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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Ramandu's daughter

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The above article is about a fictional character in The Chronicles of Narnia series of juvenile fantasy novels by the British novelist C. S. Lewis. Introduced in the author's 1952 book The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, she marries Prince Caspian and becomes the queen of Narnia. In the 1953 novel The Silver Chair, the Lady of the Green Kirtle, in the form of a snake, kills her though she later reappears in the 1956 book The Last Battle.

The character appears in several adaptations of the book series, the British television serial The Chronicles of Narnia, portrayed by the English actress Gabrielle Anwar, and The Chronicles of Narnia film series, where Australian actress Laura Brent plays the role. Ramandu's daughter was the subject of literary analysis by various scholars, with her goodness and her marriage and sexual relationship with Caspian receiving attention. The character has been associated with various Christian virtues and figures, including Eve before the fall of man.

I believe that the article meets all of the requirements for a featured article. It has passed a good article review and been copy-edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions or comments as always. I hope that everyone has a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Eric Corbett

  • I'm curious as to why you introduce Michael Ward as "British scholar", Peter J. Schakel as "British literature Professor" (should be "professor" anyway), and Colin Duriez as "British writer". What has their nationality got to do with their opinions? Also, I very much doubt whether Lewis would describe himself as a British author rather than an English one; Britain and England are not synonymous. Why is it significant that Gabrielle Anwar is an English actress (not a British one I note)? Is Devin Brown a professor of English or merely English? Why is it significant that Laura Brent is Australian?
  • "Academics believed that Lewis characterized Ramandu’s daughter through her goodness." So they no longer believe that?
  • "... the character's respect towards Aslan defines her goodness." Do you mean "respect for ..."?
  • "She noted how the character's maternal care for Rilian ..." She noted how, or she noted that?
  • Overall I found this rather an uncomfortable read, and I think it's going to need quite a bit of polishing before it's ready for promotion. Eric Corbett 00:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): LeGabrie (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Medieval Nubian kingdom of Alodia, which lasted from the sixth century to c. 1500. The article covers what is known about its history, geography, government and culture. LeGabrie (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

  • Is this your first FAC? You have some serious work to do on your notes & references. Fix as many as you can; ask if you don't know what to do.
  • Zarroug 1991, p. 7-8. P/PP error? p. 7-8.; Hyphen in pg. range;


  • O'Fahey & Spaulding, p. 19. Harv error: link from CITEREFO'FaheySpaulding doesn't point to any citation.


  • Abu Manga 2009, p. 377. Harv error: link from CITEREFAbu_Manga2009 doesn't point to any citation.


  • O'Fahey & Spaulding, p. 31. Harv error: link from CITEREFO'FaheySpaulding doesn't point to any citation.


  • MacMichael 1922, p. 183. Harv error: link from CITEREFMacMichael1922 doesn't point to any citation.


  • Zarroug 1991, p. 77-79. P/PP error? p. 77-79.; Hyphen in pg. range;


  • Welsby & Daniels, p. 334. Harv error: link from CITEREFWelsbyDaniels doesn't point to any citation.


  • Welsby 1991, p. 307. Harv error: link from CITEREFWelsby1991 doesn't point to any citation.


  • Welsby 1991, p. 159. Harv error: link from CITEREFWelsby1991 doesn't point to any citation.


  • Danys & Zielinska, p. 183. Harv error: link from CITEREFDanysZielinska doesn't point to any citation.


  • Drzewicki 2016, p. 16. Harv error: link from CITEREFDrzewicki2016 doesn't point to any citation.


  • Drzewicki 2016, p. 8. Harv error: link from CITEREFDrzewicki2016 doesn't point to any citation.


  • Drzewicki 2016, p. 47. Harv error: link from CITEREFDrzewicki2016 doesn't point to any citation.


  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAbu-Manga2009. Sort error, expected: Abir1980; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?


  • Abir, Mordechai (1980). Sort error, expected: Abu-Manga2009;


  • Crawford, O. G. S. (1951). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;


  • Danys, Katarzyna; Zielinska, Dobrochna (2017). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);


  • Drzewiecki, Mariusz (2016). Caution: Missing ref= anchor?;


  • Edwards, David (2001). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;


  • Gonzalez-Ruibal, Alfredo; Falquina, Alvaro (2017). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);


  • (in German) Grajetzki, Wolfram (2009). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;


  • Hasan, Yusuf Fadl (1967). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;


  • Hatke, G. (2013). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;


  • Jakobielski, Stefan (2013). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;


  • Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMachMichael1922. Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;


  • Mohamed, Abdelrahman Ali; Bakhiet, Fawzi Hassan; Salih, Muawla Mohamed (2014). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Online source. Probably needs to be referenced differently?

  • Obluski, Artur (2014). Sort error, expected:


  • O'FaheySpaulding1974; Missing Publisher; [I'm not sure this sort error is a valid one...]

Nope, it isn't. Publisher has just a funky name.

  • Obluski, Artur (2017). "Alwa". Sort error, expected: Obluski2014; Missing ISBN;

Fixed, I think?

  • Penn, A.E.D. (1934). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;


  • Power, Tim (2008). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;


  • Spaulding, Jay (1974). Sort error, expected: Shinnie1961; Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;


  • Shinnie, P. (1961). Excavations at Soba. Sudan Antiquities Service. Sort error, expected: Spaulding2007; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;


  • Taha, A. Taha (2012). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;


  • (in German) Török, Laszlo (1974). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;


  • Tsakos, Alexandros (2011). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Missing archive link;


  • Tsakos, Alexandros (2016). Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;

Source is a blog. Probably needs to be referenced differently?

  • Tsakos, Alexandros; Kleinitz, Cornelia (forthcoming). Check date values in: |date= (help) Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Missing Year/Date;

Forthcoming book. Probably needs to be referenced differently?

  • Vantini, Giovanni (1975). Missing ISBN;

Tried to find the ISBN, but didn't succeed. Maybe it doesn't even have one?

  • Welsby, Derek; Daniels, C.M. (1991). Soba. Archaeological Research at a Medieval Capital on the Blue Nile. The British Institute in Eastern Africa. ISBN 1872566022. Sort error, expected: Welsby1998;


  • Welsby, Derek (1998). Sort error, expected: Welsby2002;


  • Welsby, Derek (2002). Sort error, expected: WelsbyDaniels1991; Warning: Unexpected result – extra formatting in template? Missing ISBN;


@User:Lingzhi Yes, this is my first FA-nomination, though I had two GA-nominations around a month ago. I fixed most stuff, but I need some help with these archive links, identifiers and proper reference of online sources. LeGabrie (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I fixed two for you: "sort error, Abir goes before Abu-Manga" and "rm unexpected formatting". I think your sorting order is correct in one instance: Oblung does come before O'Fahey, and I need to tweak the script. There are other sort errors lower down the list though, and still several other errors. One error that may seem strange: Power, Tim (2008)." Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;".. this error is because you are using {{cite book}} when you should have used {{cite journal}} instead, so the script thinks it is a book that needs a publisher and an ISBN. Plus you're missing a lot of info: Power, Tim (2008). The Origin and Development of the Sudanese Ports (‘Aydhâb, Bâ/di‘, Sawâkin) in the early Islamic Period. Chroniques yéménites |volume=15 URL : ; DOI : 10.4000/cy.1685 |pages=92-110. And so on. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi Fixed Power and put Welsby&Daniels in correct order. What errors are left which need to be fixed? LeGabrie (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
You can, for example, go to worldcat and very often you'll find isbn, oclc or issn info. Other quite useful tools include IABot's Analyze a page for archiving links, User:Citation bot/use, and User talk:GregU/dashes.js for hyphens in your page ranges. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Lingzhi Added the OCLC numbers and archiving links. LeGabrie (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

() Did you add those archive links by hand? I'm sorry I didn't explain there's a little checkbox labeled "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)". Check that & the bot will add whatever it can. I fixed another sort error and let a script fix your hyphens in pg range for you... Well you're missing some publishers. "The rise of Nobadia : social changes in Northern Nubia in late Antiquity" forex is jointly published by 3 or 4 organizations, but WorldCat just grabbed the first one, which is good enough for me: |location=Warsaw, Poland|publisher=University of Warsaw Faculty of Law and Administration, Chair of Roman Law and the Law of Antiquity. And so on, there are more erros or warnings. And if you want to know how I saw all these errors, read User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck carefully. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Antiochus X Eusebes

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Many ambiguous characters appeared during history, and I think that king Antiochus X is one of the most intriguing ones. All we have of him are few coins and short passages in the works of ancient historians; the earliest is the Jewish historian Josephus who lived a 150 years after Antiochus X. Yet, the works of modern historians, linguists and numismatists have greatly expanded our knowledge about this ruler who, at the age of 20 (max) was able to avenge his killed father, face four of his cousins who tried to destroy him, and still have energy and a good judgment to leave the petty dynastic feuds behind to stand against one of the most powerful empires of his time, Parthia. I think I have gathered 98% of all the academic works about this king and it took two months to complete this short but very comprehensive article (taking into account the very little we know about the king). I hope this will be a good and enjoyable read for everyone.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

  • Seven instances of p/pp error e.g., Bouché-Leclercq 1913, p. 641, 643, 416
  • Houghton 1987, p. 79. Harv error: link from CITEREFHoughton1987 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Dobiáš, Josef (1931). Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFDobiáš1931.
  • Dumitru, Adrian (2016). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Goodman, Martin (2005) [2002]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Hoover, Oliver D. (2011). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Houghton, Arthur (1989). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Kelly, Douglas (2016). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Llewellyn Jones, Lloyd (2013) [2012]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Olbrycht, Marek Jan (2009). "Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran". Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Scott, Roger (2017) [1989]. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  •  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    • All is fixed. As for the pagenums of chapters, I intentionally dont add them because I make sure to mention the page in the shortened citations. But since you mentioned it as a problem, I added pages numbers.
      • i didn't know we had a "green" template. that'll be handy in some circumstances. :-) As for page numbers, I very, very seriously doubt anyone would consider failing a FAC over it, but best practice would be to put the page number that the cite refers to in the sfn, and the entire page range of the article or chapter in the cite book/citejournal/whatever. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Well, it is more professional to go your way tbh :) I had a prof who would deduct a full point (out of ten in an assignment) for not adding those numbers in the bibliography

Comments by Constantine

Late Seleucid history is a confusing mess, and I got a headache every time I tried to read about it (one can only keep track of so many people named Antiochus...). User:Attar-Aram syria has a real talent in writing articles about these guys that are both comprehensive and comprehensible, and this is another example of it. I've gone through it making various minor changes for style (feel free to revert if you disagree), but otherwise the article looks fine to me. All significant aspects of the reign, and scholarly debates, are covered, the tone is neutral, high-quality sources have been used throughout (WP:AGF on comprehensive coverage, but from the text it certainly looks that way), the article is well structured. The article reads well, but I recommend making a request at WP:GOCE to polish it further as befits a Featured Article. Other than that, the only missing thing I can see is the lack of WP:ALTTEXT, which should be rectified. Well done once again, I will be glad to support once these couple of things have been done. Constantine 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Quebec Agreement

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Quebec Agreement, which merged the British (Tube Alloys) and Canadian (Montreal Laboratory) nuclear weapons projects with the American one (Manhattan Project). All of which are now Featured articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Royal Naval Division War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

After a bit of a delay, I'm back with another war memorial. This article is more substantial than most. The unique nature of the formation it commemorates seems to have generated considerable interest, with several very detailed accounts of its construction and history available independently of each other. The memorial itself has something of an unusual history—it took a long time and a lot of delicate negotiation to come to fruition, only to be dismantled at the start of the Second World War, after which it was reinstalled but in a different location. It wasn't finally reinstalled in its original location until the 21st century. Since then, it seems to have fallen into obscurity as the many colourful characters associated with it have faded into history.

I've been working on the article over the last few months, with help and advice from Another Believer and Ham II, and I'm indebted to Carcharoth for his help with research and general advice, as well as to the folks at MilHist for a successful A-class review. As ever, all feedback will be greatly appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I reviewed this article at A class and affirm that it is of Featured Article quality. (It also received image a source reviews.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much for your help, Dan. How attached are you to this edit? I don't like to revert wholesale but you removed a bit of detail. It's a significant part of the story that the RND began planning a memorial early, even tough it took a long time to come to fruition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
      • There's a lot in that edit, covering some important FAC prose points. Which month or year did they begin planning? - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Not meaning any offence, Dan, but I'm not seeing any fundamental prose issues there and the edit introduced more problems than it solved. The source says "Immediately after the war"; it doesn't give a more precise date but the RND were ahead of the curve. A simple "after the war" doesn't cut it. Then you removed almost the entire sentence about the RND joining the navy's commemorations, which leaves the reader wondering why it's mentioned in the first place and leaves the mention of Trafalgar Square without context. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Do what you want with the bit about Trafalgar Square. If I understand correctly, you have one source saying "Immediately after the war", but you don't know when it happened and you have no other sources that talk about it. I don't think this is a case where people would object if you want to repeat "Immediately after the war", because that's all the information you have. I also don't think you would be faulted for saying "After the war", if in your judgment it's impossible to know what this particular writer meant by "immediately". It's harder, I think, to justify adding a lot of words to "Immediately after the war", at least at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem

Source review

  • Authors Online, the publisher of Quinlan's British War Memorials, looks to me like a self-publishing house.
    • I'm pretty sure it is, but I'm confident the book is reliable. Quinlan cites his sources and his narratives line up neatly with other sources. He's also cited or recommended by by several other authors (his account of the RND memorial is specifically recommended by Ward-Jackson).
  • A random check of statements sourced to the Historic England source, the only one available to me online, did not reveal any concerns with accuracy of sourcing other than the fact that punctuation in the inscription of Rupert Brooke's The Dead is not consistent between article and sources. I would point out, though, that even the two sources available online (IWM and HE) are not consistent with each other.
  • Googling royal naval division war memorial revealed only a page on the website of the architects who handled the memorial's last move missing from the sources used. I don't think that materially affects the article, and I found nothing to suggest that the article isn't a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.
    • I'd seen that (I think it's linked on the talk page) but decided not to use it; it's a nice glossy website but it doesn't contain a lot of information.

