re 206. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 219: Who publishes this?
A website is given. That should be enough. They don't all have clear publishers. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
If you don't know the publisher you shouldn't use the site, as you can't confirm its reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Now 214. At the bottom of the site, the name "Robert S. Summers" appears. Summers is a respected law professor. Also, the only thing that this source is used to cite is cabinet information-names, years, positions, etc. All that information is verified in a host of other sources. But none of them that I've seen sum it all up in one place like this one. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 224: "James" Catron?
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 243: Page reference missing
Added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 250: Page reference missing
Source replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 253: Why is "Masonic Research identified as publisher? I can't see nay reference to it.
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 254: The format seems wrong in terms of title and publisher
Can you explain a bit more? Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Now 247: someone has dealt with this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 255: Publisher details missing
Publisher added. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 263: Publisher details missing
Removed per terrible formatting and the fact that another source seemed to take care of the information. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 264: provides insufficient detail
Removed along with text in question. Unable to verify. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 265 and 267: Similar format issues to 254
I can't say I see the problem here either. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
What was 265 seems to have been removed or replaced. What was 267 is now 257. Author's name is in the wrong format (should be surname first); the title should be "2-cent Green Andrew Jackson", and the publisher should be "National Postal Museum, Smithsonian Institution". "Arago" is the database name, not the publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 268: publisher details should not be abbreviated.
This source has been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • More generally: there are issues relating to italicization. Some of these appear to arise from the frequent confusion of website name ("work") with the publisher, i.e. the owner of the website. However, before tackling this, I advise you to tackle the lengthy list of specific queries, above. Give me a ping when you think you're through.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I have responded to all of the points you have made. Thank you for your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've indicated inline the few points where there are still issues outstanding. On the italicization issue there still seems to be work required. In general, a publisher should be italicized if the item arises from a print sourse , e.g. the title of a newspaper or journal, but not otherwise. Thus "Northern Ireland Tourist Board", "State Library of North Carolina", "Yale Law School" etc should not be italicized. There are other similar cases that need adjusting. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Brianboulton, I've removed italics from those sources as well as some others. Let me know how it looks. If there's still work that needs to be done in this regard, please either let me know or fix it yourself. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I've given a great deal of time to this review, and "fix it yourself" strikes me as a little brusque, even rude. It's your responsibility to get your sources right, not mine, and this needs to be done with appropriate care. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Well wow; that was uncalled for. You seem to have taken the position that I was somehow ordering you to make certain edits to the article. Obviously not the case. If you feel like cleaning up pieces of it here and there, you're welcome to. Otherwise, please tell me where improvement is needed so that I can do the work of fixing it and getting this article to FA quality. That's all that I said. By the way, simply saying "Not good enough" in your response above might also be interpreted as brusque or rude. Now, Brianboulton, do the italics look fine, or is more work needed? Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Having spent eight hours – yes, I mean eight hours – on this review, checking every reference at least once, not to mention having to manoeuvre around various ref number changes, etc, I feel somewhat inclined to take umbrage at comments such as "fix it yourself". OK, I accept you didn't mean it to sound ungracious. I'm finished here – as things stand, I'm happy to sign the sources off, and any final tinkering can be done by you after the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Good to see all the hard work that has gone on here.

Lede:

  • I really think that mention of Jackson's leadership of the Democratic Party needs to be mentioned in that very first paragraph. It is of great importance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure about that. There are a lot of crucial things that Jackson did which aren't mentioned in the first paragraph or even today. Besides, the Democratic Party of today looks almost nothing like the Democratic Party of the 1820s or 1830s. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably a tad too long. It currently stands at 25 lines long (at least in my browser), which is one line longer than FA-rated political biographies of equal (if not greater) importance like Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin. To that end I would recommend trying to get that second paragraph trimmed back a little bit. For instance, we could get rid of material like "(now part of Tennessee)". Other areas of prose could be condensed: "he was appointed a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court, serving from 1798 until 1804" could easily become "he served as a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court from 1798 to 1804". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I cut down on it using a couple of the suggestions you mentioned along with some others. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Born in the Waxhaws, Jackson" - perhaps a tad more on his ethnic background here; "Born in the Waxhaws to Scots-Irish migrants, Jackson"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I haven't been able to determine if one is more proper than the other. Therefore, I left it alone. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "winning a major victory at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend" could easily become "winning the Battle of Horseshoe Bend". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Not sure why. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Country names are usually left un-linked in articles. It's a sort of convention (although when it was decided I really do not know). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "In reaction to the alleged "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Henry Clay and the ambitious agenda of President Adams" feels a bit clunky. How about "Reacting against Adams' alleged "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay,". Shorter and more succinct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It's shorter because it removes the part about Adams's agenda. If you can find a way to increase brevity without changing content or meaning, that would be excellent. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
But is there much point mentioning Adams' agenda if no further explanation is given at this juncture anyway? We could just refer to Jackson's opposition to Adams without going into any further detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
The end of the lead is to do no more than summarize and at times simply allude to things that are discussed below in greater detail. Details aren't always necessary. Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • " thoroughly dismantled the Bank" - perhaps scrap "thoroughly"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it works well. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "dispossessed the Indians" - probably best to avoid the use of "Indians" in the lede (unless referring to something like the Indian Removal Act) given the disputed nature of the term. "Natives" would do just as well and lacks many of the problems of "Indians". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think they're both fine. I know a guy who met a "Native American." The "Native American" allegedly that people like him should be referred to as "American Indians" because, in his view, anybody born in the U.S. is a "Native American." I don't think it matters. You can't please everybody. Display name 99 (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
It's true that it is impossible to please anybody, but it is a huge issue of debate and is unlikely to go away any time soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "as an advocate for the causes of democracy and the common man" works just as well as "as an advocate for democracy and the common man". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, thank you for taking the time to do this review. I have responded to your comments above. I have not chosen to implement all of the reforms that you have suggested. However, I did manage to cut the lead down in size by a little bit. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, do you think you could please continue with the review? Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. Apologies for the delay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education:

  • "from present day Northern Ireland two years earlier" - I'm wondering if it's better to just say "from northern Ireland" or something like that. Perhaps "British-controlled Ireland"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it matters. Just personal taste. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Whups. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That third paragraph could really do with further, more specialist citations, ideally from biographical studies of Jackson. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I added one from Remini. I don't want to expand it too much with citations from other sources. That's mainly because it's an obscure question to which we will never surely know the answer that in the grand scheme of things is not all that important. I think we have enough there now. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I definitely think that we will need more specific citation than simply The Washington Post, to be honest. That is an RS, but when sources produced by academic historians are available, we really should be using them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I added a biographical source to cover part of the information backed in the Post article. But the citation was for Remini 1977, so I'm not sure whether in your opinion that constitutes an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, checking once more to remind you of this review. Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Display name. I don't intend to oppose this article, and admire the considerable amount of good work that has gone into getting it to the stage that it is presently at, although I still have misgivings, particularly with regard to sourcing. Andrew Jackson is a major figure in American political history and large numbers of scholars have written about him, and yet at various points this article relies solely on Remini 1977, or cites press sources rather than academic works. I would really like to see a much denser use of academic sourcing, as for instance can be seen at the Nelson Mandela article. Despite these concerns, I certainly wish you well with the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm doubtful this will change your mind, but I will leave a few comments here anyway, more for the FA coordinators and future reviewers than anyone else. Press sources are used mainly in the Legacy section, which is customary, especially regarding monuments and such. Some articles are used elsewhere, and these typically come from well-established scholars. There is an article from H.W. Brands, a Jackson biographer, that's cited twice, and another from Mark Cheatham, a professional historian, that's also used.
Regarding the perceived partiality towards Remini that exists in the early part of the article, I do not believe it is quite as extreme as the editor indicated. For instance, the entire Dickinson affair is cited to the Brands biography. Remini isn't even included until the 11th citation. Nevertheless, there were some spots in which I realized that I could diversify the citations by including references to other works. Therefore, I did add in some citations to other books about Jackson, namely the ones written by Snelling, Parton (Volume 1), Brands, and Meacham. It is important to remember that Remini's work, being three volumes, is more detailed than the single-volume 21st century biographies written by Brands, Wilentz, and Meacham, and thus can easily be cited more. That's basically all I have to say. This article passed a detailed source review, so hopefully this won't emerge again as a major problem. Display name 99 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I'll be doing a full review, but a couple of initial comments from near the end.

  • I'd question the description of Richard Mentor Johnson as unpopular. Possibly among some. "Controversial" might be a better term. "Rumpsey Dumpsey" always had considerable support, especially in the West, and with the Whig candidates in 1840 masquerading as "regular guys", Johnson did fill a need there. Yes he had the biracial mistresses and daughters, but most people didn't know that. They liked him as an Indian fighter and "Colonel Johnson shot Tecumsey".
OK. I changed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • More could be said about Jackson's role in getting Polk the nomination. It was Jackson who told Polk, after Van Buren's letter opposing the annexation of Texas, that he could be elected president.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I expanded this article's discussion of the 1844 election, including the incident which you just mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent in whether you capitalize the "The" in "The Hermitage".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
I tried not to capitalize it except at the start of sentences and in citations. I found one instance where I had deviated from this and fixed it. If you see any other cases of the "The" being capitalized aside from the exceptions which I just mentioned, please feel free to fix them. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Andrew and Robert were eventually captured by the British in 1781" I might cut "eventually"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "After a time," I would substitute "Later that year,"
Done.
  • "After nursing Andrew back to health, Elizabeth volunteered to nurse prisoners of war on board two ships in the Charleston harbor, where there had been an outbreak of cholera. I might toss an "American" in front of "prisoners" (assuming) and similarly "British" before ships.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "n 1781 he worked for a time in a saddle-maker's shop.[19] ... He taught school and worked for a time as a saddle-maker." Is this a duplicate?
Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "before the petition for divorce was ever made." "even" for "ever"?
I think "ever" works fine. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
""In 1794, Jackson formed a business with fellow lawyer and planter John Overton, overtly buying and selling land which had been reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw.[26] Theirs was a frank avowal; they, like many of their contemporaries, would deal with lands within Indian territory. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened to claim by North Carolinians all of the Indian lands in that state's transmontane west." I might rephrase as"In 1794, Jackson formed a partnership with fellow lawyer John Overton (you haven't mentioned Jackson being a planter yet), dealing in claims for reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw tribes. Like many of their contemporaries, they dealt in such claims although the land was in Indian country. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened Indian lands west of the Appalachians within North Carolina to claim by that state's residents."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspect the one-paragraph subsection could be combined with the one following. Possibly "Tennessee politician and land speculator"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "and one of the most powerful men in the state. Jackson became attorney general in 1791," Some clarity is needed. Tennessee wasn't a state yet.
Correct. Changed to "territory." Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "At that time, most men were members of the militia." "white men", surely.
Added "free" in front of "men." Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jackson had also presented Roane with evidence against Sevier of land fraud. : Possibly end "with evidence of land fraud against Sevier."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "making him among the planter elite." possibly "placing him among the planter elite".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Wilkinson ordered Jackson to halt in Natchez, now part of the Mississippi Territory," possibly "then" for "now"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "February 6 ordering him dismiss his forces" likely a missing word
I did not omit anything. Take away "dated February 6" and you get "sent him a letter ordering." I think it works. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Probably you need a "to" before "dismiss", is what I meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "However, he also promised to, instead of dismissing the troops without provisions in Natchez, march them back to Nashville.[6" I would move the "to" next to "march"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "in a street brawl with Jesse and his brother, Thomas." I'd advise changing "Jesse" to Benton. I'd make a bigger deal out of who his brother was, given THB's prominence later on.
I didn't say anything about this there, but I did add a mention THB when discussing Jackson's return to the Senate. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I see Thomas was his aide-de-camp. I might mention that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Wehwalt, can you provide a source for this? I just looked in Remini and couldn't find anything about this. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
It's in the Benton article, sourced to Meacham's bio of Jackson.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Added. For some reason, I thought you were saying that JB was the aide-to-camp. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • " perpetrated the Fort Mims massacre" I might say what it happened at this point in the paragraph, not several sentences later.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "After arriving in New Orleans on December 1,[80] " been a while since you mentioned the year.
Added year. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • " Their deaths were not revealed until the Coffin Handbills were circulated during his 1828 presidential campaign" I might say "publicized" or "well-known" since obviously the New Orleans authorities knew.
DOne. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Finishing the pre-presidency:
  • "who happened to be Speaker of the House," You mention this earlier in the section. I would either cut or tie it up better, for example, "who as Speaker presided over the election"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Some mention of how Jackson conducted the 1824 campaign, even if to say he pretended he wasn't running, would be good.
I expanded significantly on Jackson's 1824 campaign. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Adams's presidency floundered, as his ambitious agenda faced defeat in a new era of mass politics. Critics led by Jackson attacked Adams's policies as a dangerous expansion of Federal power." I think this ignores the fact that many embittered Jackson supporters were basically against anything Adams proposed.
I added an opening sentence to the section on the 1828 election about the general opposition to Adams and how early it began. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "A series of pamphlets known as the Coffin Handbills were published to attack Jackson. One revealed that he had ordered the execution of six soldiers at New Orleans." You do mention this above, and this reads like you hadn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In your preliminary paragraph on the presidency, it might be worth mentioning that the franchise was considerably expanded among white males in the 1830s.
Most white men could vote by the 1820s. That was what helped Jackson get elected. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Salacious rumors held that Peggy, as a barmaid in her father's tavern," As I understand it, the tavern was more a hotel/boardinghouse, where Sec. Eaton resided at some point, as was usual due to high Washington real estate prices. I might also refer to her here as "Peggy Eaton".
Taverns were boarding houses, but many of them served alcohol. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "it was alleged that she and her husband and engaged in an adulterous affair" I think there's a grammatical error, "and" (second usage) should be "had"
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Same paragraph, some inconsistency in capitalizing "cabinet". It might help the reader if you mentioned that the Eaton affair prevented Jackson calling Cabinet meetings for, as I recall, months.
I have removed instances where I found it capitalized. Do you have a source for the statement about the meetings? Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "be Minister to England" probably better, "Minister to Britain". It might be useful, in mentioning Van Buren's "recovery", to mention his nomination and election as Vice President.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be worth a mention that the Cherokees took the position that they were a nation, not part of the US or Georgia.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "very hostile white environment in the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved their very existence." I would not use "very" in two different senses in the same sentence. Also, the dashes late in the paragraph don't seem to be the right ones.
I rephrased this and replace the dash, hopefully with the proper one. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jackson's Postmaster Barry" He was the Postmaster General.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Postal Service" since you are capitalizing, it was at the time the Post Office Department. You use this phrase multiple times.
Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jackson's tenure in office saw a variety of other reforms as well." This implies that the reform mentioned in the previous paragraph, that is, abolition of the Electoral College, took place.
Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Southern planters, who sold their cotton on the world market, strongly opposed this tariff, which they saw as favoring northern interests." The selling of cotton doesn't help explain why they opposed the tariff. There was, after all, no tax on exports.
Added clarifying sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Washington Globe I don't believe the "The" is italicized.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "in February 1836, American reparations were paid." This sounds like the Americans were paying. Incidentally, I'm a bit dubious at the idea of "the French people" demanding things of Jackson. Is their government meant or did people get up petitions?
Removed the word "American." The French people were outraged by Jackson's remarks and basically refused to allow their government to pay until Jackson had apologized. Clarified in the text. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jackson was unsuccessful in opening trade with China and Japan. He was unsuccessful at thwarting Great Britain's presence and power in South America." I don't like the repeat of "was unsuccessful".
Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I might expand a bit in explaining the anti-Masonic movement.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I would split the paragraph in which you introduce the Second Bank.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jackson himself made numerous popular public appearances on his return trip from Tennessee to Washington D.C. Jackson won the election decisively by a landslide" I would cut "popular" and "decisively" and add a comma after "Washington".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Anti-Masonic Party folded" well, as a presidential player, yes, but it did persist in Pennsylvania for years after that and likely neighboring states as well.
Good point. Replaced with "eventually declined." Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In the description of Jackson removing the deposits from the Second Bank, likely the term pet bank should be used and linked at some relevant point.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The result was high demand for specie, which many banks could not meet in exchange for their notes, causing the Panic of 1837" I'm not sure you'll find universal agreement that this was the only cause of the Panic, though undoubtedly it contributed.
Replaced with "contributed to." Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The incident became a part of Jacksonian mythos." I would say for the last two words, "Jackson's legend".
I don't see any improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Legend is a term more commonly used in this connection, so the reader will understand it more quickly, imho.
I understand your argument, but "mythology" and other similar-sounding words are used regularly, and therefore I doubt the reader will have any ambiguity about what this means. Furthermore, simply saying that we use a word more does not indicate that it is always better. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "U.S. Postal system" I would lower case the Postal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "he pocketed Adams' expedition plans. " I'm not sure pocketed, in that sense, is really common in American English.
I don't know if its American or British, but it makes sense. I haven't heard English spoken anywhere outside the U.S. and a couple brief trips to Canada, and I'm still familiar with the phrase. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "One brig ship, USS Porpoise, later used in the expedition; having been laid down, built, and commissioned by Secretary Dickerson in May 1836, circumnavigated the world, explored and mapped the Southern Ocean, confirming the existence of the Antarctica continent.[232]" the semicolon should not be there, as what goes before cannot stand as a sentence. Also, it sounds like Dickerson laid it down, built it, and commissioned it. There should also be an "and" before "explored" in my view.
I have rephrased both parts. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "by money backed by gold and silver" I would simply say "with gold and silver" because that is the only money that would have been accepted.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You italicize Specie Circular at least once.
I found one instance and removed the italics. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "His next two appointees-Henry Baldwin and James Moore Wayne-disagreed with Jackson on some points but were viewed poorly even by Jackson's enemies." I don't think those are the proper dashes, and "viewed poorly" is not a phrase I'm familiar with in AmEng.
My response is the same as with the pocketing issue. I've hopefully managed to fix the dashes. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Taney served as Chief Justice until 1864, presiding over a court that upheld many of the precedents set by the Marshall Court." Um, maybe so, but I think what should be mentioned here is the Dred Scott decision. It overshadows Taney's Chief Justiceship.
Added a sentence mentioning the decision. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "When a letter from Calhoun to British Ambassador Richard Pakenham linking annexation to slavery was made public, anti-annexation sentiment exploded in the North and the bill failed to be ratified." I think all you need for the purposes of Jackson's article is that the treaty failed to be ratified.
The Calhoun thing is crucial. The Pakenham letter increased anti-annexation sentiment in the north by seeming to make the issue of Texas annexation all about slavery. As a result, Van Buren, a northerner, felt pressured into opposing annexation. Therefore, Jackson could not support him. Some historians actually think the whole thing was a ploy by Calhoun to deny his enemy Van Buren the nomination. If so, it worked. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "moved into" not sure what this is saying.
Changed to "decided to write." Display name 99 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "A bill of annexation was finally signed by Tyler on March 1, 1845, and then ratified.[263]" ratified?
I got the timeline messed up. It was passed in February and signed on March 1. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • You link Andrew Jackson Donelson in consecutive paragraphs*.
I can't find where. I link to him in the second-to-last paragraph of "Later life and death," but can't find where in either of the two adjacent paragraphs I link to him. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There's some question as to whether Jackson ever made the Clay/Calhoun comment, see here.
I'm not sure the source you cited is reliable. I did expand on this subject by including what Parton (and others) quote Jackson as saying on his deathbed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain where the Sellars quote ends. There's no cite after the quotation mark, and the next two sentences sound something like a quote.
I put a cite after the quotation mark. The rest is essentially a summary of Sellars' overall argument. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • On the money, I would cut the "Series" and the years. The design has appeared on more recent series of currency, I see it on a Series 2013 $20.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "criticise" Criticize.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the legacy section is fairly thin. The de Tocqueville quote is very long and I'm not sure what it says about Jackson's legacy. Beyond that, there's just a handful of quotes. Usually, president articles talk about, among other things, how they are ranked by historians.
Added a summary of what various 20th century writers say about him, and summarized more content from a Brands article already cited. Also, I moved a one-paragraph historiography of Jackson's Indian policies into this section from elsewhere in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1838, Jackson became a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Nashville.[274]" Given that the source I referred you to on Clay/Calhoun says Jackson was converted Presbyterianism by a clergyman, I wonder what was he for the first seventy years of his life?
I added a clarifying sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I'm hoping to have all of this responded to by the end of the weekend. In the meantime, here's what I've got. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Should only be a few things left. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thank you for your thorough review. I've responded to everything. If there are any potential areas of improvement remaining, please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Support Appears to meet the criteria. Nicely done on an important figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Support I have been a significant contributor here and with other POTUS FA’s and promotion is appropriate. Well done. Hoppyh (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Emir of Wikipedia