That Authors Online issue is a bit of a worry, but otherwise the sources check out OK. Factotem (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sam Manekshaw

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:31, 14 April 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 one of the most widely acclaimed military commanders in independent India’s history. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Amor Prohibido

Nominator(s): – jona 22:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth and final studio album recorded by American singer Selena before she was shot and killed a year later. The album transitioned Tejano music from a moderately successful regional scene, into a powerhouse genre. Amor Prohibido is a culturally significant album that helped solidify Selena as a leading performer in the Latin music market. Still popular today, it sporadically makes appearances on Billboard's music charts, while its singles remain popular in Hispanic and Latino households. I decided to nominate Amor Prohibido for FA, after receiving positive encouragement from editors to do so, despite a rather lackluster peer review (it didn't generate any interest Confused.png) – jona 22:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Simon Hatley

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a man who shot an albatross that became famous in literary history. Whether he deserved it or not, I don't know, but it's why he is remembered.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I missed the peer review, so I have a few prose queries:

  • "...and assuring Hatley's literary fame." Hmm, I'm not so sure that many people remember, if they ever knew, that Coleridge's poem was based on the experiences of one Simon Hatley, so "fame" might be overdoing it. Perhaps "...assuring Hatley a place in literary history" or some such modified wording, would be more appropriate?
  • Early life: I'm still unsure about transatlantic comma usage, but to me, the comma after "Mary Herbert" looks superfluous.
  • Same section: "The residence was pulled down and rebuilt in 1704, after he had left home" – needs name, not pronoun
  • "...and third mate was a very junior officer position." A non sequitur where presently stated – this info correctly belongs to the previous sentence.
  • Career: "The first such voyage made by Hatley was during the War of the Spanish Succession, which found Britain and Spain on opposing sides, under the command of Captain Woodes Rogers." The clauses in this sentence seem oddly ordered. Surely the logical order is "The first such voyage made by Hatley, under the command of Captain Woodes Rogers, was during the War of the Spanish Succession, which found Britain and Spain on opposing sides."
  • Voyage with Rogers: first mention of the Duke and the Duchess should explain that these were Rodgers' ships
  • Why the huge manpower? 183 and 151 respectively seems vastly more crew than necessary to sail these ships.
I've made it clearer that these were effectively warships, and so the more men to fight the better.
  • First captivity: "leaving real estate in Woodstock to his son Simon, though with a life estate to his widow." What is a "life estate"? I've heard of a "life interest", but the term "life estate" I've never encountered.
Linked and explained.
  • Shelvocke expedition: "The Speedwell completed her Atlantic passage." Seems like an unnecessary sentence.
  • "In spite of Hatley's attempt..." – what was he "attempting"? Some explanation needs to be added here. You say in the Literary influences section that Hatley shot the bird in the hopes of fairer winds – this information should be brought forward.
I am trying to incorporate Shelvocke's account into the article, though it is too large to blockquote. I'll make it clearer the reader is to look at the blockquote. After all, we have nothing to add to what he wrote.

A most intriguing story, giving body and context to something that I was vaguely aware of, from school probably, but had forgotten completely. You seem to be developing quite a taste for oddball articles – where next? Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I've done those things. In addition to your school days, you may remember Mr Hatley when he played a small part in the Woodes Rogers article, which I improved nine or so years ago and you reviewed at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: My concerns adequately answered. Nine years! Days of wine and roses. Brianboulton (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review and my few (v. minor) points were dealt with then. A rereading confirms the excellence of this article, which I found highly informative as well as a good read. Certainly of FA standard in my view. Tim riley talk 13:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments then and now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Ficus macrophylla

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to balance up all the animal FACs with some plants. This is an important article in the public interest. These giant figs are too difficult to grow in most gardens but critically important to wildlife in eastern Australia and should be planted more widely. And they can be weedy elsewhere. Let me know what's wrong and I can fix pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

[Epic Shakespearean announcer's voice:] BEHOLD! Cleopatra, seventh of her name! The pharaoh of Egypt; descendant of Alexander the Great's companion Ptolemy I Soter; the pious goddess who loves her father; the Living Isis (no, not that ISIS, you pleb); the Queen of Kings and mother of Julius Caesar's child Caesarion and three little rugrats belonging to Mark Antony. This article has recently succeeded in passing the Good Article nomination hurdle. Since the time that I have rewritten it and created the sub-articles "Early life of Cleopatra" and "Reign of Cleopatra" (along with a total rewrite of "Death of Cleopatra", a current GA nominee), the article has seen major improvements thanks to lively talk page discussion, debate, and consensus-building. The prose body of the article is a bit large, but I am still in the process of slightly reducing its overall size, which is roughly the same as my Featured Article on Octavian/Augustus. Given Cleopatra's enormous importance to history and impact on modern popular culture, the queen perhaps deserves a larger article than most; don't you agree? You better. Or it's off to the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus with you! Where you will have plenty of time to complain about the article's length while exiled alongside the likes of Arsinoe IV. I eagerly await the image review, because I think I have finally nailed the appropriate licensing thing for each image. If not I'm happy to make any quick, necessary fixes. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review from Factotem

First off, I like the idea of listing the online sources separately. I've not noticed this done before, but it makes reviewing the sources a whole lot easier than sifting through the list of refs for the web-based sourcing.

  • looks like a hobbyist site. What makes it reliable?
  • Page ranges in refs use hyphens. They need to be endashes per MOS:DASH
  • Inconsistent use of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. I understand that it's preferred at FAC for all ISBN refs to be consistently formatted.
  • Refs #4, #147, #398 p. -> pp.
  • Ref #400 pp. -> p.
  • The ISBN for Ashton's Cleopatra and Egypt refers to the Blackwell (Oxford) edition (219 pages), but the GBooks link you provide takes us to the John Wiley & Sons (New York) edition (240 pages).
  • The ISBN for Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great: The Woman Behind the Legend refers to the 454-page US edition published by Harper (NY), but the GBooks link you provide refers to the 300-page(!?) edition published by Hodder & Staughton in 2009.
  • For Grant's Cleopatra, did you actually use the 1992 B&N edition, or did you use the original, online version as linked in the list of printed resources? If the latter, the publisher and ISBN ref you provide are incorrect - the correct info can be found on the Worldcat listing here. I'm curious, though. B&N appears to be a self-publishing outfit, but I don't believe, based on the year or what little I've found out about Michael Grant, that this can possibly be self-published.
  • The Gbooks link you provide for Hölbl's A History of the Ptolemaic Empire does not have the same ISBN as the one you provide.
  • An OCLC ref for Lippold's Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums can be found at Worldcat.
  • The Gbooks link you provide for Roller's Cleopatra: a biography has a different ISBN and publication date than those listed.
  • An OCLC ref for Sartain's On the Antique Painting in Encaustic of Cleopatra: Discovered in 1818 can be found at Worldcat.
  • The ISBN you provide for Schiff's Cleopatra: A Life appears to be for the 2010 edition published by Little, Brown and Co (NY). The 2011 Random House edition has the ISBN 9780753539569.
  • There is a doi ref for Skeat's The Last Days of Cleopatra: A Chronological Problem, according to the link to the JSTOR record you provided, which could be added.
  • In the citation for Walker's Cleopatra in Pompeii, you can add the parameter "|jstor=40311128" to add the jstor ref for this publication.

This is just a partial source review for now. I may complete a few more checks in due course. Factotem (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: thanks for the source review! I'll try my best to address these issues by the end of the day. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 19:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Another inconsistency between editions linked to, this time for Royster's Becoming Cleopatra: The Shifting Image of an Icon. The Gbook you link to is for an edition published in 2016 by Springer, which has a different ISBN. This appears to be the correct GBook link for the edition cited. Factotem (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    • @Factotem: I see what's going on here now. It's actually not my fault (or only partially my fault for trusting Google Books to do things correctly). It's the fault of Google Books. If you actually follow the "preview" link in the case of not only Royster but also Hölbl and Roller (the latter of which I own a personal, physical copy), it brings you to the correct edition that I cited. You can clearly see the correct ISBN numbers there in the previewed pages of the books. I'm not sure how to resolve this; you tell me! Because I would rather retain the GB links than get rid of them simply because the folks over at Google Books were too lazy, sleep-deprived, or drunk to care about doing things properly (lol). Should I just provide direct URLs to the previewed pages instead? Pericles of AthensTalk 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
You can usually locate the relevant edition in Gbooks by googling for it. For instance, this search for Roller's Cleopatra: A Biography returns the book as the first result, with a link for More editions. It's then a case of searching through those more editions for the correct GBook listing, in this case the 4th result gets you to the Gbook entry with the correct ISBN ref you provided. I can see that Gbooks does seem to list one edition, but links its preview to a different edition. I would argue that if you are going to provide a Gbook link (and you are not obliged to for FAC), then it should correspond to the edition you actually used. Having said that, I'm not sure how much of an issue this is. I've posted a question on the FAC talk page to seek clarification. Factotem (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Cool. In the meantime I have removed the URLs for Royster, Hölbl and Roller, because it is better to have no URL than one to a different edition of the book. I might add appropriate URLs at a later date, but I don't think it's important or necessary, as you suggest. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Don't know if you've been keeping up with the discussion on the FAC talk page, but the consensus seems to be that we don't need to be so strict in matching the exact GBook edition to the one used to source the article. The caveats are that the different editions must contain the same number of pages, and the GBook must have a preview. Fundamentally, if the preview can be used to verify the sourcing, it's useful if you want to link it. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I might add the URLs back to the reference section. We'll see. I don't think it's a pressing issue. I'm a bit busy reading and citing Grant (1972) at the moment. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I am happy to announce that I have removed entirely from the article and replaced it with scholarly sources instead. That Harvard University website for the Center for Hellenic Studies was a real lifesaver here.
    • User:Graham Beards was kind enough to remove hyphens and add dashes to the inline citations and refs! You can check and see if there are any remaining hyphens, but they seem to have all been removed.
    • User:Ssven2 recently changed the refs in the "Further reading" section from "citation" to "cite book" instead. Should I do the same for the main "References" section?
Don't know what the difference between the two is, and the results look fine to me. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I have fixed the instances where "pp" needed to be "p" and vice versa.
    • I have removed the URL for Fletcher (2008), since I cannot find a suitable online alternative and I used my own physical copy of the book published by Harper. It's better to have no URL than a false one leading to a different edition of the book.
    • I have changed Grant's ref from the 1992 B&N version to the 1972 version by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, which is most certainly not a self-published source.
    • I have added OCLC numbers for Lippold and Sartain as requested.
    • I have changed the ISBN for Schiff (2011).
    • I have added a DOI number for Skeat (1953) and a JSTOR link for Walker (2008).
    • I am still in the process of converting all ISBN-10 numbers to ISBN-13 ones instead. Give me a little more time on that. I should be able to finish that very soon, most likely before the end of the day. Pericles of AthensTalk 12:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to announce that I have changed all ISBN-10 numbers to ISBN-13 ones instead! It didn't take nearly as long as I thought it would, thanks to the handy navigation tool Worldcat. Pericles of AthensTalk 13:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: as far as citations and sources are concerned, is everything in good standing now? Or do you have further concerns that need to be addressed? Pericles of AthensTalk 01:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
You've addressed all the issues I've identified above. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Excellent! Glad to hear it. Thank you. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding criteria 1c ("thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"), I'm no egyptologist and know nothing of the historography, so I googled Cleopatra and found Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt by Joyce Tyldesley. To my uneducated eyes this seems to be a high quality source but does not appear to have been used. Is there any reason for this? Other than that, I did not find anything to suggest that any important source has been neglected. Factotem (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • That's a good question! To be honest, I wouldn't put Tyldesley's Cleopatra: Last Queen of Egypt, published by "Profile Books", in the same league as the academic heavyweights cited in the article, those which were published strictly by university presses, museum presses, or scholarly journals. That includes T. C. Skeat's "The Last Days of Cleopatra: a Chronological Problem" (1953) published by The Journal of Roman Studies, Diana Kleiner's Cleopatra and Rome (2005) published by the Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Prudence Jones' Cleopatra: a sourcebook (2006) published by the University of Oklahoma Press, Susan Walker's "Cleopatra in Pompeii?" (2008) published by the Papers of the British School at Rome, Duane W. Roller's Cleopatra: a Biography (2010) published by the Oxford University Press, and Margaret M. Miles' Cleopatra: a sphinx revisited (2011) published by the University of California Press.
    • I would instead compare Tyldesley's book to those of Michael Grant's Cleopatra (1972) published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Jaynie Anderson's Tiepolo's Cleopatra (2003) published by Macmillan, Stanley M. Burstein's Reign of Cleopatra (2004) published by the Greenwood Press, Dodson and Hilton's The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt (2004), published by Thames & Hudson, and Joann Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great (2008) published by Harper. These are legitimate book publishing companies that produce WP:Reliable sources, but they perhaps don't have the same amount of academic rigor as the first group that I listed.
    • Then we have book publishing companies that are recognized as purely academic ones, like Routledge, which published Whitehorne's Cleopatras (1994) and Günther Hölbl's History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2001), the Cambridge "Polity Press" that published Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic (2007), Oxford's Blackwell that published Sally Ann-Ashton's Cleopatra and Egypt (2008), and Bloomsbury Academic that published Knippschild and Morcillo's Seduction and Power: Antiquity in the Visual and Performing Arts (2013). Again, these are to be trusted a bit more than the regular book publishing companies.
    • I wouldn't mind perusing a copy of Tyldesley's book if I had access to it, but I think the currently-cited 35 print sources and 9 online sources sufficiently demonstrate that academic consensus on each issue was investigated and a representative survey of relevant literature was at least attempted. It should be emphasized that having a decent amount of quality sources is better than having as many sources as possible. At this point adding Tyldesley's book to the pile almost seems like overkill, but I will entertain the idea if my university library has a physical copy of it. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with that answer. The Gbooks listing has a preview (at least from here) that might save you a trip to the library. I did scan a few pages and compared what they said with how you covered it in the article. It was only a very cursory review, but I didn't get any sense that you had missed anything by not using Tyldesley's work. So far so good, but I intend at some stage to check a few random refs in the article against the sources. Won't be doing that in the immediate future, though. Factotem (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to do that, I would highly suggest obtaining a copy of Roller's book, which more or less serves as a backbone for much of the article, certainly the biographical part. If not that, then I would suggest looking into Fletcher or Burstein's respective works, which are also heavily cited in the article. They really helped to reinforce Roller's assertions, and I made a conscious effort, as you may see in the footnotes, to blend the ideas of various sources where they may disagree on certain points. For instance, the most glaring disagreement among these sources usually involves dates, even the months in which certain events took place. Please be wary of that, and also cognizant of the fact that the sub-articles also explain these things in greater detail (naturally). Pericles of AthensTalk 16:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've recently added Michel Chauveau's Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra (2000) to the article. I'll probably cite it a few more times as well. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
That checks out OK. I just noticed though that the ISBN formatting is a mix of hyphened and hyphenless. I think it's preferred to be consistent here too. I don't understand the ISBN hyphen rules myself, and tend to just remove all hyphens in articles I edit. The magic link still functions, and someone usually comes along and hyphenates them anyway. I would also ask, is this article really ready for FAC? There seems to be a significant number of edits being made every day since it was submitted. Factotem (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: Actually, the prose body of the article has been basically static since the FA nomination. I've been adding lots of footnotes and citations lately, but that doesn't change the core nature of the article. It just reinforces the scholarly citations that were already in place. The only other editing I've done lately was tinkering with the lead, to make it a bit shorter and to include a salient point about Cleopatra's multilingualism that is explained more fully in the body of the article. As for ISBNs, I have removed all hyphens as you have suggested, in order to be consistent. If someone wants to add them back they are welcome to do so, so long as they change every one of them and not just a sampling. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 13:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd also like to let you know that I've created an article for Duane W. Roller, as a supplement just in case anyone is curious about his credentials. He is perhaps cited more than any one author in this article, so it would be a crime not to make an article for him. If someone complains about not having a GB link to his book I might add it back, but I don't feel the need to do so, especially if it's a slightly different edition than the physical print copy in my possession that I used. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Small side note: is Wikipedia dead? I appreciate all your commentary, Factotem, but you're the only one doing so. What happened to this website? At this point I'd be excited just to get someone opposing my article, let alone supporting it. At least having someone opposing it would be an indication that somebody has read it and gives a damn. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@PericlesofAthens: I would like to think that Wikipedia is not dead. I have been paying some attention to this article as it has progressed in status. I would add feedback, but I know nothing at all about the "Featured Article" process and I am not sure if I fully understand the criteria. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing to say that you can't review simply on criteria 1a (well-written), which seems to be the basis of many reviews I've seen. Whether we who are not professional writers can validly assess whether an article is of a professional standard is perhaps a matter of debate, but every one of us can have a valid opinion on whether it is engaging, not to mention the ease with which a fresh pair of eyes can root out infelicitous prose that the main editor is too involved to spot. Factotem (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine

I am far from being an expert on the period, but I think I am well versed about the Hellenistic era, the late Roman Republic, and the people and events treated here. As such, I found the article overall well written, well researched, and quite comprehensive. There was nothing major that stood out immediately as missing, and in the sources section I see many of the same works that I know or have myself read as the chief scholarly sources about the period and subject. However, as the bibliography about the period is huge, and scholarly debate about Cleopatra's role in it is ongoing, I can only WP:AGF on the coverage. A few relatively minor observations on content and style follow:

  • One thing I would like to see is whether there is any information about her domestic governance; in the article, as in the general historiography, she is mostly treated via her interactions with the Roman world, but how did she govern Egypt? I assume the ancient authors, or at least the papyri, have some indications about this. Also, what were her relations to the native Egyptians? Given that the native population was politically marginalized, and that the main domestic political audience were the Greco-Macedonian colonists, there may not be much there to set her apart from her predecessors, but it would be worth to at least state so explicitly, so far as possible.
  • "Ptolemaic pharaohs spoke Greek and governed Egypt as Hellenistic-Greek monarchs from the multicultural and largely-Greek city of Alexandria established by Alexander the Great of Macedon, refusing to learn the native Egyptian language" This sentence is over-long and mixes two different things: one, the status of the Ptolemaic pharaohs, and two, that Alexandria was a largely Greek city established by Alexander the Great. I strongly recommend separating these two facts in distinct sentences, per my reverted edit.
  • "with the legal status of friendly and allied monarchs to Rome" to be more techniclaly correct, I would suggest "with the legal status of a 'friend and ally of the Roman people' (Latin: socius et amicus populi Romani), in effect a client king of Rome" or something like that, as that is a specific technical term that the Romans used with a number of client rulers.
  • "Domitius Ahenobarbus, wary of Octavian's propaganda, attempted to persuade Antony to have Cleopatra excluded from the campaign against Octavian." Does this mean that Ahenobarbus had been influenced by Octavian's propaganda, or that he judged Cleopatra's presence as sort of confirming Octavian's slanders? In view of his defection, his motivation is important
  • "Cicero's writings provide an unflattering portrait of Cleopatra, who knew him personally." I would suggest "The writings of Cicero, who knew her personally, provide..."
  • "Hellenistic-Greek", "Ptolemaic-Egyptian", "Macedonian-Greek", etc. I've come across such compounds a few times in the article and I think they are, if not incorrect, then certainly unusual. AFAIK, the common term is without the hyphens. Compounds like "largely-Greek" are definitely wrong and discouraged by MOS:HYPHEN; also "the Classical-style of the painting": either a "Classical-style painting" (like "Renaissance-period painter" that follows), or "the Classical style of the painting".
  • Somewhere in the "Depictions in ancient art" section a link to damnatio memoriae would be fitting
  • "Surviving coinage of Cleopatra's reign include those from every regnal year, from 51 to 30 BC" somewhat awkward, perhaps "Surviving coinage of Cleopatra's reign includes coins/specimens e from every regnal year, from 51 to 30 BC"
  • In the "Depictions in ancient art" section there are, IMO, too many images, which break up the continuity of the article to the detriment of reader experience. Four views of the Vatican Cleopatra are definitely too much in any article that is not specifically about that bust. Sincere kudos for finding and uploading so many images of her, but they should accompany the article and illustrate the narrative, not dominate it. We can leave the rest to the Commons category, or articles dedicated to her artistic representations or even individual works of art.
  • When linking to articles in other-language Wikipedias, I strongly suggest using the {{ill}} template rather than including them as external links. This leaves the WP:REDLINK locally for enwiki and makes clear that it is an article in a foreign language
  • "dating back to [[English Renaissance theatre|the Renaissance]]" the Renaissance as a whole is a European phenomenon; if you link specifically to English theatre, make it explicit.
  • "[[Macedonians (Greeks)|Macedonian-Greek]] dynasty of the Ptolemies" I recommend altering the link to Ancient Macedonians, the Macedonians (Greeks) article refers rather to the modern regional identity. Also, as a general rule, since the same term comes further along later ("the Macedonian-Greek founder") with a different link, I caution against linking the same term to two different articles. It is potentially confusing to the uninitiated reader.
  • "whose relatives are described as "honey skinned"" by whom?
  • " Ancient sources also describe Cleopatra as having had a stronger personality" is that only Plutarch, or also found in other authors?
  • A small addition that Egypt was annexed as Augustus' personal domain rather than as a regular province might be useful, as well as Cornelius Gallus' appointment as the first praefectus augustalis, to give a connection to the new political regime of Egypt for any interested reader.

I will go over the article a couple of time over the next few days, to better digest its content and make sure I have not missed something. Otherwise, it is a splendid piece of work and PericlesofAthens deserves great praise for it. Eglerio! Constantine 11:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

    • @Cplakidas: thanks for the review! I am happy to announce that I have amended the article according to all of your suggestions barring the first, where you suggested that I add information about Cleopatra's role as a monarch and administrator (and builder, lawgiver, chief religious authority, etc.). That information can already be found in the sub/split article, Reign of Cleopatra#Egypt under the monarchy of Cleopatra. I placed this link and suggestion in the "See also" section. Is that not enough? The main article is about the person Cleopatra, not about the Ptolemaic kingdom, although the "Reign" article seemed like a good place to elucidate this and provide intricate details about her role within her kingdom. If you want me to add a new section about it in this, the main article, I'd like to see the suggestions of others first, because User:Factotem has already raised concerns about the rather large size of the prose body of this article. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I reverted your edit about the founding of Alexandria (and Greek as the official language of the Ptolemies) due to the fact that you split the sentence in half without connecting the previous statement to the train of inline citations and source information provided in the lengthy footnote that accompanied it. I have since resolved this problem and added yet another footnote to parse this information correctly. I hope you appreciate the enormous headache involved in this, because I had to go back and reread numerous passages throughout four different books to make sure each statement is aligned with the correct pagination of each source. This task was not as simple as just splitting a sentence and being done with it.
      • I have reworded the part about the 'friend and ally of the Roman people' (Latin: socius et amicus populi Romani); thanks for the suggestion and Latin language text for the title!
      • I have clarified the bit regarding Domitius Ahenobarbus being worried about the impact of Octavian's propaganda.
      • I reworded the sentence about the writings of Cicero.
      • I have done a thorough sweep of the article and removed all seemingly unnecessary instances where hyphens have been used. Thanks for pointing this out. This sort of habitual tick of mine is not apparent to me when I'm reading my own work, so I appreciate your efforts in pointing towards specific examples. I have fixed many others that you did not mention.
      • I have added a link to damnatio memoriae where it was most appropriate, in the "Statues" subsection.
      • I reworded the part about coinage and regnal years.
      • Per your suggestion, I have removed four images from the "Ancient depictions of Cleopatra" section. I hope it is to your liking now.
      • I have added the {{ill}} template to links leading to foreign-language Wiki articles.
      • I have placed the link "English Renaissance theatre" in a more appropriate location. It's a shame that there is no general article about Renaissance theatre. If I had all the spare time in the world I would create such an article and flesh it out, but I do not have the time to give it that sort of love and attention, the kind that it deserves.
      • I have removed the link Macedonians (Greeks) and retained the link Ancient Macedonians instead.
      • I have removed the phrase "honey-skinned" for now. This was one of the few statements added to the article by another editor, who cited the biography by Stacy Schiff, although I do not possess a copy of it. Since I cannot validate it or elaborate on which ancient source said this, I have decided to remove it for the time being, until that editor can explain his edit and reintroduce this properly.
      • I have changed "ancient sources" to "Plutarch" as you suggested, since I think he is the only one who explains this. It certainly appears that way after reading the source book from Jones.
      • In this article, I have added a footnote about Cornelius Gallus being the first governor of Egypt, ruled directly by Octavian/Augustus, while placing it prominently (outside of a footnote) in the sub-article Reign of Cleopatra.
      • Please let me know if there's anything else you think needs to be amended, removed, or added to the article! Warm regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 16:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Векочел

You have worked hard on the article and provided sources. I cannot think of anything negative about the article. This reflects your commitment to Wikipedia.
Векочел (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Векочел: Well that's fantastic! Thank you for the compliment, and for both reading and editing the article. I'm glad you have enjoyed it. I'm assuming this means you "support" the nomination, then? Pericles of AthensTalk 00:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I do support the nomination of "Cleopatra" as a featured article. Векочел (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Векочел: Awesome! Once again, thank you for reviewing the article and providing helpful edits as well. Best wishes, Pericles of AthensTalk 00:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

André Messager

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) and Tim riley talk 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

André Messager was a French composer and conductor who became the last major exponent of opéra comique and French operetta. His best-known works today are probably the operetta Véronique and the ballet The Two Pigeons, but several of his other stage works enjoyed international success at the turn of the 20th century. He was also a leading conductor, in charge of Paris's top orchestra and both its major opera houses. He was a prominent musical figure not only in Paris but in London, running the Royal Opera House for six years and supplying the West End stage with a succession of his hits (and occasional misses). The article has had a recent peer review by an all-star team of reviewers, and we think it is now ready for FAC. We look forward to your comments. Ssilvers (talk) and Tim riley talk 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Although it wouldn't matter if it became FA, I notice that this article's talk page says that it has passed a Good Article review, but doesn't have the green symbol in the corner of the article! Is there a reason for this? Mojo0306 (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There certainly used to be. I wonder if it vanished for some technical reason when the "up for FAC" message appeared on the page. A bit odd if so. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
It was inadvertently removed with this edit. Fixed now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, Lord! Was that me? I oughtn't to be let out. Thank you for rescuing me. Tim riley talk 19:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