https://mcheathem.files. wordpress.com/2013/04/cheathem-aj-slavery-and-historians.pdf (no space) is now on the global blacklist. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Emir of Wikipedia, thank you for pointing that out. It looks like somebody just took care of it. Please feel free to share any other comments you may have. Display name 99 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I have skimmed through it and it looks great. Thorough comments have been provided above so I am not going to look for anything else, but I wish you good luck with the article and hope it gets promoted. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


@WP:FAC coordinators: Hello. I'm just wondering about approximately where we stand for getting this article promoted. This article has been under review for over a month and a half, and it's been 12 days since anyone has come here to comment on it. Of those who have posted, I believe I have addressed their concerns fairly. The article passed both image and source reviews, while 3 editors-albeit one a significant contributor-have expressed their support for the article. As far as the one editor who has not, I have addressed in part their concerns regarding the lack of diversity in citations by adding sources to scholarly biographies aside from one in particular, and have also implemented other recommended changes. The rest, I believe, results in honest difference of opinion. That same editor also notably declined to oppose the nomination. Basically, I just want to know where things stand. Thanks for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

ZETA (fusion reactor)

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am re-FACing this article. It stalled out after two supports about a month ago. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 27 November 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.

Sources review

  • Ref 27: Publisher?
It's a patent, I don't think it has a publisher, per se.
I tweaked that footnote to make the nature of the reference more clear. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 50: Needs ndash in page range, not hyphen
Looks like XOR did this edit.
  • Ref 109: Is the source here the book, in which case a page reference should be given? If the source is this online article, this should be clarified and the ISBN removed.
Good point, I have changed this to a web ref.
  • Ref 118: The source seems devoid of information that supports the text
The cite is connected to his win on the JCM for the the ballooning transformation and more broadly his work in fusion. The body mentions "played a major part in developing the "ballooning transformation" for toroidal plasmas".
  • Ref 121: I'm getting repeated timeouts here
I tried three times, once last night and twice this morning, with no problem. It's archive.org, I'm not sure it will ever be speedy, but I suspect your problem is because your local server hadn't accessed it recently and didn't have it cached. It might work fine now.
The original link timed out for me, so I changed it to the archive.org copy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Sources: The Hill book is wrongly titled.
I cut and pasted the title from the Google page, can you be more specific? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I made that fix here (somehow, "atomic" had become "nuclear"). XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Other than these points, sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've started addressing these points. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by IP

What's a "shot?" You use this in quotes three times. Use a real word, please. I think, from starting to read the article, some of the jargon is used incorrectly, shortened phrases that slightly change meaning, mixing up somewhat close technical words. I found the article tricky to read because of this. I started editing, but there's too much. I enjoy reading FAs. I would not read this. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2: I added an explanation of "shot". Can you be more specific on the others? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

I already reviewed this and the issues I raised have been fixed. Nice article. Support. --John (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment by XOR'easter

There are two redlinks, colliding beam fusion and ballooning transformation, which create a slight impression that the coverage is not comprehensive. The former is not so bad, because the name is rather self-explanatory, but the latter is awkward:

Taylor went on to study the ballooning transformation, solving a mystery found in high-performance toroidal machines.

This is the kind of vague sentence I'm used to seeing in forgettably sub-par science popularizations. Scientist solves mystery, film at 11. If this sentence could be reworked to be a little more specific about what the "ballooning transformation" is, that would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Support by Mike Christie

I supported this last time and am happy to do so again. Hawkeye7, you supported it last time so I hope you don't mind a ping. Maury, if this doesn't get promoted, ping me when you renominate it and I'll be glad to support it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

I reviewed this article last time and the issues I raised have been fixed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Has this had an image review? I see that the previous FAC had an image review. If the images are unchanged, I think that would suffice. Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

No additional images have been added since my image review in July last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes

Nominator(s): Cúchullain t/c 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the film and media franchise Planet of the Apes, which has included a number of historically significant films since the 1960s. I've substantially rewritten it over the course of 3 years using all of major sources I've been able to identify, most importantly the two book-length treatments. I believe it covers the topic comprehensively, without going into excessive detail on the individual installments, and at long last think the prose and content are FA caliber.Cúchullain t/c 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 69 - Rotten Tomatoes: the format here is different from what you show for 165, 167, 169 and others. Citations to the same source should be formatted consistently.
  • Fixed (I believe). This is a part of the article that I don't think needs to even exist, so I never paid it much attention. Let me know if I missed any.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 71: Same point, re Box Office Mojo – compare this with refs 158 to 162
  • Fixed - again, let me know if I missed anything.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 77: What makes this a reliable source?
  • We discussed it at WP:RSN here (the site in question used to named badassdigest.com). The consensus seemed to be that it was acceptable based on the author. However, it could be removed as it doesn't cover anything that isn't in the (much stronger) Linder and Fordham & Bond sources.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 83: Is the source /Film, as here, or SlashFilm, per ref 99?
  • Good question. No clue. I changed all references to /Film as that's where the Wikipedia article is located.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 86: Harvard error
  • Refs 92, 93 and others: Another inconsistency: until this point, with online sources, you have formatted both website and publisher. Here, and in several other cases, you show only the website. You need to be consistent - the publisher should always be shown.
  • Good catch. I added publisher for all the ones I found, but as usual, let me know if I missed something.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 110: unformatted url
  • Ref 111: dead link ("All Game is no more...")
  • Refs 116, 117 and 119 all seem to link to the wrong site
  • 117 was mislinked, but it looks like 116 and 119 are pointing to the right place (different IGN reviews).--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 122 shows a different title from the source - is this the correct link?
  • It seems to be the right article, but it looks like the title has changed. I updated it.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 132: What makes this a reliable source?
  • Discussions on WP:RSN seem to point to it being reliable for film criticism. Jim Emerson was the publisher of the site and a film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times.[21]--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 163: Dead, gives 404 message
  • Fixed. It didn't support the info anyway.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 166, 168, 170, 172 and 174 are all unformatted urls
  • I'd rather just delete this section, but in the meantime I've updated the references.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 178: lacks publisher and retrieval date
  • In your list of sources, you don't need to give retrieval dates for google links. The book itself is the source.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Brianboulton. I believe I've fixed all the issues you've identified.--Cúchullain t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

No idea why this has sat here for a month with no input. I don't have time to do a detailed review right now but hopefully will later in the week. Just from a quick look, the lead seems a little sparse for an article of this length, and you're misusing "between" in between 1970 and 1973 ("between" implies after 1970 but before 73; suggest replacing it with "from" and "to"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ Mitchell. I've changed "between" to "from". The intro is brief, but I never could think of anything else that the article covers that should be in the intro, but I'll of course incorporate anything else that's suggested.--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Point of information: "Between Year X and Year Y" is perfectly good English for circumstances where you want to indicate the inclusion of the named years and is, indeed, the prevailing usage for that meaning in American English. I wouldn't dare make a claim about what prevails in British English style, but it certainly appears in many UK-published texts, some of which, in fact, I've sub-edited (that's BE for "copyedited"). DocKino (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
You could expand on the themes in the third lead para eg The films are apocalyptic and dystopian, and portray the era's tensions...' Ceoil (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I've also been wanting to review this for a while, but I'm not familiar with the series beyond the first film and the most recent ones, so I wanted to wait until someone more familiar with the series had finished a review. Feel free to ping me when it happens, I don't think this nomination should be archived. I know a King Kong/Planet of the Apes crossover comic either exists or is in the works[22], perhaps worth a mention... FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Planet of the Apes/archive1 is ready for your attention, FunkMonk. DocKino (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Ha! I can add that to the comics section.--Cúchullain t/c 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've got time for a proper look through now:

  • However, Boulle rejected the science fiction label for his work "However" is frowned upon at FAC and is a widely misused word. I count nine uses of it here, which is certainly too many in ~6k words of prose. Normally such a strong contradiction isn't necessary and "but" or "though" or "nonetheless" works better.
  • Fox greenlit another film "Greenlit" is a bit informal and chatty for an encyclopaedia; maybe go with "approved" or "commissioned"?
  • Might be worth explaining "development hell" very briefly in the prose rather than relying on the link.
  • Notably, executive Dylan Sellers insisted Telling a reader that something is notable in Wikipedia's voice is arguably editorialising
  • received mixed reviews, with critics generally believing Using "with" to join two clauses like that is sloppy, though it's a very common prose flaw
  • release for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC in fall 2017 MOS:SEASON; also, as we're almost at the end of 2017, is there an update on this?

I'm only really looking at the prose, but I'm not fining a lot to criticise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Harry, I'll make those changes tomorrow. Got delayed by the holidays.--Cúchullain t/c 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
These are all done. "Howevers" are reduced to 1 or 2 uses.--Cúchullain t/c 17:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil

Read this through over x-mass, found it very well written. Minor commtents to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

While the article is excellent overall, and more than comprehensive on the various canonical spin offs, I think the thematic overview is lacking. In particular, I was looking to read more about how it built up its vision of a post nuclear holocaust, the films being overwhelmingly dystopian, and how that vision evolved over time. The current revision seems to skim over this unifying aspect, and would be fascinated to see more on this. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Note I am leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing, I can take another stab at it. I've been reviewing the sources I have, and while they discuss the themes pretty comprehensively, I'm not finding a lot that talk about the post-apocalyptic or dystopian aspects per se (as opposed, to, say, the Cold War theme). But I'll keep looking through my sources.--Cúchullain t/c 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Well anyway, its a Support from me - its a fine article, tightly written, with most of the important stuff covered. Well done indeed. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ceoil - I'm planning one addition from Green that touches on the apocalyptic presentation, probably not exactly what you had in mind, but hopefully will help. I'll add it shortly.--Cúchullain t/c 14:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • Please include ALT text for the image in the infobox. All of the images in the article actually need ALT text so please add these parts.
  • Good catch, I've added alt text to all the images.--Cúchullain t/c 22:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For the “La Planète des Singes” section, do you think that it would be better to use the image of the first edition of book, which is used in the article on the book itself). This is more of a stylistic preference so it is really up to you, but I am just curious on why you use an image of the first American edition rather than the first edition of the book overall.
  • Well, the image isn't free, it's fair use and only marked for use in the novel's article. Someone with more knowledge about fair use requirements will have to decide this one.
  • I'm a strong fair use advocate, but I believe you've made the right choice, Cúchullain. This is an article about the franchise and you've appropriately identified the franchise as American—that framework really does tip the scales toward the free US cover rather than the (yes, foundational) un-free French cover. For sure, in a free-for-all space, the original cover would be preferable. But given a choice of two at-least-good alternatives (and both of these are no less than good), we generally do side with the free. DocKino (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would put a short descriptive phrase in front of Xan Fielding to identify him for an uninformed reader.
  • I am not certain about the phrasing in this sentence (John Chambers created the innovative makeup effects.) Who considers the makeup “innovative”? I think so attribution here would be helpful to prevent potential POV issues.