  • "Messager's music became known for its melodic and orchestral invention, musical craftsmanship, and characteristically French elegance and grace." I'm not sure how neutral this is.
    • This uncited statement in the lead is backed up in the main text with cited statements. This is how I have habitually interpreted the rules about leads - except for direct quotes, don't usually cite. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • My worry wasn't so much that it was uncited, it was that presenting the claims in Wikipedia's "neutral" voice may not be appropriate. Perhaps I'm being oversensitive. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Josh Milburn, given the material below in the article, can you suggest a more neutral formulation for "characteristically French elegance and grace"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I wouldn't object to a cited direct quote. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
            • The Penguin Opera Guide has this: "Elegance, neatness, tripping melodiousness, orchestral refinement, and a decidedly French grace were the composer's hallmarks". Other quotes are on his "preference for light and airy compositions, on the borderland between comic opera and operetta. His music is always elegant, witty, in the best French style", "Messager’s style is characterized by fine orchestration (evident also in the ballet music), a gift for easy-flowing melody, often in a waltz rhythm, and a skill in writing music of a dance-like character," and "Tuneful it always is; trivial never. Supporting the lilting melodies is some masterly orchestration, rich in design, and typically French, with its emotional use of the woodwind, and its quaintly dramatic modulations". I think our existing sentence encapsulates these pretty faithfully. Tim riley talk 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "disastrous stock market speculation" Ditto (also, isn't that a compound adjective? Dash needed!)
    • Hyphens, as Sir Ernest Gowers said, will surely drive you mad if you take them seriously. I think you're right here. The text is a verbatim translation of one of the sources "des spéculations boursières désastreuses ruinent la famille Messager". Sources in English concur. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 1876 he won the gold medal of the Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique with a symphony, the work being warmly received when performed by the Concerts Colonne at the Théâtre du Châtelet in January 1878." Did this have a name?
    • The symphony? No. Only a key. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • We note in the list of Works that it was in A major. At one point in the article we call it his "Symphony in A", and I have added "in A" to another mention. Tim, do you now like the way we refer to it in all 4 instances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm rather in two minds about this, but I can think of examples of a composer's only symphony's being generally referred to by its key – Franck's in D minor, for instance, or Bizet's in C – though I can't really think why. Still if it's good enough for Franck and Bizet it's good enough for Messager. Tim riley talk 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "cantatas" Link?
  • Are "opéras comique" and "opérette" common enough in English to go unitalicised? It seems our articles on the forms italicise.
    • Tricky. The WP article on the former italicises; the short bit on the latter doesn't. The terms come up a lot in the article, and unless people object to roman I'd rather avoid a sea of italics. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "burlesques motifs" Jargon!
    • I'm surprised at this: both common words, surely, and clear in context?
      • I agree with TR. The use of the word "burlesque" to mean parody is the first meaning given in two dictionaries I just consulted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I understood the meaning, so I suppose it can't be specialist. I retract my worry! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "at Ste Marie-des-Batignolles a small church in the north west of Paris" Are you missing a comma, here? Also, I'd recommend against the piped link to the neighbourhood in place of the church.
    • I agree. Not sure how that happened. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "He later recalled that he had received by post an unsolicited libretto:" I'm struggling to understand this story. Some unknown person sent him an unfinished work, he finished it, then performed it? Or have I misunderstood?
    • No, that's his story. He found out who wrote it, of course. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • The reason the story is interesting is that, after a series of unsuccessful works, an unsolicited libretto suddenly led to one of Messager's most popular works and the most commercially successful period of his composing career. Any suggestions as to how to make it clearer? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Reading back, I understand this much better now. The problem was clearly at my end. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Madeleine Hope Andrée" You specify the birth/death dates when you mention his first child- why not do that here?
    • Yes, I think we have her d.o.b. and d.o.d. in the sources. Shall add. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "sciatica" Link?
    • Could do. Do you think anyone will click on it? Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd rather no* have people clicking away from our article to explore the unrelated medical topic of sciatica, especially as it did not significantly affect Messager's career and is not mentioned again. If it had been a life-long ailment, I would want to provide a link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Again- I suppose I'm not convinced, but I am happy to concede. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Is Deburau worth linking? Don't be scared of redlinks! (This may apply to other compositions, but I'll not mention it again.)
    • Worth thinking about. It's a strange hybrid, and the redlink title will need to be carefully judged, esp. with the film and straight stage play of the piece to consider.
      • I would only redlink a work that I thought was likely notable. I think the criteria for linking/notability for theatre works should be a balance of the following factors: (1) Did it have a long and successful run? (2) In a major theatre? (3) Did it have a starry cast and/or creative team? (4) Did it receive significant coverage by the major reviewers? (5) Did it have numerous revivals or popular adaptations? (6) Did anything else of historic significance occur during the run? In this case, I assume that it starred Printemps, but was it otherwise an unremarkable, short-lived, rarely revived work, Tim? Were the film and stage play adaptations based on Messager's work or just other people's adaptations of common source material? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • They all revolved around Guitry. I have been toying with writing a brief article about it, but it isn't top of my list. Tim riley talk 20:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "but in London the official censor, the Lord Chamberlain, declared it "unfit for the English public", and banned C. B. Cochran's planned production starring Printemps and Guitry" Why?
    • French. Too sexy. The source doesn't specify, but I get the impression that a middle-aged man posing as his own son for amorous reasons (if I have it right) was too much for the Lord Chamberlain.
      • Tim, should we add that the libretto contained adult situations? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I haven't read the libretto, and I found this delightful gem in the archives of the New York Times. The reported facts are as stated in the present text of the article, and to go any further would be speculative. Tim riley talk 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "His "Eh que ne parliez-vous?", from La Basoche was quoted" Curious comma use, and I think quoted is a little jargony.
    • You can quote a tune as well as a line of prose or verse. Seems the right term to me. Punctuation adjusted. Tim riley talk 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "commented that from classic opéras comiques, such as" Possibly overlinking?
    • This has come up once before. There has grown up an entirely unofficial, and no doubt ultra vires, practice in musical Life and Works articles that it is helpful to link important terms at first mention in the Works section. The logic, I suppose, is that a Life and Works article is practically two articles in one, and not every reader of one section will want to read both. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Two comments on the list of works: Hélène is incidental music to the play - not any kind of complete operatic work. According to Les Annales 1885 (p355-356) Le Petit Poucet is really a divertisement, with music by Verdi, Offenbach, Audran etc; the 3rd act ballet is original music by Messager - and possibly other bits of incidental music.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Might be worth adding a footnote about Le Petit Poucet; I'll knock one up. I think Hélène is adequately covered under "Stage works (except ballets) ... drame lyrique." Tim riley talk 08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
PS Sorry another thing - Fortunio is in five acts not four - I think the Erato recording based on the Lyon production is at fault for confusing the issue. You can check the vocal score at IMSLP. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
This is rather a mystery. The copy of the libretto (pub. 1907) I am looking at describes the work as "Comedie lyrique en quatre actes et cinq tableux", and a quick flick through the text bears this out. But the vocal score (a better scan than IMSLP's is here), as you say, divides the work into five acts. Logic suggests that the libretto was printed first, and that the vocal score represents the final version. (This certainly applied on this side of la Manche, with the texts and scores of the Savoy Operas.) But this looks like a theatre bill or programme, judging by the header, and has the piece as en quatre actes. I've tried to look at the contemporary reviews via the BNF's online archive, but it's suffering from technical problems today. I'll try again later. Tim riley talk 08:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This may go some way to solving the mystery. The original version is here said to have 5 acts, and the 1910 revival was in a revised 4-act version. (The four-act vocal score is clearly labelled "2ème édition".) Both versions have been given since. I now think I misinterpreted the bibliographic details of the 4-act libretto: the date 1907 was the copyright date, and not necessarily the publication date. So I think what we need here is a footnote saying that the piece was originally in 5 acts, later revised to 4. Tim riley talk 09:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Stopping there for a time; a really great read so far. Very engaging, even to someone as ignorant of the topic as I am... Josh Milburn (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments so far. Looking forward to more, but no rush of course. Tim riley talk 17:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Josh Milburn! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Continued comments from JM

  • "one of the most poetic, most expressive works that have been written in France in the last twenty years" Is that quote correct? Shouldn't it be has been?
    • The arithmetic wouldn't work if you tried it the way you suggest: it is one of "the works that have been written". One of "the works that has been written" won't do. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I believe that this is a difference between US and Brit English. We would certainly write "has", but I rely on Tim's understanding of Brit usage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • You'd write "the works that has been written"? Surely not. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
          • In US usage, it is "one ... that has been written." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
            • After pondering this overnight, I am reversing myself. The clause boils down to: one of [them] that have been written in France." Faure's point is not that it is "one ... that has been written in France", but rather that it is among the most expressive works that have been written. So I think Tim would be right in any case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
              • As long as the quote's accurate, there's no harm done, I suppose! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "but the ballet, unencumbered by the portentousness of the libretto which weighs down the rest of the piece, has remained in the repertory". Shouldn't that be that, rather than which? I wonder how accessible this sentence will be to some readers.
    • I don't mind "that" for "which", here, though the supposed distinction is not supported by Fowler and has been ignored by Dickens et al. I think Americans are keener on the distinction than English writers are: Ssilvers, any comments? Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It should be ", which" to complete the parenthetical phrase. Now fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The decade began well" Perhaps you could specify the decade?
    • Doesn't the heading "1890s" immediately above suffice? I'm surprised. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with Tim that it is clear from both the heading and the next date given. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't how I'd do it, but I'm happy to concede the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't close the quote that begins "the influence of Die Meistersinger"
  • "The plot was not strikingly original: critics commented that its story of babies switched at birth was already very familiar from Gilbert and Sullivan operas." It's not clear what your reference for this claim is; is it the references in the footnote? At the moment, they look like references for details about Gilbert and Sullivan operas rather than references for the critical response to Les p'tites Michu.
    • Point taken. Will add a citation for the general comment rather than the particulars. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
And now done. Tim riley talk 20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I found the description of Les p'tites Michu a little tricky to follow; it feels like it assumes that readers are familiar with the musical.
    • Hmm. I'll need to study this further and come back to you. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • We don't attempt to provide plot summaries -- not even for Veronique. So, I think it falls under the heading of, "if you want more info, click on the blue link", doesn't it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Again, happy to concede the point. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No action needed, just wanted to comment what a great footnote #20 is!
    • Thank you, but don't get me started on that critic! G W Lyttelton,(Humph's father), once wrote to a friend, "Have you any 'foolometers'—people whose advice you ask, knowing that exactly the opposite to it will be the right course?" Well...
  • "up to the end of his life, too"[155] Like Fauré," Missed full stop?
    • Indeed. Now added. You have a wonderfully eagle eye, and I hope your Wiki-colleagues realise it. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Should the quote beginning "André Messager is the most French of conductors" perhaps be a blockquote?
  • "Some later additions are listed below." I wonder if this should be avoided?
    • Alternative? Suggestions welcome. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree with JM: Let's delete the sentence. I think it is clear enough from context that anything issued after 1991 would be an "addition". Is that ok, Tim? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Fine with me: by all means prune. Tim riley talk 20:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What is a "role creator"?
    • Someone who created the role. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • It was clear enough to me, when I first read it, but I wonder if a general reader who is not too familiar with theatre articles would understand. Could write something like "those who first played the roles in the original productions", but that seems so blobby. JM, can you suggest anything clear and elegant? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
        • To me (and I'm not familiar with theatre!) the role would be "created" by the writer, but I confess I can't think of an easy way of framing this. Is it particularly important that they were role creators? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes, because it is a recording by the person who actually introduced the song in the original production. The role creator was the first person to have imbued the song with their own performing style and therefore sets a model for how the song may be interpreted by later performers. For a modern example, a recording of "Let it Go (Disney song)" by Idina Menzel should be identified as a recording by the role creator (sometimes called "role originator"), whereas a recording by, say, Katy Perry, would be a cover version. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "as well as other contemporaries, Aino Ackté,[177] Emma Eames,[178] and John McCormack,[179] whose recordings have been reissued on compact disc" I wonder whether some dashes could help this sentence?
    • Yes, good. The poor old comma does get a bashing. I have often thought we need a super-comma that would subsume minor ones, but parenthetic dashes will do very well here. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

All just suggestions! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And mostly exceptionally useful ones: thank you JM! Back anon to round off, and my co-nom will have responses, too. Tim riley talk 19:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Excellent comments. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Support I was one of the peer reviewers. Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for support here and input at PR. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Smerus

Support, certainly, an excellent article. Two minor niggles on a first reading (I might have further niggles on a further reading)

  • Niedermeyer's school. I've always heard of it as the École Choron or (as it was later known) the École Niedermeyer, on which there is an article in fr.wikipedia. According to that article it took the name "École de musique classique" only in 1880, long after Messager's time, and changed back to École Niedermeyer around 1900.
  • I really must get round to writing an En Wikipedia article, given its importance in the lives of two (and I hope three) composers I have successfully taken through FAC. I'll make sure the nomenclature here is right for its period. (Very well spotted, if I may say so.) Tim riley talk 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Later: now attended to. Tim riley talk 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Les p'tites Michu - you mention that he received the libretto without solicitation, but as it was a such a success I think you might reasonably name the librettists.
  • Point taken, though we name all Messager's librettists in the table below. M. Ssilvers, what think you? Tim riley talk 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is potentially a Pandora's Box in 2 ways. First, we do not mention the names of librettists, throughout the article, except in the table at the bottom and in footnote 18. If we mention the names for Michu, should we mention the names of the librettists of Veronique, Beaucaire and the others? Or, should we name the librettists for only the 4, 6 or 8 (or 10?) most popular/successful ones? Second, if we mention the French librettists, then, when we talk about the extraordinary London success of several of the pieces, which were considerably adapted for the London stage, should we name the English librettists? As it is, we appear to discriminate equally against all librettists.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • We've subsequently concentrated all the info about librettists and translators in the table in the works section, with mentions in passing in the text only where it seemed particularly apropos. Tim riley talk 17:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

--Smerus (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, Smerus. And further niggles will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 15:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and support! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

  • Support. Another happy camper at PR, further read-throughs show this to have been improved from that high standard. Meets the FA criteria, and an interesting and engaging read. - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much, SchroCat, for input at PR and your support here. Most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 15:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, SchroCat! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

Support with a few suggestions for consideration:

  • "the first complete French performance of Così fan tutte". Does this mean the first performance in French, or the first performance in France?
  • The latter, I think, but I'll check and clarify. Tim riley talk 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Kaminski in his Mille et Un Opéras states that the Théâtre-Italien in Paris performed it from 1809-1862 (there is also a mention of it on this page In TJ Walsh's Second Empire Opera he describes a Carvalho production which changes the plot to that of Love's Labour Lost by Barbier and Carré (Peines d'amour perdues) - although apparently the music remained intact. The 1920 Cosi at the OC was (naturally) in French according to Kaminski. I hope this helps, perhaps not. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. That's presumably why the source particularly mentions the first complete Così in France. I am tempted to point out that Così didn't make it to America till 1922, but will resist the temptation. Tim riley talk 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC) OK - I imagine we'll never know how complete the Théâtre-Italien production was; let's give AM credit for this one.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • " elder contemporaries" → " older contemporaries"?
  • "elder" gets the thumbs-up from Fowler, but I don't feel strongly about it, and would not be desolate if we changed it to "older". Tim riley talk 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with BB. Elder in America is now only used for siblings and statesmen. It looks antiquated to me. I'd vote "older contemporaries" if it is also correct in Brit. English. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Antiquated? My prose? Unthinkable. You have the casting vote, Ss, so by all means change. Tim riley talk 17:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. Not antiquated, I meant "too elegant". -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "it failed again, but the ballet, unencumbered by the portentousness of the libretto, which weighs down the rest of the piece...etc" Is this a WP judgement, or does the source say it?
  • "may be partly due to the effectiveness of their respective libretti" – I think "the relative" effectiveness of their respective libretti" makes the required point.
  • Recordings section: I would have preferred a brief summary, with a link to a subarticle detailing the various recordings. The present format is unrewarding to the general reader, and rather dense for someone seeking specific information.
  • I wouldn't violently object to that. Ssilvers, what think you? Not a difficult task if we agree with BB's suggestion. Tim riley talk 11:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I really don't think the recordings section should get its own article. Someone just added a completely redundant "List of works" sub-article that doesn't help our readers at all and, if anything, will likely introduce a divergence of information about Messager's works that will distract readers in the future. We, the editors of the main article, will not maintain that article, so it may attract errors and cruft in the future. Let's just make sure that the first paragraph of the recordings section is a good summary, and then if people want to skip the next three more detailed paragraphs, let them do so. I've re-organized slightly to make the first paragraph a more "general" paragraph, followed by the details, and having just re-read the section, I don't think it's that much of a slog to get through. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ss: let us have a word about this by email rather than taking up space here. I don't see any problem in rejigging to meet BB's point but keeping the details on the main AM page. Tim riley talk 19:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, a credit to both main editors. Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, BB, for input at PR and your suggestions and support, above. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 11:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, BB, but almost all of the hard work is Tim's! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment from KJP1

Nothing to add to the, as usually, excellent prose and certainly nothing to contribute to the musical content. Would it help if I attempted a sources review? I've not done one previously but very happy to give it a go, following BB's essay as guidance. My only caveats - it may take a little while, as a consequence of my inexperience and your multiplicity of sources, and someone else may make a better job of it. KJP1 (talk) 13:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

As we lack both an image and a source review your kind offer of the latter is most gratefully received. Time is not of the essence, and I think I speak for both nominators when I say we shall happily wait as long as it takes for your review. Tim riley talk 13:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine - shall set to. It'll be in batches, I'm afraid. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Re images - If you wished to kill two birds with one stone, you could change the present photo of Mary Garden to one of her as Mélisande: or, but you may have a good reason to keep the current lower-resolution photo. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
...and here is the Mary Garden category at the Commons: —Cote d'Azur (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Good idea, but the image is too long and would not fit easily. Tim, perhaps one of the other Commons images from a role was conducted by Messager? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
We used to have a photo of M Garden as Mélisande, but if memory serves it was voted down. The existing one is conveniently small. Tim riley talk 19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I assume Garden as Mélisande has been rejected because the photographer of the cover of the magazine is potentially not dead enough (ie 1948?)... pity. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - batch 1

Batch 1 - Published sources given in the sources section are all of high-quality and the ISBNs/OCLCs all check out on Worldcat. A few queries:

  • Book 2: Bradley, Ian - Worldcat lists G, S and Bradley as the authors, while Googlebooks gives G&S as the authors and Bradley as the editor?
  • If one were, perish the thought, being pedantic, neither WorldCat nor our article is strictly correct. The book consists of Gilbert's libretti on the right-hand pages and Bradley's explanations, glosses, notes and anecdotes on the left-hand ones. Sullivan's music is not reproduced. I can change the author to WSG and make Bradley the editor if you wish, but I think the import is clear from the title of the book, and it's Bradley rather than Gilbert we're referring to here. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
No, absolutely get the point. Leave as is. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Bradley is the author of all the analysis and commentary. It's his book. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 7: Franceschina, John - oddly, Google books is giving me a publication date of December 2017, rather than 2018, although the snippet does have 2018. And I think the publisher is a single word BearManor, or actually BearManor Media.
  • Happy to change the spacing, damnedsillyspelling notwithstanding, but not sure what to do about the year. Your call. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the damnedsillyspacing should change as it's their damnedsillyspacing but the book clearly has 2018 on the frontispiece so I'd leave that! KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. 19:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 12: Holoman, D. Kern - there's no consistency at all in the Worldcat listings but, for internal consistency per your listing, I wonder if Concerts du Conservatoire should be capitalised?
    • French capitalisation is an arcane mystery to the Anglo-Saxon. Our MoS says one thing and general French usage says the opposite, and both are right, or at least not wrong. There is no firm rule as there is in English or German. Consistency is desirable, but not, in my view, at the expense of going against an author's preferred version. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Fine. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Just to play Devil's Advocate, since we are following the MOS rule on capitalization of the opera names, now, and since English readers expect caps, why not go with the caps in the book list? I think the book authors will be very happy that we are bringing attention to their works. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy with that if you care to do the honours, Ss. Tim riley talk 19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 19: Morrison, Richard - the full title is Orchestra: The LSO - a Century of Triumph and Turbulence. Would it help the reader to know its focus is the LSO?
    • On the copy on my shelves the only title on the spine is Orchestra, with the other six words appearing in smaller print on the title page. But no harm in adding the subtitle if wanted. Yours to command. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
As above, let's have it as the actual book has it, i.e. the single word. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, I don't feel strongly, but I think KJP1's first instinct is right: The subtitle gives essential information to our users. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
OK. I'll add. Tim riley talk 19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 20: Rollo Myers - again there's no consistency, but he appears more commonly to publish as Rollo H. Myers.
    • I noticed that when I was looking him up, but again, I feel we should abide by the author's preference even if he changed it later or earlier. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Understood. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 25 - Pearson, Hesketh - perhaps Harmondsworth, UK, as I don't think it's a commonly known place? Also, I wonder if it's worth noting it's a 1954 reprint of a 1935 original. In other instances, you list the edition.
    • I think this is indeed a straight reprint rather than a new edition, so I wouldn't mention that. Good idea about the location. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
And understood again. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Book 28: Rosenthal, Harold - You'll know better than I but Worldcat is giving the Earl of Harewood as co-author, although Googlebooks doesn't. Did Lascelles write a foreword?

End of Batch 1. KJP1 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You're clearly cut out for this. Taking to it like a duck to orange. Tim riley talk 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - batch 2

Batch 2 - inline sources not to the main published books. I'll list them all to check they're working but will embolden any comments, queries.

  • Sources 3/5/19/71 - can't access them as I don't have Grove Online but they work;
  • Sources 6/27 - work fine. Support the contents, as far as my French allows me to check;
  • Source 8 - can't access as subscription site;
  • Source 23 - works fine but does it need an "=" in the title?
  • No. My clumsy typing. Now blitzed. Tim riley talk 15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Source 30 - fine and supports the content;
  • Source 41 - supports the content. I do like "Messager's music has not pleased the public";
  • Source 46 - supports the content;
  • Source 53 - supports the content;
  • Source 55 - can't access this subscription site but it works;
  • Source 57 - another subscription site and in French. But it works;
  • Source 70 - due no doubt to my very poor French, I am not seeing the quote on the linked page. Are we linked to the right page?
  • This is a bit of a pain. Owing to the construction of the site the page you have reached is the nearest you can get by url link to the actual page, which doesn't have its own url and is linked to from this one. I thought of explaining this in the citation, but a concise way of explaining it eluded me and still does. If you go back to the page you will see on the left a little below the middle "Articles de presse" and the first of those links is the one in question. There's another such one to a different page of the same site later with the same problem. Tim riley talk 15:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, see the problem and can't see a solution either. Lets leave it. KJP1 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Ooh... Since there are two links with the same date, I think we should say that the quote is contained in the first one listed below "Articles de presse". -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm getting a slight throbbing about the temples as my brain overheats. Ss, I have every confidence, without fully understanding it, that what you suggest is a good idea, and I suggest you implement it. Tim riley talk 17:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done. See if you like it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
That will do nicely. Much more concise than I had managed to conceive. Tim riley talk 19:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sources 83/88 - can't access this subscription site but it works;
  • Source 91 - Is the wrong program listed here? Programs: 90e année: 1916–17 shows me a Swiss tour and a, cancelled, Spanish tour. I think the French provincial tours are earlier?
    • Changed ref to Holoman's book. Tim riley talk 19:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Source 95 - can't access the relevant page but the link works;
  • Source 96 - can't access this subscription site, at least not without parting with $22, but it works;
  • Source 101 - supports the content;
  • Source 111 - supports the content;
  • Source 113 - supports the content;
  • Source 121 - can't access either but they both work;
  • Source 129 - can't access it but it works;
  • Source 130 - can't access it but it works and it's certainly about two pigeons;
  • Source 153 - supports the content;
  • Source 159 - can't access but it works;
  • Source 166 - Isn't the Discography Appendix 5 rather than Appendix 4?
  • Fixed. I genuinely wonder if the linked site has been rejigged since we linked to it. Two egregious errors in relation to it would seem strange. Tim riley talk 19:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sources 168-193 inclusive - all present and correct;
  • Source 205 - well, I didn't see 'em in the intro, but I did skip the 175 pages of reproduced score!
  • Source 207 - supports the content;
  • Source 208 - I think you've an unnecessary closing bracket ] at the end of The Little Michus instead of a ";
  • Tim fixed this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Source 209 - supports the content.

Source review - batch 3

Batch 3 - FAC source criteria

1c - well-researched
  • The sources are all of high quality, the article is thoroughly researched and, as far as my meagre knowledge of Mr. Messager goes, appears to cover the relevant literature. The article is very well supported by a depth of inline citations. KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
2c - Consistent citations
  • The citing is consistent throughout. One quick query - Source 151, The Guardian, 2001, has "p. H17". Is the H a section of the paper? KJP1 (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's quickly answered: yes. Tim riley talk 19:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - batch 4, and final

Batch 4 - spot-checks against non-online sources

Looking at some other source reviews from the Riley FA stable, and at Brian's very helpful essay, I'm not at all sure spot-checks of content against sources are really necessary. You're both hardly first-time nominees! And I have done a fair few with the online sources. That said, I'm very happy to stroll over to the University of Manchester Library where I'm certain they'll have some of the offline sources. But it'll be the early part of next week before I can get there. KJP1 (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
T. Riley of Liverpool comments: Good Lord! They have libraries in Manchester? Your call, of course, but I doubt if the coordinators will wish you to go to that trouble for two serial offenders such as Ssilvers and Tim riley. I shall now get back to following up the outstanding points in your review. If I may say so, the review is a splendid job for a first attempt, and has properly put the nominators on their mettle. Tim riley talk 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Your checks above are superb, and your sharp eye has helped us to improve the article. It is up to you as to whether you wish to be so generous as to check the offline sources, but everything you have done already has been exceedingly helpful! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think – mind I say I think – we have dealt with all your points, KJP. Over to you. Tim riley talk 19:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You have indeed. And from my perspective you are fine on the sources. I'm very confident that a spot-check of those offline isn't necessary. It's been a pleasure. As Tim knows, I'm a musical illiterate, but I now feel I know Messager like a brother. It's a superb article and I'd happily Support, except I don't think one does after a source review. But you're there without, for which many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Good. Well, warmest thanks for your scrupulous review. I echo Ssilvers in thanking you for helping us to improve the article. Tim riley talk 20:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all three posters
    • Done, I think. Glad if you (and any other interested editor) will check they now look OK, and perhaps tweak if not. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • File:André-Messager-c1888.jpg: where is that publication date coming from?
    • The publication date given by the Bibliothèque nationale de France is "18..". Our man is still youngish, and hasn't yet lost his hair, but the date is evidently after 1886 as the picture was published with a few bars from Le Deux pigeons (1886) printed below it over the composer's signature. 1888-ish seemed a fair guess, but I now see The Association l'Art Lyrique Français says 1890, and I have amended our date to match. Details on the image page adjusted accordingly. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Melisande.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    • We don't of course. (I sometimes wonder if anyone has ever posted a picture to Commons with reliable information.) Now replaced with a {PD-US-1923-abroad} image. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thank you very much for the review. I hope the replies above are satisfactory. Tim riley talk 08:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Black Hours, Morgan MS 493

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Short article about an exceptionaly beautiful, uber-goth, 15th c illuminated book. I realise the article is slight, but after a few years of exhaustive searching, am confident it represents the totality of research. The article's further reading sect mentions the Facsimile Ausgabe von Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, M. 493, but this is a facsimile and costs about four grand. MS 493 is of a very rare type, very brittle, and not often on display. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I love old books. With the caveat that I am no expert, some comments:

  • consists of 121 leaves, the majority of which consist --> repetition
    Yes done Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 14 lines, with fourteen --> inconsistent
    Not sure - the pages of text are arranged in rows of 14 lines, there are also 14 fully illuminated sides. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Oh I see what you mean. Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • (folio 121v).[1] --> the lead only needs references for controversial statements, which I doubt is the case here
have reduced the lead refs. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "unequaled luxury" --> is this quote necessary? It just makes me wonder who said so. Would it not be better to rephrase?
    Yes wonder too. Its there to emphasise that whoever commissioned these works had deep pockets indeed. Will mull over. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Its codex are --> codices is the plural but not sure whether you want plural or singular
Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • presumably for high-ranking members of society, art historians assumed for the court of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold; --> this doesn't flow very well I think, and ending with a ; doesn't make it easy to improve. How about something like this: presumably for high-ranking members of society, most likely for the court of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold. Given their ..
    reprhased as "They were more highly regarded than more conventional illuminated books of hours, and today art historians assume commission from the courts of Philip the Good and Charles the Bold Ceoil (talk)
  • if we have colour and colourisation, should we not also have favour
    Yes done Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • some of the figure's -- which figure are we talking about here? No figure has been introduced
    Clarified Ceoil (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The manuscript does not contain any family crest to identify the donor, who, given the expense of the book and its dating, art historians assume was a high-ranking member of court;[7] there has been speculation that it was commissioned by or for Charles the Bold.[1] --> this was already described above