  • The source calls them that, but I've removed it to avoid stating it in Wikipedia's voice.--Cúchullain t/c 22:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (In fall 1968 the producers hired), add a comma after “fall 1968”.
  • I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of Frederick S. Clarke.
  • Caesar is linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • I had him linked once in the first mention, and again in the section on Rise of the Planet of the Apes in case readers couldn't keep track of which one he was (which would be understandable). But this can be removed if it's not seen as helpful.--Cúchullain t/c 22:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • For the “War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)” subsection, I would suggest combining the second paragraph with the first as I do not see a reason for such a short (i.e. one sentence) paragraph.
  • Do you think that the “War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)” subsection could be expanded? It seems rather short compared to the other subsections.
  • Both of these are done, I've updated the material and expanded slightly to match the other entries.--Cúchullain t/c 22:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would update this sentence (Titled Planet of the Apes: Last Frontier, the game is set for release for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC in fall 2017.), as I think that the game has been released, at least according to the article on the game.
  • Could you possibly expand on these sentences (Several critics have written that the reboot films downplay the original series' subject matter of race, generally arguing that this is to their detriment. Others, however, write that the films incorporate racial in subtler ways.). It seems like a rather short paragraph, and it would be helpful to expand on these ideas if possible.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded it a bit, I hope it makes sense. I may polish the wording once it has a chance to settle in my brain a bit. Apologies for the delay in responding, I was working on that last edit for several days unsaved and wanted to get all of them in before responding. Thanks for your comments, Aoba47.--Cúchullain t/c 22:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your responses. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Support by DocKino

I'm conducting a thorough copyedit of the article, though frankly it's already in good shape prose-wise. In terms of substance, I've been able to efficiently resolve almost all of the very few issues I've come across. Here is one I couldn't:

  • In the "Planet of the Apes TV series" section, we read, "The episodes portray Virdon, Burke, and Galen as they look for answers, aid downtrodden humans and apes, and avoid the authorities." What is it "they look for answers to"? No mystery has been established in the preceding lines, so readers won't know how to interpret this phrase. Are they looking for answers, perhaps, to how apes became intelligent? To how they subjugated humans? To how they (Virdon and Burke) passed through a time warp? Or to something else entirely? If there are multiple primary mysteries, their addition may call for the current sentence to be broken into two. That's fine; the article is tight—there are no worries about length if something needs to expand a bit. DocKino (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I believe that's a holdover from a longer sentence that no longer makes sense. They're mainly looking for a way home, but there are a few mysteries that are covered (the show wasn't on very long by 70's standards). I've changed it to "search for a way home".--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Resolved. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And here's what I would view as a worthwhile addition:

  • I'd been thinking the War for the Planet of the Apes section felt a little cursory compared to the others. And then I noticed that, according to the metrics represented in the "Critical and public response" table at the bottom of the article, it's the best-reviewed movie in the entire history of the franchise. I believe that definitely merits a sentence in the narrative. DocKino (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find a secondary source that specifically says that. I wouldn't trust Rotten Tomatoes to compare it to the 1968 Planet, there will be many contemporary reviews that have been missed.--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed on Rotten Tomatoes. A search for a secondary source is it worth it, I think. I'll nose around as well. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Even if a good-quality source making the claim is not identified (I found this, but don't love it) . . . it may simply be too soon for a quality secondary source to have appeared . . . I still believe the article doesn't quite accurately capture at present the relative acclamation War has received. At the moment, the original "earned rave reviews", Dawn "was met with critical acclaim", while War gets only a, yes, positive but more muted list of things critics "praised". Again, given the evidence of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (as well as, anecdotally, what I can see of the intensity of praise it's gotten from leading reviewers such as Peter Travers (here) and A. O. Scott (here; indeed, Scott put it in his top 10 of the year), I think that balance needs to be restruck. DocKino (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I added a line saying it received widespread critical acclaim, which I think is fair considering what Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic say. I'm a bit reluctant to add much more speaking to critical consensus without a good source saying that. Unfortunately both War and Dawn are too recent to have been covered in the book-length sources, but I fully expect them to be at some point.--Cúchullain t/c 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Gave it a tweak for variation in the prose. Resolved. DocKino (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

More:

  • The section on the original film, Planet of the Apes (1968), states it "br[oke] contemporary box office records." I checked a hard-copy source readily at hand, which shows that it was the seventh-biggest box office earner in the North American market in 1968, That's (a) a lot more informative than than the very general "breaking contemporary box office records." My source is old. You should find a recent one you're comfortable with and include the datum. Also (b) it raises the question, What box office records did it break? Perhaps it was the highest-earning science-fiction film to date? If so, that specific information should definitely be added—along with the fact that this record (if it was a record) was soon shattered by 2001: A Space Odyssey, which opened just two months later. DocKino (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I've expanded this wording based on the two main sources.--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Resolved. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The Battle for the Planet of the Apes (1973) section states that the film "received poor reviews from critics, who regard it as the weakest of the five films". As I was considering editing that to "...the weakest of the five films in the original series" for specificity, it occurred to me that it would be more informative in the long view (given the metrics in the "Critical and public response" table) to go with "...the weakest film in the entire history of the franchise." What do you think? DocKino (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, the quoted book predates the reboot movies, so I don't know if we can use it for that. It's definitely true that it's virtually always ranked at the bottom in modern sources that rank the films, but I haven't come across a source that speaks to a critical consensus about its place across the entire film series.--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. Resolved. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Comics" section mentions a Malibu comic: the "Planet prequel Planet of the Apes: Sins of the Fathers". The immediately preceding sentence lists three different comic series whose titles begin with Planet. My best guess is that what you meant to indicate is that this one-shot comic was conceived as a prequel to the original Planet of the Apes film. But I shouldn't have to guess and our readers definitely shouldn't have to. Please spell out what Sins of the Fathers is a prequel to; I'll be happy to provide any warranted copyediting once you've done so. DocKino (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I've hopefully made it clear.--Cúchullain t/c 16:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't see an edit from you at the relevant point, so I've proposed one. See if that works. DocKino (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, guess it didn't save. I made a minor adjustment to your edit.--Cúchullain t/c 16:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Resolved. DocKino (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Multiple budget discrepancies to address:
(i) Beneath: narrative—$3.4 million; "Box office performance" table—$4.67 million
(ii) Escape: narrative—$2.5 million; "Box office performance" table—$2.06 million
(iii) Battle: narrative—$1.2 million; "Box office performance" table—$1.71 million
(iv) Dawn: narrative—$170 million; "Box office performance" table—$235 million (a difference of $65 million, almost real money...) DocKino (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
I hate that damn table. The numbers weren't backed up by the source given, it serious looks like someone just made them up. I've corrected it now.--Cúchullain t/c 16:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Resolved. DocKino (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyedit complete. All substantive queries resolved. Very happy to support this fine media franchise article. DocKino (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Image review - since this already has three supports, here's an image review. The sourcing and licensing looks fine for most of the images, but this one seems to have a somewhat iffy rationale for why it's PD:[23] I have brought it up on Commons:[24] FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: HJ Mitchell do you have anything further to add here? If not, this may be good to go. Sarastro (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Support pending spotcheck of sources -- recusing coord duties, as a bit of a fan of the franchise (initially through TV screenings, not quite old enough to have seen the original series at the movies!) I wanted to catch this before it closed...