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Edwinin for these, and also for your edits. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

A few more:

  • Borders decorations include --> or is it Border decorations?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • with multiple signature - with multiple signatures?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • which are probably modern, and found around the corners of the outer edges of the pages --> that comma doesn't sit well with me
Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The lettering throughout is reminiscent of the Gothic style, with initials formed from gold leaf on emerald ground, and which typically extend across lines of text,[2] and are in gothic minuscule with silver ink, with gold leaf added for the rubrics --> needs a bit of tidying up, with all those 'and's
Now broken down. Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The miniatures are all depict scenes --> is the 'are' here a mistake?
  • The most well known illustration --> I'm not a native speaker but I'd write 'The best-known illustration'
  • Agree Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I found the font for the list of miniatures quite small
  • Used the small template as I didn't want them to be obtrusive, but thats fair enough and now changed. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • It was acquired by Robert Hoe --> is it known when?
  • Clarified Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if there should not be a little more about the text. As a reader all I get is a link to Hours of the Virgin. I think a brief description of the content is in order. Perhaps even a bit more about the language, the font even. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree. The font (blackletter) is now mentioned in the lead and body, as is the material used for the lettering. Re the text; I dont have much, its in Latin and includes the mass of the virgin, the hours of the virgin, and the office of the dead, which are noted in the miniatures section as the opposite pages. Thinking this through. Ceoil (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Now expanded. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
More very good suggestions, mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Nice article. I support on prose.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things:

  • Bruges is linked on second use in the lede.
  • suggest the ownership of privileged and sophisticated members of the Burgundian court." I might consider starting this "suggest its ownership by ..."
  • You mention an iron-copper solution, but this isn't sourced either there or in the body.
  • "they depreciated quickly" I might say "deteriorated" as the verb.
  • "It's codex are largely intact," needless apostrophe
  • "colourisation" I might just say "colours".
  • There is a "T" following the second paragraph of "Commission" without a good reason for being there.
  • "worth more per kg than gold," I might spell out kilogram.
  • "and there are no surviving tile or inventory records before the 19th century." do you mean "title" for "tile"?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Wehwalt, got these now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

A small but perfectly-formed article on a small but perfectly-formed book. A few thoughts below but nothing to stand in the way of Support.

  • "a form of devotional book for lay-people" - link lay-people or will it be commonly understood?
  • "The text is written for use of Rome" - it might be I've not had enough coffee but I'm not getting the meaning here.
Librarian speak for Roman Rite, as opposed to Paris, Sarum rite etc. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Johnbod - Many thanks. It's quite possible I'm the only liturgical idiot over whose head that might go! On the other hand, a link might help. KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and uniquely dark tone suggest its ownership ownership" - delete second "ownership".
  • "MS M.493 was likely intended high nobility:" - "MS M.493 was likely intended for high nobility"?
  • "the artwork is of a sophisticated and unusual taste, and the unusual colour of pages" - to avoid repetition, perhaps, "the artwork is of a sophisticated and unusual taste, and the uncommon colour of the pages"?
  • "commissioned by the courts of Philip the Bold and Philip the Good" - plural "courts" assuming they weren't the same?
  • "Kaiser Maximilian I observed of the Burgundian rulers" - your period not mine, but isn't Max more commonly known, at least in the English-speaking world, as the Emperor rather than Kaiser?
  • "while the angular and linear manner of the figure's clothes" - aren't we talking about more than one figure, i.e. "the figures' clothes (or clothing)"?
  • "Most art historians date it as as after 1475 based on stylistically and paleographically similarities" - remove double "as" and, for it to agree, perhaps, "Most art historians date it as after 1475 based on stylistic and paleographic similarities"?
  • "The blues were formed from a number of mixtures of ingredients, each allowing varying depths and varieties of colour" - perhaps, "The blues were formed from different mixtures of ingredients, each allowing varying depths and varieties of colour"?
  • "the latter are similar in style to those found in the Viennese Hours" - do the Viennese hours need an introduction? We haven't heard of them before. There doesn't seem to be a bluelink, unfortunately.
  • "It was rebound in the 19th century for the then owner Nicholas Yemenzi" - insert "the".
  • "The book is stamped with multiple signatures around the corners of the outer edges of the pages, but these are probably modern". - Insert "these are"?
  • "They mostly center around the the Mass of the Virgin" - insert "t".
  • "Mary, wearing a wimpled veil, and St John stand to the left of the foot of the cross." - insert comma , and "to".
  • "To their right are two gesturing mourners whose facial expressions convey a sense of deep sadness and loss" - plural "expressions".
  • "as evidencing the "unusual, exquisite and precious overall effect of that is generated by using the technique of fixing an illumination on a piece of black dyed parchment"" - the quote doesn't read quite right to me. Is the "of that is" redundant?
  • "Folio 50v: Nativity ("Hours of the Virgin: Prime")" - should this read "Folio 50v: Nativity (opposite "Hours of the Virgin: Prime")", as the others do?
  • Note 1 is a footnote, whereas the others are all citations. Should they be split out into two sections, Footnotes and References?
  • Should the book page numbers not read, e.g. 9 Walther, p.363? Just ignore me if I'm wrong. MoS isn't my strongest suit.

A very nice article indeed. KJP1 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about another cantata by J. S. Bach. In the last years, I tried one that was 300 years old (BWV 165 in 2015, BWV 161 in 2016), but no cantata is certain for 1718. I chose Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56, for personal reasons. It is the first FAC about a solo cantata, and the first for a cantata from Bach's third cantata cycle when he didn't write a cantata or more per week (as in the first and second), but much more selectively. It is a beloved piece, and one of few that Bach called a cantata. - The article was began by Dgies and expanded by Mathsci in 2009. It received a GA review by sadly missed Yash! in 2015. I added a bit about the third cycle, and more references to the recordings table. - Enjoy yearning for death, - Bach did! Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

I remember reading the previous cantate FA. I still am neither an expert in Bach nor music. A few comments nevertheless:

  • why is "Komm, o Tod, du Schlafes Bruder" in the lead bold?
Because it's a redirect --GA
  • Thomaskantor in the lead could benefit from a brief explanation, as you have in the body
The idea of the lead is a summary, no? --GA
But also an accessible introduction. MOS:INTRO "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined" --EIL
Yes, but there are so many things NOT mentioned, - do we really have to explain what most readers of a Bach cantata article will know? -----GA
  • Who is Albert Schweitzer? Perhaps add something like "music historian" (I made that up)
This is not about him, theologian, organist, writer, humanitarian, philosopher, and physician, - founder of the Hôpital Albert Schweitzer in Lambarene, Nobel peace prize laureate (1952), - people should know him ;) --GA
  • The year after --> is there a reason why this isn't explicitly called 'second cantata cycle'?
Yes, because it could have happened ten years after the first. --GA
Sorry, let me rephrase: Is there a reason why you do not use the phrase 'second cantata cycle'? --EIL
For two reasons: avoid repetition, and get the chorales in, - how would you do that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
For me repetition is not an issue here. But I just read that the second cycle is not identical to the chorale cycle, so it's just too complicated. Maybe leave it. --EIL
The second cycle IS somewhat identical, only that Bach wasn't successful making them all chorale cantatas that year, and added later. -----GA
  • Leipzig Cycle III --> this term doesn't get mentioned elsewhere, just the section header and Jones' sentence. Do we need it? Maybe better to put Jones' label in a footnote?
changed the header --GA
  • A third cantata --> how about something like this:
Bach's third cantata cycle, of which fewer works are extant, is different. It spans works from his third and fourth year in Leipzig, including Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen. It also includes more performances of works by other composers....
I tried differently. The cantatas by others are not part of his third cycle, but performed during the time. --GA
I still find this sentence odd: 'A third cantata is of a different quality.' Should that not be: 'The third cantata cycle is of a different quality.' The following sentences talk about the cycle, not cantatas. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, fixed. -----GA
  • performed works by other - I thought the definition of a cycle was composed, not performed?
see above, - and for Bach, composed meant performed, he composed for specific occasions.
  • Bach shows --> showed?
agree, changed --GA
  • What is the BWV of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen? Looks as if it doesn't have one.
We established it on top, and in this case there's no hymn or other same title which could be meant. - The template lang changed, making every combination hard to code. --GA
  • which has been discovered in 2015 -> just checking the discovery in 2015 was finding out the name of the author? Maybe "The author's identity was long unknown until in 2015 ...
tried something like that --GA
  • A boat on the Sea of Galilee -> a bit more context, why is this relevant?
Sea voyage - do you think we need to explain more? - Several disciples were fishermen on that lake, sea voyage was every day for them. --GA
Hmm. Difficult. Best I could do is: A boat on the Sea of Galilee (mentioned in Matthew 9:1, which the text has several references to). But it gets a bit clumsy. Maybe just leave it. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • whom he regarded -> who is he referring to?
whom he regarded as a 'profound composer' refers to the one mentioned immediately before. Can't say: "a composer whom he regarded as a 'profound composer'" as repetitive, - what do you suggest? --GA
Just realised there are actually 5 men in this sentence. Is it important that Gardiner is mentioned at all? Is the exact relationship father's cousin important? If not, maybe something like this:
This is Bach's only setting of Crüger's tune, recalling the style of his relative Johann Christoph Bach whom he regarded as a 'profound composer'.
In former reviews, I have been requested to attribute quotations, which means Gardiner should stay. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
So it is Gardiner who called JCB a profound composer? Now I'm getting confused. I thought it was JSB. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
What Bach said exactly (if he did, and in German), we don't know. We know that Gardiner summarized: "... J. C. Bach, organist in Eisenach, possibly his first keyboard teacher and mentor - the one he called a "profound composer." -----GA

As always, nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for helpful questions, - please check the changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. Always a pleasure, Gerda! Edwininlondon (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for more, always helpful! -----Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:BWV56-autograph-manuscript-first-page-Bach-1726.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Brooklyn_Museum_1997.168.3_Cross_and_Staff_(2).jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Usernameunique


  • Footnote [a] is pretty basic, but how about a citation?
It only explains what the 3 letters stand for, - was the solution found for the conflict that we can't link to BWV and have it bold as the redirect. --GA
  • Suggested first sentence : "Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen ("I will the cross-staff gladly carry"[1] or "I will gladly carry the Cross"[2]), BWV 56,[a] is a church cantata composed by Johann Sebastian Bach in Leipzig for the 19th Sunday after Trinity Sunday, and first performed on 27 October 1726."
It was like that formerly, but is a lot of German + translations + catalogue + footnote, before a reader (who doesn't look at the infobox) would know if they are at the right article. --GA
I would use "depicts" when it comes to images, such as tone painting. Give me another ;) --GA
  • "the prescribed gospel reading" — what prescribed gospel reading?
A reader who doesn't know that the Lutheran liturgical year at the time was organized by specific readings for each occasion will know from the link Church cantata, and the others would be bored if we repeat that in every cantata article. --GA
  • What is the significance of the 19th Sunday after Trinity Sunday? I.e., why is it not just another random Sunday? --GA
same answer, - Bach (and his colleagues) wrote his cantatas to go with the specific readings for a specific occasion, Christmas (3 days with different readings) or 19th Sunday after Trinity. --GA
  • "Komm, o Tod, du Schlafes Bruder" — why is this in bold? To be consistent, should it not be in italics, and should the translation not be between quotation marks?
It's a redirect. Readers who type the title should arrive here. Schlafes Bruder is a novel, a film. The quotation marks frame what is quoted, not its translation. --GA
  • "Du, o schönes Weltgebäude" — how about a translation, and a comma at the end.
The title of the hymn has nothing to do with the content of the cantata, I believe it wouldn't add for someone who doesn't already know it. ("You, oh beautiful building of the world", seems a detour.) --GA
  • "(two oboes and taille) ... "(two violins and viola) and continuo" — taille and continuo should be linked (they are below), and suggest "a taille", "a viola", and "a continuo"
Sorry, no. Whoever doesn't know what these are (like you) can look up Baroque instruments, while for the others it's a sea of blue, and why not link violin? They are all linked in the specific section about scoring. - It's never "a continuo" which is a group of instruments. Saying "two violins" is short for "two parts for violins" which may be played by several players each, depending on the size of the orchestra. --GA


  • "Church cantata by J. S. Bach" — any particular reason for the abbreviation here?
Clarity, and brevity. --GA
  • "opening Bass aria" — Why is "Bass" capitalized?
Mathsci wrote that who contributed the image, - it's a bit like a title. --GA
  • Why does "Chorale" have a "by" ("by Johann Franck"), but "Cantata text" doesn't ("Christoph Birkmann")?
Good catch! The reason is that chorale often has the title of a chorale (when it has an article), and "Cantata text author" would seem too clumsy, - has to be differentiated from chorale author. Adding "by". --GA


  • "Thomaskantor (director of church music) ... Thomanerchor" — you describe one, how about describing the other?
I think one explains the other, no? --GA
  • "Cantata music had to be provided for two major churches, ... simpler church music for two others" — it's unclear if all four churches are major, or only the first two. Also, suggest "and simpler..."
"and" added. If it says "two", how would a reader think "four"?
  • "The year after," — can you note somewhere in this sentence that this was his second cycle, to bridge the gap between first (mentioned in the previous sentence) and third (mentioned in the following section)?
seems redundant to me that the cycle after the first is the second ;) --GA