  • Prose-wise, most of the heavy lifting seems to have been done earlier so my habitual copyedit was fairly minor, but of course let me know if you disagree with anything.
  • Re. structure and comprehensiveness, I found this a mercifully succinct and logical presentation of the franchise history in its many incarnations, but the key points I'd expect to find are there, so well done.
  • I'll take Brian's source review as read, and having walked through the image licenses myself I don't have anything to add to FunkMonk's review.
  • One action I'd ask of you is to check the duplicate links and see if they're all necessary -- this script highlights the instances.
  • Although none of the claims in the article struck me as suspect based on my knowledge of the franchise, I'd like to do a quick spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing before we close...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex Owumi

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

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

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

Brief general comment

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

  • Although I haven't carried out a detailed review, I found the prose in places problematic: rather choppy, not flowing well, and with some slightly odd formulations, e.g. "His parents and siblings were chiefs of his village, located just outside Lagos, and he was a prince"; "Owumi joined Monroe Community College in Rochester, New York, driven there by head coach Jerry Burns..." – "driven" in what sense? You sometimes adopt sports journalese, for example when you say he "grabbed" eight rebounds, or confuse readers with sentences such as "The team eventually defeated the Quebec Kebs, behind 13 points and five rebounds..." – what does "behind" indicate here? There are various ambiguities in the prose, and a tendency to overuse cliché phrases such as "due to". I've quoted just a few examples of prose issues; what I feel the article needs is a very thorough copyedit, bearing in mind that the FA criteria require the prose to be of a professional standard.
  • There are other issues relating to sources, which I will raise in a separate review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: True, the choppy prose has been an issue in my previous basketball biographies that were promoted to FA as well. Would you suggest anyone to help copyedit the article? And about the sources, I assume one of your concerns is that I rely on Owumi's book for a lot of information. Would that raise any problems? TempleM (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest you leave a request for a copyedit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. You could also enquire among editors who've worked on previous basketball biographies. The extent to which you've used Owumi's book as a source could be one of the concerns I'll raise when I do a sources review in a day or two, but I haven't looked at this issue yet. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: Will you look into this anytime soon? By the way, my copy edit request has been accepted and the article is being copy edited. TempleM (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Copy editing has been completed. Would appreciate a second look. TempleM (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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

  • The bit about him being a prince is fascinating, and I wonder if more can be said about it. Maybe adding some detail would help fix the prose issue that Brian mentioned above.
  • The "driven there by head coach Jerry Burns and his staff" part is confusing to read, for the same reason Brian mentioned. It's unclear whether it means that they physically drove him there, or if they just pushed for him to enroll. Unfortunately, I can't really fix this one since it's sourced to the book.
  • Speaking of the book, I highly recommend that you add page numbers to your book cites, since Brian will ask for them anyway. Might as well get it out of the way now. The book is heavily used with almost 40 cites to it, but I haven't analyzed its usage too much, as I figure Brian will do so in his source review.
  • I won't do a full source review as one has already been promised, but you should go ahead and replace the Daily Express (ref 61) now, as that is a highly unreliable source. It's considered even less reliable than the Daily Mail, which had its usage strongly discouraged in an RFC earlier this year.
  • As for the writing, the main issue I see later in the article is proseline. There are a ton of sentences that start "In XXXX" or similar, and a bunch starting with "He". More than anything else, fixing a bunch of these sentences will make the prose seem more professional. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: I have added more information about him being a prince and I have fixed the Jerry Burns part. I have also deleted the sentences that cite the Daily Express, as they are not overly significant. By the way, you can see a large majority of the book online so that you can check for accuracy. For the writing, would you be able to fix those sentences or do you want someone else to do that? And how exactly do you cite page numbers to the book citations? Do I add all the page numbers on the original citation? TempleM (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • All right, I've finished running through the article. I'm not the world's greatest copy-editor, but managed to clean up some of the issues affecting the article. I fixed a few of the sentence beginnings, but not all of them; just moving words around does more good than one might think. While editing, I became confused by the second sentence cited to ref 81. Is this a reader review? If so, I can't see a scenario where it would be significant enough to include, not to mention that the source wouldn't be considered sufficiently high-quality to use in this context. If there are no reviews from reliable sources available, don't feel compelled to use a weak source; in that case, just mentioning that he wrote the book would be good enough. As for the book cites, the typical method is to place the full book cite in its own section (Bibliography and Sources are usual section titles), and use short cites in-text. One common format for this is Author last name(s) (year), p. xx. (pp. for multi-page cites). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: I have deleted the sentence you brought up about the book review because it wasn't very high-quality. I have also added citations with page numbers for the book. TempleM (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Hoping to provide comments for this later today. ceranthor 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "Originally from Lagos, Owumi moved to Boston, Massachusetts as a child. He played football and basketball from an early age and at college level." - missing a "the" before college
  • "Owumi played his final two seasons at Alcorn State." - since Alcorn State isn't well known, I'd add "in in Lorman, Mississippi"
  • "He moved to France and played his rookie season with fr:AL Roche-la-Molière where he was named most valuable player of the league." - Can you re-format to hide that it's a French wiki article? Or just remove the link?
  • "After a brief spell in the Premier Basketball League (PBL) with the Manchester Millrats, " - Should probably clarify what this is
  • "After a brief spell in the Premier Basketball League (PBL) with the Manchester Millrats, he signed with KK Lirija in Macedonia. He left the team at the end of the season" - when did all this take place timewise?
  • "He then moved to England and began playing in the British Basketball League (BBL) joining the Worcester Wolves, with whom he won a league title, the London Lions, and then the Surrey Scorchers." - the "with whom..." bit might be better as a parenthetical
  • "As an author, he has written three books, including an autobiography focusing on his time in Libya." - as an author is redundant
  • "He shot hoops" - seems a bit informal
  • "They then settled in Boston after his father joined the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.[10]" - in what capacity? faculty?
  • "A two-star recruit," - which means what?
  • "However, Owumi was unable to attract enough interest from the team, which drafted J. R. Giddens instead." - why instead? why couldn't they have drafted both? please clarify
  • " Premier Basketball League (PBL) for the preseason.[47] " - clarify what it is here too
  • "After then considering a path into the NBA Development League," - same note as above
  • "Owumi signed with the French club fr:AL Roche-la-MolièreMolière of the Nationale Masculine 1 (NM1) for the 2009–10 season,[45][49][50] " - formatting errors
  • "During the season, he was benched without pay for a number of games for missing practice.[52]" - any knowledge of why he missed?
  • "In the fall of 2010, he tried out for the Georgia Gwizzlies of the American Basketball Association (ABA), but did not have a future with the team.[45]" - any idea why not? super vague
  • "in the top Libyan league, and arrived in the country.[61] " - last bit is clunky; reword
  • "He also saw people, including his teammates, gathering ammunition and weapons to prepare for the revolution.[66]" - clarify what you mean with 'the revolution'
  • ' he wrote his autobiography Qaddafi's Point Guard: The Incredible Story of a Professional Basketball Player Trapped in Libya's Civil War with Daniel Paisner, a New York Times bestselling author who had written for Whoopi Goldberg and Denzel Washington[61][115] [72]" - punctuation?