Third Leipzig cantata cycle

  • "Richard D. P. Jones calls this cycle Leipzig Cycle III." — Richard D. P. Jones should be linked. But is there any relevance to this, i.e., is it just another name for "Third Leipzig cantata cycle", or is he the one who coined the concept of the third Leipzig cycle in general?
Linked, thank you! It's only his phrase (here), which was the section title (see above). We might drop the sentence, but it explains the wording in the reference. --GA
  • "third and fourth year in Leipzig" — suggest adding the actual years as well.
Too tricky, because they all begin mid-year, - he took office First Sunday after Trinity, which was in May 1723. --GA
  • "During the third cycle" — I'm a bit confused by this sentence. Are you saying he again performed three things: 1) Lehms, 2) BWV 199, and 3) BWV 54?
Would it be clearer to add to the first sentence in that section? added: "... that Bach performed more works by other composers during this time, in addition to repeating his own earlier works." --GA
  • "he performed again" — suggest "he again performed"
taken --GA
  • "Like the models, even church cantatas" — do you need the "even"?
yes, because he wrote many secular cantatas for which it's no surprise that they don't contain biblical text. --GA
  • "The writing for the solo voice is demanding" — in what way?
It's what the source says. --GA
  • "Jones assumes that they" — who does "they" refer to? Structurally it invokes the "trained singers" of the preceding sentence, but this doesn't seem right.
should have been "it", changed to "Bach" --GA
  • "The only chorale cantata of the third cycle," — bit of a run-on, suggest splitting in two.
How? Seems one thought. --GA

Occasion and words

  • "For the same occasion ... in his first cantata cycle for 3 October 1723" — suggest "For the same occasion in his first cantata cycle for 3 October 1723, Bach had composed ..." Also, suggest splitting this long sentence in two, one sentence dealing with the first cycle, and another with the second.
done --GA

Poet and theme

  • "whose identity was unknown until 2015" — pretty interesting, would it be easy to give a few words about how he was identified?
The source has it, and his article, but seems not the place to repeat in all cantatas he wrote. --GA
  • "University of Leipzig" — is this the University of Leipzig, or Leipzig University? Regardless, it should be linked.
Both names mean the same thing, - linked. --GA
  • "Sabbath's Tithe devoted to God" — for consistency again, should this not be between quotation marks?
It's only a translation, no title itself. --GA
  • "Ich will den Kreuzweg gerne gehen" — shouldn't this be italicized without quotation marks?
Titles of minor works (poems, hymns, songs) are straight and in quotation marks. --GA
  • "Life is likened to both" — suggest "In the cantata life is likened to both,"
We'd need to say "in the cantata text" then, no? --GA
  • "until the end of the work" — meaning the theme ends slightly before the end of the work? If it's instead present in the entire work, suggest "throughout the work."
excellent! --GA
  • "The hymn in eight stanzas was published" — do you need "in eight stanzas", considering that's mentioned in the next sentence?
no ;) --GA
  • "Bach led the first performance of the cantata on 27 October 1726." — where?
Sometimes we know if Thomaskirche or Nikolaikirche, - for this one we don't. --GA
  • "One week before, he had also concluded a solo cantata by a chorale" — same place?
No, certainly the other, but we don't know, see above. They had performances in both churches on one day only for high holidays (one in the morning, the other in the afternoon), otherwise only one, switching churches. It doesn't matter, no? --GA

Structure and scoring

  • "taille (Ot), two violins (Vl), viola (Va), cello (Vc), and basso continuo." — suggest "a taille (Ot), two violins (Vl), a viola (Va), a cello (Vc), and a basso continuo." Also, why does basso continuo have no abbreviation?
for the numbers, see lead. BC is not used in the table, so no abbr needs to be introduced. --GA
  • "J.J.Dominica 19 post trinitatis. Cantata à Voce sola. è stromenti" — how about a translation?
It's explained by what follows, but done. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Neue Bach-Ausgabe" — maybe just "New Bach Edition", which via "Edition" indicates that it is a book and is thus a bit more clarifying.
The translation was made only later, not when it was published, seems a bit not historic ;) - There's a link to an article I created as Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA). I added the translation, + italics. ---GA

Movements of Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56

  • SATB — clarify what this is above at "four-part choir", by saying "four-part choir (SATB)".
copied abbreviation from infobox ---GA


  • "Wolff notes" — "Wolff" has not yet been introduced, so should be "Christoph Wolff notes".
good catch (he usually gets mentioned further up ... ---GA
  • What does "scoring even" mean?
You didn't ask in the lead ;) - It's the specification in the score which instrument (group) plays what. We can link to score but the question didn't come up in 7 years. ---GA


  • Is there a reason movements 1–5 don't show up in the table on contents?
It's the movement numbers from the table. An Alternative would be the long German lines they begin with (which you'll find in cantata articles not by me). Most articles have it like this, which provides a convenient link to a specific movement without having to know how it begins. ---GA
Misunderstood the question. Reason is that it seems not helpful to have the numbers in the TOC, before explaining what they mean. ----GA
  • "describes the upward part as..." — this sentence has some problems. The most obvious is that there are five quotation marks, leaving two clearly demarcated quotations plus a stray mark (is there a third quotation somewhere?). The other problem (that fixing the first might resolve) is that "as a musical pun on the word Kreuzstab" is dangling a bit; is this another description of Gardiner for the upward part (in which case it should probably be "and as a musical pun...")?
Excellent counting. I had the whole thing as one quotation, and left a mark when breaking it up. All reworded, please check if it makes more sense. ---GA
  • "with its long and expressive melismatic lines" — "its" refers to the soloist.
no, refers to "entry" (after the instrumental opening), would be "his" if soloist ---GA
  • "accompany in counterpoint and echoing responses" — not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to say, but (if I'm reading it correctly), I think it would be better phrased as "accompany in counterpoint, echoing responses"
I added one more "in", to clarify that it's both, counterpoint, and responses. If I remember right that paragraph is by Mathsci, - I didn't write the article from scratch. ---GA


  • Is there a reason that this (not to mention 3), is so much shorter than 1? The final sentences of each (Gardiner's analyses) seem a bit perfunctory, without much analysis of the movements.
yes, giant opening aria, short recitative, which is added now ----GA
adding: Gardiner writes from the point of view of a performer who conducted all Bach's church cantatas, so knows their sounds, not only construction. ----GA
  • "depicted in the" — should probably be "depicted by the".
yes (would be "in" in German, sorry) ---GA


  • "the passage from Isaiah" — what passage from Isaiah?
It was specified and quoted in the "Poet and theme" section. ---GA


  • I don't understand the first sentence. Is the German the title of the movement? Also, grammatically speaking, the periods should be removed.
I added "recitative", - can't help then having it twice then, split the sentence. Better? ---GA
  • "string accompaniment which after" — suggest a comma between "accompaniment" and "which".
I split that sentence also. ---GA
  • "It begins ... in triplets." — bit of a run-on, consider splitting in two.
just did that ;) ---GA
  • "Gardiner describes: ..." — grammatically the sentence is missing a subject, and stylistically, not a big fan of starting off with "Gardner describes:".
added "this change" ---GA


  • "an inspired masterpiece" — whose masterpiece: Bach's, or Franck's? I would assume Bach (the article is about his work, after all), but the following sentence and quotation deal entirely with the Franck's text.
Sure, Bach's, or it would be handled further up. The text could go there, but I think it makes more sense to see it close to where the music is described. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "BWV 301" — does this have a title?
yes and no, it was without words - as so many of the 4-part settings, so we can take the first line (O, du schönes Weltgebäude), as the ref does, or any other first line from that hymn, - it doesn't matter, as he set the tune. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 'profound composer' — why the single marks (') instead of double (")?
for a quote within a quote ---GA
need to interrupt once more ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Manuscripts and publication

  • "and the part" — what is the part?
part, the bass has his part, the violins have their part, - like score a rather commonly known term. ----GA
  • "Preußischer Kulturbesitz as D-B Bach P 118 and ST 58." — what does this mean? It's really hard to understand.
The museums code numbers, P for Partitur=score, ST for Stimmen=parts. We could drop that. It's not so common that we have score and parts extant. ----GA
I would need to search. ----GA
  • "its complete edition Stuttgarter Bach-Ausgaben" — what year?
took several years, not finished afaik ----GA


  • "marked by green background" — should be "marked with a green background".
you are the first to say so, but why not? ----GA
  • There are 8 recordings in the chart, but apparently these are taken from a list of 81. What's the criteria for inclusion?
The selection was made so long ago that I don't even remember, sorry ;) - I'll probably add at least those within a set of the complete cantatas. ----GA


  • "his 1908 book about Bach that the" — how about "his 1908 book about Bach, name of book, that the"?
name is Bach-Buch - I thought that's German, and the translation, literally Bach Book, repetitive. Will try to find how it's called in English. ----GA
  • This section feels a bit underdeveloped, and doesn't even have a topic sentence. Can you turn this into a paragraph that explains where the work fits in to Bach's oeuvre, and how it is considered to compare to his others?
Hopefully! Flight is called now. Until later. ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Good work on the article, Gerda Arendt. Full comments/suggestions are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough and helpful review! I replied to the first half, and need to interrupt. Going to travel for a week, responses may come delayed, but as this is planned for the 19th Sunday after Trinity, we still have time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Thing (1982 film)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • Further reading should be a separate section, not a subsection, and should not include Wikipedia articles. Also, formatting should match references, although additional information can be included
  • Why include a location for Los Angeles Times and not New York Times? Should be either neither or both
  • FN6 is incomplete and doesn't match formatting of other books
  • FN7 is malformed, same with 39-41
  • Newspaper refs without URLs should include page numbers
  • GamesRadar should be italicized, as should website names like - check others
  • FN 49-50: why no spaces?
  • Formatting for FN51 doesn't match similar sources, same with 167
  • Magazine titles should be consistently italicized
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations or not
  • Noting a rather heavy use of sources that are either written by or interviews of people directly involved in the production
  • Box Office Mojo should not be italicized, nor should UPI, nor BFI, etc - check others
  • FN74: page?
  • What makes Strange Horizons a high-quality reliable source? Alt Film Guide? Screamscape?
  • Rather than Goodreads, just cite the edition directly
  • FN123 doesn't match formatting of other sources
  • FN127: archive link doesn't appear to work correctly
  • FN131: use |via=
  • Per WP:ROTTEN, RT and Metacritic's reliability is limited for pre-2000s films
  • Review aggregators may be cited if the film in question has been reappraised in modern times. Patience, Slightlymad 05:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • But they are being cited here more broadly, not simply in the context of modern reappraisal. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Comments from FunkMonk

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

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

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

Australian Air Corps

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Presenting a neglected formation of the Australian military (so neglected it didn't even have an article on WP till recently)... The Australian Air Corps has always been the poorer relation of the Australian Flying Corps of World War I and the Royal Australian Air Force formed in 1921, but between the disbandment of the AFC and the establishment of the RAAF, Australia's military air personnel needed a home, and that was provided by the short-lived AAC. Though always a stop-gap, it turned out to be a pretty successful venture -- rather than simply remain in a holding pattern, its personnel undertook some pioneering flights, one of which has been credited as marking the birth of aviation medicine in Australia. Most importantly, the corps laid the foundations for a permanent Australian air force. Not a long article but I think comprehensive given the subject's brief existence -- have at it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review from Factotem

A few minor observations

  • For Newton's Australian Air Aces", the full title appears to be "Australian Air Aces : Australian Fighter Pilots in Combat".
    • Done.
  • The edition of Stephens's The Royal Australian Air Force: A History appears to have been published by the Melbourne branch of the OUP.
    • Done.
  • There is a mix of ISBN-13 and ISBN-10; I understand that it's preferred at FAC to have all ISBNs consistently formatted.
    • Done.
  • Refs #10, #22 & #33 are sourced to The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History. Although you've used {{cite web}}, and this source does not appear in the References section, it appears to be a 634-page book. Is there any reason why it's not formatted as a book ref? More importantly, given the apparent size of the source, do the links you provide in the refs take us to the relevant pages? They're behind a paywall, so can't check myself.
    • It's a slightly anomalous situation: yes it's a book, but the online version is not a straight scan of the print book -- there are individual entries and no page numbers, thus cite web is more appropriate for the version I used (yes, the links take you to the individual entries if you have access).
  • Based on the version of the article at 00:58, 5 April 2018
  • I did a random check of refs #3, #9, #17, #21, #30 & #32, and the statements in the article are supported by the sources (though in the case of #21, you could probably reduce the page range to 69-71; minor niggle).
  • Ref #14 does not appear to support the statements that Cole and Wrigley joined the AAC. Page 36 mentions both, but this is in a section that appears to be discussing recruitment into the RAAF, and p. 191 doesn't really say anything in support of the statement that I can see.
  • Page 20 is the one: Legge did telegram Colonel Watt seeking his views on the officer proposed for appointment as the AAC's first flight commander and the other candidates being considered for subordinate posts as lieutenants. It was seemingly as a result of Watt's response on 9 December that Cole was selected for the senior job ... On 19 February Major Brown relinquished the command at Point Cook to Major Anderson, who now became the corps' senior officer.90 In February, too, Captain Wrigley took over as the adjutant of CFS, vice Kilby who departed to become aide-de-camp to the Governor-General. Further appointments in the AAC appear to have been made purely as the need arose. I think those are fairly clear but page 18 also states explicitly that Cole and Wrigley joined the AAC if we need more.
I missed that. I'm not sure why you need to include pp. 36 and 191 in that ref when p. 20 supports the statement made. But that all seems fine now. Factotem (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Googling "Australian Air Corps" did not reveal anything to suggest to me that the article is not comprehensive or a full survey of the available sources.