These are my notes from a first pass. Sorry for the delay! This article, while well-written, doesn't seem quite ready for FA yet, imo. ceranthor 04:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

  • @Ceranthor: I have addressed the issues you brought up. Only exception is with the Georgia Gwizzlies part, because there is no additional information available about his time with that team. "Two-star recruit" indicates how highly a player was rated by recruiting websites, so I do not feel like that needs editing. TempleM (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
TempleM, hoping to read through again today. ceranthor 14:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • With regard to the star comment I made previously, it might be worthwhile to clarify what exactly a two-star recruit indicates
  • "Originally from Lagos," - I know it's obvious, but probably worth adding "from Lagos, Nigeria"
  • " National Junior College Athletic Association" - needs a WP:NBSP
  • "He moved to France and played his rookie season with fr:AL Roche-la-Molière where he was named most valuable player of the league." - needs a transition at the start; shifts too abruptly from previous sentence
  • "He then moved to England and began playing in the British Basketball League (BBL) joining the Worcester Wolves" - either need a comma after (BBL) or should add an "and" before joining
  • "Owumi has written three books, including an autobiography focusing on his time in Libya." - At least worth mentioning the title of the autobiography, if not all three
  • "The two first met while attending college in the Boston area. " - first is redundant
  • " because of the success of National Basketball Association " - needs a WP:NBSP
  • "Owumi often followed the NBA" - don't think you need "often" here
  • "In sixth grade, he enrolled at the local Tobin School.[11] " - it's obvious from context, but I'd use Owumi here instead of "he"
  • " Owumi was also a part of the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) basketball team, Boston Amateur Athletic Club" - any idea when (which years)?
  • "Encouraged by their fairly successful basketball program and facilities, Owumi began attending the Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) for his next year." - the next year, not "his"
  • "when he posted 15 points and six rebounds against the Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils." - Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils needs a WP:NBSP
  • "After then considering a path into the NBA Development League, " - after then reads awkwardly
  • " instead attending the Cannes Film Festival.[52]" - Cannes Film Festival needs an NBSP
  • "He played 22 games with Manchester, averaging 14.9 points" - "Owumi" instead of "he" here better I think
  • Note throughout: references in a row like [10][67] should go in ascending order instead of [67][10]
  • Sherrad Prezzie-Blue needs a NBSP
  • James said, "[Owumi] distributes the ball well and will give us multiple options both on offense and defense." - formatting here needs to be fixed; it skips a line for me
  • 34 points needs an NBSP
  • 1.2 steals needs an NBSP
  • two rebounds - NBSP
  • 1.1 steals per game. - NBSP
  • "along with five steals" - NBSP
  • "In September 2016, Owumi wrote the fictional, thriller The Fire Raven: Volume 1 about a female assassin trying to discover her past" - why the comma after fictional?

This looks like it's in decent shape. ceranthor 19:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ceranthor I fixed most of these, but I'm not sure how to do the NBSP (could you give an example?). TempleM (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No worries. I can provide a sample in a bit! ceranthor 15:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Just went through and fixed them. You can see what I did (nowrap and NBSPs) from this diff. Otherwise, I support on the prose. ceranthor 16:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Featured article review (FAR)

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

Palpatine

Notified: WikiProject Star Wars

I am nominating this featured article for review because... many people have edited over a period of time that may have deteriorated the quality of the article, that is why I believe that this article should be reassessed.

Hi Eltomas, can you clarify which of the FA criteria you feel are not met, and could you please notify relevant WikiProjects and editors? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well it feels like it's poorly written and doesn't really have that much detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltomas2003 (talkcontribs) 17:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to co-opt the FAR or anything, but I've also got my concerns about the article. I've brought this up on the Star War WikiProject before, but off-the-bat two(-ish) of my main concerns as far as FA goes:
  • It's not comprehensive. I don't seriously expect an article on a character as widely-appearing as Palpatine to list in detail his every appearance in tie-in media. However, the only video game mentioned is the just released Battlefront II; it would surprise me if this was Palpatine's only notable appearance in the medium. The article's Legends "literature" section hasn't really changed that much since 2006, which while obviously not inherently a problem, leaves me wondering if any gaps have emerged. More importantly, I find the "In popular culture" section pretty shallow. Now, for its contents, that should probably be renamed "Cultural impact" -- but that's simple to change. My more drastic concerns: currently the article simply mentions two instances of Palpatine being referenced in politics, and one FOX editorial briefly mentioning the comparisons he's been involved with. Fine enough, but the lead is arguing that Palpatine's "become a widely recognized popular culture symbol of evil, sinister deception, dictatorship, tyranny, and the subversion of democracy". Has the article proved so? There's also a minor dab of analysis in there two about dualism, but it's really not built on or supported with talks from other sources, so it really just ends up highlighting a gap. I understand that some of historical comparisons are discussed and mentioned in the Characteristics section, but I really feel there should be more to talk about here. Palpatine is not an obscure figure, and I expect more to back up his status as an American icon, etc.
  • It's poorly structured and kind of unfocused. More minor, it's sectioned kind of weirdly: Rebels and The Clone Wars have their own subsections, while the "Prequel trilogy" is pretty sprawling. The infobox is so dense with different portrayals that it's not really useful as an infobox. (I'd be open to limiting it to just McDiarmid and maybe Eaton/Revill, but there are others that could be worth including.) More importantly, I wonder if we really need to give Palpatine's appearance in Tartakovsky's Clone Wars such depth. A TV miniseries is probably more in the public eye than a lot of Star Wars books, but we don't really need to recap it completely and currently it's got an image drawing attention to it -- a fair use image that I'm concerned isn't properly justified.
I haven't really thoroughly combed through the article, but my gut instinct is that it probably doesn't really deserve its FA status by current standards. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Millionth One: I think I agree that it needs some work. I think given that concerns have been raised in the past we will let the FAR process proceed. I can see the Character creation section needs some inline cites and possibly some expansion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • A lot of paragraphs seem to end without citations, maybe it is ok for summaries of various media, but other sections also lack them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cortana (Halo)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it falls considerably short of FA standards, and personally I wouldn't pass it through GA in its current condition. I raised issue regarding it at WikiProject Video games and the two people who replied there both expressed concerns about the article. The original FA nominator, David Fuchs, has also been made aware of the listing via a discussion on the article's talk page. A commentator at Project video games raised concerns was about the plot length. I think the article has too many fictional in-universe details. For example, why do we need to know that Master Chief wears 'MJOLNIR battle armor', and what does MJOLNIR even mean? There's a lot of details about Cortana's appearance in the first novel; why aren't subsequent appearances given the same level of detail? Cortana appears to play a minor role in Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, but this isn't mentioned at all. There's a lot of literature set in the Halo universe, and I'm not convinced this article summarises all her appearances in them adequately. In the 'Character design' there's very little on the characters initial design. Several things are introduced in the article without any background information; her voice actress appears out of nowhere (how did she land the job?). What is '343 Industries'? Who are the Forerunners? I'm most concerned about the reception section though. It begins with the characters reception from the third game, rather than initial reception, and there's no coverage of the character from academic sources/journals even though plenty of these sources exist. There's an embarrassing quote farm with poor prose that focuses heavily on the character's sex appeal (Examples: "Part of Cortana's appeal has lain in her good looks ... [she is] the sixth most "disturbingly sexual game character"). There are several sources that fall considerably short of a 'high-quality' standard. There's a fair amount of inconsistency in reference formatting and even several bare URLs and a couple unreferenced sentences. The article was passed in 2008 when I can only presume standards were lower; I'd argue by today's standards it fails on FA criteria 1a, 1b and 1c. Freikorp (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how to square your concerns about plot length when you're asking for more descriptions of minor appearances. As for your comments about coverage and references, perhaps you could link these plentiful sources? Otherwise the comment is less than helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I mentioned somebody else had concerns about plot length just to give an indication on what others have said; my concerns about under-detail are entirely confined to the 'In other media' section.
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's technically nude appearance: [25]
  • This academic source comments on both Master Chief and Cortana's lack of sexuality: [26]
  • This one comments on Cortana's dialogue and emotional support: [27]
  • This thesis gives a very brief comment on her body type in comparison to other female video game characters [28]
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's personality, dialogue and flirtation with Master Chief: [29]
  • This thesis talks about Cortana's physical appearance and her relationship with Master Chief: [30]
  • This thesis questions why Cortana's appearance is sexualised and comments on the gender stereotyping between Cortana and Master Chief. It cites Cortana as an example of a character "drawn and designed to appeal to heteronormative standards of beauty, even when it does not make sense within the context of the game ... as a computer program Cortana could have taken any form but the game elected to make her adhere to the heteronormative ideal of an attractive, shapely woman. The interviews suggest this may be because of the lack of female representation behind the scenes and the lack of support and encouragement for women to join in the industry." [31]
  • Here's an interesting source about Cortana's nudity: [32] Anita Sarkeesian cites the source and the issue in one of her articles: [33]. Here's another quote from Sarkeesian about Cortana: [34]
I'm sure you can find more. If you don't have access to any of those sources I can email them to you. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll look a bit more into the authors, but none of those theses strike me as reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Hurricane Mitch