Factotem (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks for taking the time to make such a thorough check -- much appreciated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Welcome. Forgot to add, I saw nothing to suggest that the sources are not of sufficient quality and reliability for FAC. Factotem (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And a few minor observations on prose

  • ...because it had not then offered a commission to Frank McNamara, VC. Stumbled a little at this. I read "then" as a consequential statement, when in fact I think you're using it to mean "at that time".
    • Done.
  • ...Australia began receiving 128 aircraft and associated spares and other equipment... Maybe "...Australia began receiving 128 aircraft with associated spares and other equipment..."?
    • Done.
  • ...which operated in the waters off New Guinea and Australia's north,... Feels like the end of this clause is missing the word "coast".
    • Tweaked.
  • The AAC performed several tasks in connection with the Prince of Wales' tour of Australia in 1920. Should be "Prince of Wales's" per MOS:POSS.
    • Hmm, "Wales's" seems to me a bit like the unpleasant-sounding exceptions POSS notes...
Understand what you mean, but I'm not sure that Wales is any different from boss, which explicitly takes the apostrophe s according to MOS:POSS. Also, the exception seems to be based on difficulties in pronunciation caused by the word following the possessive beginning with 's', and anyway the solution given is to reword to avoid, rather than allow as an exception. Factotem (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for belated response... I think "Wales's" is more akin to the "z" sound you get with "Jesus's", which is offered as an exception. Much as I value the MOS, it is a guideline after all and I think occasionally we have to ask ourselves if following it religiously actually produces a better article. I mean for the sake of a quiet life I suppose we could go with "the 1920 tour of Australia by the Prince of Wales", though I still think the way it is now is preferable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
You're right, and I missed that bit. Personally I do not have a problem with the way you have written this, but I note that MOS suggests re-writing to avoid it rather than allowing as an exception. Up to you. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Factotem (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Tks for those comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Image licensing counfounds me still, but by all the other FAC criteria I see no reason not to support. Factotem (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Just what such an article should be, it seems to me as a layman. Clear, readable, and – I confidently assume – comprehensive. Well and widely sourced and cited and appropriately illustrated. All I can dredge up by way of queries are whether Captain Roy Phillipps had quite that many consonants, and whether "program" is now the accepted Australian spelling of "programme". Very happy to sign up as a supporter. – Tim riley talk 17:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and kind words, Tim. Yes, according to his personnel file (and other sources) "Phillipps" is correct despite looking somewhat odd. As for "program", that does seem common Australian usage, even though we still follow BritEng norms for the most part. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Usernameunique


  • Consider breaking into two paragraphs, the second starting with "The AAC's primary purpose".
    • Not averse to this but let's see how we go with the next few points.
  • "maintain assets ... pioneering flights" — a bit unclear what you mean by these two terms, particularly the second (does the first basically mean keep the planes in good condition?).
    • "Assets" seems a good umbrella term as I understand the AAC was to maintain not only aircraft but other equipment and the Point Cook base. "Pioneering" is deliberate -- flights not made before.
  • Having read the lead (but not yet the body), I don't have a good sense of how the AAC was different from the AFC and the RAAF, and thus what the point of changing from AFC to AAC to RAAF was.
    • Heh, you may be labouring under the misapprehension that things always happen for a reason in the military. Of course they do, but it's often hard to fathom just what the reason is... ;-)
  • In general (final point, after reading the rest of the article), you could also expand the lead a bit: how many members, how many died, how many planes, maybe some details about some notable flights, and perhaps something about the legacy of the AAC (the final sentence in "Disbandment and legacy" does a good job of this).
    • Given the size of the article I think we want to guard against too much detail in the lead but I'll think on these last two points.


  • Anything that would work as a picture? Did they have a symbol/emblem?
    • Doesn't appear to have been a crest or emblem; as a temporary formation it'd be surprising if there were. Even units conceived as more-or-less permanent can wait years for a crest.
      • Maybe the B.E.2 in the Australian War Museum?
        • That's a thought, except that the flight for which it's remembered took place before the AAC was formed. I do normally like to put images in infoboxes but in this case I haven't seen one that's directly related to the AAC, representative of the entity as whole, and in good condition.

Establishment and control

  • "were disbanded, and replaced" — again, why?
    • Sources don't go into special reasons for the disbandment of the AFC, it seems to have happened as part of the general demobilisation of wartime units. The purpose in raising the AAC is mentioned.
  • "sole unit" — is unit a specific military term, and if so, could it be linked?
    • Hmm, I don't think I've ever been asked to link "unit" but there is a redirect so I don't mind using it.
  • "The decision for such a service had been taken" — suggest "The decision to create such a service had been made"
    • Okay.
  • "maintained, but he later" — suggest "maintained; Legge later"
    • Okay.


  • "to Frank McNamara, VC" — how about his rank instead of the post-nominal, and/or turn "VC" into a few words explaining his being awarded the Victoria Cross.
    • I liked the shorthand of "Frank McNamara, VC" but I can spell it out.
      • If you want it that way the VC should separately link to Victoria Cross, but I think your rephrasing is better.
  • "in favor (sic)" — no chance he was just using American English?
    • Well even if he was using AmEng deliberately, it's not AusEng and therefore I expect readers will believe it's wrong and try to correct it if we don't sic it.
  • "McNamara received a commission in the AAC that April" — why the reversal? Did Roy King thereafter join?
    • Sorry, I don't understand the issue. King refused a commission because McNamara had not at that time been offered one; in his January 1920 letter he in effect said "take McNamara instead of me"; the AAC did so that April.
      • Got it. I read it differently the first time (as Roy King saying 'I can't join something for which McNamara was refused'), but see now that King was ceding his spot in favor (or favour) of McNamara.
  • "Hippolyte "Kanga" De La Rue ... was offered a commission" — if he accepted the offer, say "accepted a commission" instead.
    • Okay.
  • "approval was given ..., to cope with ..." — minor suggestion to flip clauses, to "to cope with ..., approval was given..."
    • Okay.
  • "According to The Age" — according to the newspaper (e.g., in an article), or according to an ad in it? I would clarify, and also add that The Age is a newspaper.
    • Although it reads a bit like an ad, it's a brief article, which is why I felt it was fine to express it as I did. I'm not used to having to spell out that newspapers are newspapers but I don't mind adding it.
      • Got it. I would actually prefer According to the newspaper The Age" or ever just your original "According to The Age" over "According to The Age newspaper".
        • I think I'd like to revert to "According to The Age..." then.
  • "returned soldiers" — returned, or returning?
    • Returned is correct.
  • "some compensation" — any word on how much?
    • Yes, can add.
  • "they had been on duty" — technically this says that the families had been on duty.
    • Quite right -- tks for picking that up.
  • "Wreckage that may have belonged" — just a point of curiosity, but what happened to the wreckage? Why couldn't they definitively determine whether it was from the plane in question? Was it just a few washed up pieces?
    • The source offers no further detail.


  • "The AAC's initial complement of aircraft included twenty" — suggest "The AAC's initial complement of aircraft included thirty-give airplanes: twenty ..."
    • The source doesn't explicitly state a grand total so I'd prefer to just mention the numbers of each type that the source does spell out.
  • "their historic flight" — what historic flight?
    • Sorry, that probably was a bit esoteric -- it was the first flight from Melbourne to Darwin, so will clarify.
  • "The aircraft included..." — any word on how many of each, since you gave the itemized count above?
    • The source I've used doesn't break it down; another may do, I'll have a look and itemise if feasible.

Notable flights

  • "Williams and Wackett flew" — perhaps "had flown".
    • Yes, of course.
  • "New Guinea" — suggest linking to New Guinea.
    • Okay.
  • "demonstrated that the Avro was not suited to tropical conditions" — any reason why?
    • Can add some specifics.
  • "Second Peace Loan" — this is a but confusing, what is it exactly?
    • It's in the next few words: "for the sale of government bonds".
      • That says what it's related to, but not necessarily what it is. E.g., it could have been a promotion, that was intended to facilitate the sale of bonds.
        • I think I could safely say "to promote the sale of government bonds" if that works for you.
  • "what may have been Australia's first aerial derby—at Serpentine," — you could probably use a comma instead of an em dash.
    • Could do but I felt we'd have a few too many commas around there.

Disbandment and legacy

  • "achieve high rank" — should "rank" be plural?
    • As a general term I think it's currently expressed correctly.
  • "According the RAAF's" — missing "to".
    • Yes, tks for picking that up!


  • Any chance of sfn footnotes that link to "References"?
    • I do prefer the style I've employed as I believe it provides useful detail and find it more foolproof than the sfn format.
  • Notes 4, 17, 27, 32: I don't think you really need the retrieval dates. The references are to newspapers/bulletins, which will forever remain stable; you don't have the risk of a continually updating source, since even if the links you provide ever go down, whatever was in The Age on 22 March 1920 will always be the same.
    • While I agree that a newspaper always exists, I think it's still common practice to add retrieval dates in such citations.
  • Note 27: "lecture" should be capitalized.
    • I think article titles, whether in newspapers or elsewhere, generally use sentence case -- but you've still pointed out an inconsistency in "Imperial Gift Aircraft", which should use "aircraft".


  • Stephens 2006/2001: Why two years? If you're using a particular edition, which can be labelled (e.g., "2nd ed), you should clarify.
    • It was first published (in hardback) in 2001; the edition I've used (in paperback) was published in 2006.
      • If you like, and if the edition was named in some way, you could do something like with Meadows 2004 in Pioneer Helmet#Bibliography, where it specifies "2010 digital ed."
        • I don't mind saying "2006 paperback ed." if you like, as that seems to be the only distinguishing feature of the one I used vs. the original.
  • Consider adding {{free access}} or {{open access}} tags as appropriate.
    • Tks for pointing those out but I'd prefer to just stick to pointing out where access is restricted.

Looks great, Ian Rose. Comments/suggestions are above. Most are quite minor; probably the most important is the suggestion to expand the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, as I've indicated earlier I'll probably tackle the points re. the main body before looking at the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Ian Rose, responded to a few specific comments above. I'll hold off on support until I see what changes (if any) you make to the lead, but looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Construction of Rockefeller Center

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the construction of New York City's Rockefeller Center. It's a very complicated story: the original complex was only constructed because the Metropolitan Opera declined to build a new opera house on a plot in Midtown Manhattan, and the last few buildings were added several decades after the first buildings were completed. This article was created from scratch last November, so I took great pains to make sure the text was as clear as possible when writing it. I took some inspiration from the Construction of the World Trade Center article, which is an FA. The "Construction of Rockefeller Center" page received a GA review from Ed! and a GOCE copy-edit from Dhtwiki. I look forward to everyone's comments. epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

An interesting read, but I'm finding a fair number of relatively minor issues:

  • "The project was initially envisioned as a new opera-house complex for the Metropolitan Opera." To avoid the repetition of opera, I might change "opera-house complex" to "home"
  • Done.
  • "Excavation of the site started in April 1931, and construction of the first buildings started in September of the same year." I think one of the "started"'s should be changed to "began". Close repetition of words is something I found a fair number of in this article, suggest reading over with an eye for this in case I don't catch them all.
  • Done.
  • "Building" is the subject for the second, third and fourth sentences in the last paragraph of the lede. I'd try to mix it up a bit with different words.
  • Done.
  • "purchased a patch of land" "Patch" generally connotes a small amount, but this is several city blocks. Suggest "parcel". Also, before the reader wonders too much at how low real estate prices were, it might be worth mentioning that Midtown was mostly woods and farmland then.
  • I changed "patch" to "parcel". I also mentioned that the specific parcel was a woodland. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The gardens would operate" But you use "garden" both in the name and in "botanical garden". I'd change to the singular, there and later, might be in order.
  • Done.
  • Some of the present day equivalent amounts are in 2016 dollars, some in 2017.
  • Fixed, as some of the equivalents used the US microeconomic index rather than the US GDP index. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "when the St. Patrick's Cathedral was built nearby," It is usually referred to without the "the". I would also remove the "the" before St. Nicholas Church.
  • Done.
  • "John Tonnele, the university's real estate adviser, was hired to find suitable tenants for the land, since the leases on the Upper Estate rowhouses were being allowed to expire without renewal." I imagine this was in anticipation of some more profitable development than the rowhouses, and should probably be stated.
  • Done.
  • I might at some point round out the search by the Met for new premises by mentioning they moved to Lincoln Center in the 1960s. You do mention Lincoln Center, that might be a convenient point.
  • I included it where the Lincoln Center is mentioned. There may be a better place for it, but I have to consider it more. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "as well as another property on Fifth Avenue between 48th and 49th Streets, " This is, I assume, St. Nicholas Church. As you mentioned it, I would simply so state.
  • Done.
  • I don't understand why there was a need to buy expired leases. Did the tenant still hold some rights even after the expiration?
  • I changed to "expiring" since that is what I intended. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I just removed "expiring or" from that section, since it now seems redundant to "existing". Dhtwiki (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and tasked the noted Beaux-Arts architects John Russell Pope, Cass Gilbert, and Milton B. Medary to judge the proposals." "tasked ... to" I'm not sure works. I might change "tasked" to "hired" or "engaged". I would consider either a more usual usage than "tasked".
  • I changed to "asked" since that is what I intended. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Can anything be said about the eventual renewal of the leases, including the taking up of optional terms?
  • I noted that the lease was renewed in 1953 and 1973, and that the land was sold to Columbia in 1985. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Moreover, Rockefeller could avoid any rent increases for forty-five years, even when adjusted for inflation." I might strike "when adjusted".
  • Does "adjusted for inflation" sound good? epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Metropolitan Opera was dilatory toward the development, and they refused to take up the site's existing leases until they were certain that they had enough money to do so.[45][73]" It's the "dilatory". Odd and a bit POV. They would not take up obligations they might not be able to meet. Considering the Depression that followed, they were sensible. I might change "The Metropolitan Opera was reluctant to commit to the development, refusing to take up the ..." Also, you refer to "the Opera" several times. The shorter way of referring to the Metropolitan Opera is "the Met". Conflict with the term "the Old Met" can be avoided by referring to it as "its old building".
  • Both done.
  • "Since the Opera would not have any funds until after they sold the Old Met by April of that year," I might cut "by April of that year" as unnecessary detail and it makes the sentence read oddly. See also previous note.
  • Done.
  • "Otherwise, the facility could not be mortgaged, and Columbia would retake ownership of the land, which would be a disadvantage for both the Opera and Rockefeller.[75]" I would change "facility" to "new opera house" I think for "ownership" you mean "possession", and I would change "retake" to "regain". The final phrase, seems almost facetious. Of course if the owner of the land retakes possession, it's going to be a problem for the tenants.
All done.
  • "plots" (used many times in article). I would expect "lots" to be much more common. Of course, New York real estate may have its own terminology.
  • Done, though I did replace some with "parcels". epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The complex would contain the Metropolitan Opera facility as well as a retail area with two 