Notified: Hurricanehink, Titoxd, WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest, and as such most heavily decayed and neglected FAs of the Tropical Cyclone project. This one has been a contendor under discussion by the project for years now – it's time to finally cut the knot. The article simply does not reflect the mounts of literature and data available, while much of the information it does contain is unverifiable, as mentioned by SandyGeorgia back in 2015. More specific subsections that need attention:

  • Lead - A bit sparse for the deadliest modern hurricane ever. Should more adequately reflect the severity and destruction of the storm.
  • Preparations - This section does not properly cover the scope of this storm; a Category 5 stalling and approaching Central America is bound to create more upheaval and media attention than is currently reflected. Moreover, a bit of discussion and context would be helpful: If there were preparations and evacuations, why the high number of deaths, still? Did local authorities fail to anticipate the unprecedented severity of this storm or did residents not heed the warnings? I am sure there have been studies on this.
  • Impact - The only country that has been covered reasonably well is Honduras, and that one has a subarticle. There are no Spanish language sources for a predominantly Latin American phenomenon, nor are there links to journal articles or important books on the storm.
  • Aftermath - Same as above. No mention of the homeless, no real context given to the scope of the devastation, no sense of global response sketched, and the discussion of the recovery phase is lacking. A quick search on Google Scholar reveals a plethora of journal articles mentioning its effects on numerous areas, from ecology to psychology, while a scan of Google Books gives numerous high-quality, important accounts of the storm, its impact, and its implications.

Overall, then, my biggest issues are with 1 b. comprehensive and 1 c. well-researched, due to the omission of crucial book, journal and Spanish-language sources and insufficient verifiability of the sources currently used. Auree 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section focused on coverage, both in terms of content and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Houston

Notified: Example user, WikiProject Houston, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Texas

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

  • There are statements failing verification from citations. Please see section on History, and section on Crime, as two examples.
  • There is much outdated material. Some material could be replaced with new data; other material should be retained and supplemented with new data. Another editor placed a request to update the Transportation section in 2016, but there has been little change since last year.
  • There is unsourced material in the History section.
  • {{{1}}}The History section is not comprehensive. There is a main article History of Houston, but this has been largely unsourced for years. I recommend as a part of improving the Houston article to improve its context within Wikipedia relative to several important Houston-related articles. This would allow the main article to be comprehensive, but offering greater detail indirectly through links to related articles.
  • Some parts of the article have become a Christmas tree, with Houston's appearance on various rankings. Could these be updated or culled? Some segments reads like spare parts thrown together. Sometimes people just have a little factoid to post, and that is their contribution. Editing these segments to better unify the narrative would help.

These are several categories of issues with the Houston article, and this I compiled from a fairly cursory reading. As I continue to check citations, this list could grow.

However, I hope this is not too negative. There must have been a great effort and good work by many various editors to bring this article to FA back in 2007. This is more than ten years later and it appears that the article needs a comprehensive effort. For those Houstonians who are are still cleaning up after Harvey, or helping others doing the same, there could be nothing more important. But not everyone interested in improving the Houston article currently lives in the region. Thank you for reading, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Total area and land area The citation from 2009 cites a land area of a bit over 599 miles while the text reads 667 miles, which is given elsewhere as the total area.

  • Has the total area and land area increased since 2009?
  • What is the correct source for these figures?
  • Geography nerds: what is the correct denominator for population density: land area or total area? (Since people don't usually live on the water.)

In any case, the article and the citation disagree.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead section has old links Some citations link to articles from 2010, 2011, and 2012. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Land purchase, founding of Houston A statement in the History section is incorrect:

  • The sale of land from the Parrotts to the Allens did not occur on August 30. It was August 26, 1836
  • August 30, 1836 is the date that the Allen brothers first advertised their land scheme.
  • The Parrotts did not sell 1.5 leagues (6,642 acres) to the Allens. They sold a half league (2,214 acres).
  • The Parrotts did not sell land to the Allens in consideration of over $9,000. They sold it for $5,000.
  • Two days prior, on August 24, 1836, the Allens did buy one league (4,428 acres) for $4,428 from the estate of John Austin's brother. There is no indication that the Allens had plans for developing this land. This is difficult to source (original research) because this ended up being a convoluted transaction, and many writers try to simplify the story by combining the two transactions. Sometimes writers combined the two transactions incorrectly.

Second, when Houstonians claim that the city was founded August 30, 1836, the significance of this date is the famous advertisement that the Allen placed. For some reason, people attempt to attach other events to this date.

Sports: claim fails verification "It is the only MLB team to have won pennants in both modern leagues." The Astros just won their first AL pennant last month, but the sentence is followed by a citation to a web site last retrieved in 2013. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: area Perhaps there is are editors who have already vetted these numbers and who are still on Wikipedia. I know it is tempting for other editors to change one of the numbers in a way that renders the other number correct. Confession: A few years ago, I think I changed a total population number without changing the density number, for example. I apologize to those who were trying to keep the page in good order. In any case, these current numbers are inconsistent:

Area

• City      667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 599.6 elsewhere.)
• Land   639.1 sq mi (1,642.1 km2)
• Water 667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 27-ish elsewhere.)
• Metro 10,062 sq mi (26,060 km2)

Once these correct numbers are reintroduced, I would agree to monitor them for unhelpful edits. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Geography statement fails verification
Houston#Geography:

"The Piney Woods are north of Houston. Most of Houston is located on the gulf coastal plain, and its vegetation is classified as temperate grassland and forest. Much of the city was built on forested land, marshes, swamp, or prairie which resembles the Deep South, and are all still visible in surrounding areas. The flatness of the local terrain, when combined with urban sprawl, has made flooding a recurring problem for the city."

Here is the archived link from the citation.

If I have read this correctly, this links to dry paper on the modeling of measurement of storm events, without any characterization of regional features or analysis of flooding. I agree with some of the statements, but this is not what the linked source talks about.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get some more opinions on the state of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Blyth, Northumberland

Notified: Dbam, WikiProject United Kingdom

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the demographics and education sections need updating. Some unreferenced additions noted. Not too much work but not none either, and enough to warrant a formal review. I placed a request months ago with no response. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

No action - issues remain outstanding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I removed the {{update}} tag from the Demographics section. The tag states "...section needs to be updated..." (emphasis not added) as if a new census means the article content is incorrect. It is totally valid to say "...at the 2001 UK census it had a population of 35,818...", just like that section states the populations for the year 1981. It would be nice if the article stated the most current census and it certainly should in order to meet the "comprehensive" FA criteria but the tag was not placed correctly. —maclean (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    Delist. The article was promoted in 2007, and it is showing its age. There is discussion of a proposed power station which "which would open in 2014" and a 2007 comment by a councillor criticising a development project. As pointed out above, the demography and education sections are out of date - they are also partly unreferenced. There is a "not in citation" at the start of the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Summer of '42

Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject United States

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it poses major problems primarily with regard to citation, sources, coverage, and prose which is far from the professional writing standard expected of FAs. The plot section—which has 914 words—is well over the 700 word required per WP:FILMPLOT, and isn't exactly well-written as there are some excessive scene-by-scene breakdowns, especially the opening paragraph. (Who in the world begins a plot summary with 'The film opens'?). The reception section is rather underdeveloped since it includes not a single review from critics (not even a report from Rotten Tomatoes!) which could back its claim of a "critically-acclaimed" production, and its theatrical run is not adequately reported. Finally, the sequels, soundtrack, and cultural impact sections have some unsourced statements, and two coverage are missing: a theme/analysis section, given the film's intriguing subject matter, and a home media section for its VHS, DVD, Blu-ray releases. I don't find this article's FA status particularly appetizing for these reasons and it's really unfortunate. Slightlymad 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Well, someone kindly added a Rotten Tomatoes review. Still needs trimming of plot and buffing of reception section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Mount Tambora

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

Review section

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

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

FARC section

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=821403244"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured article candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA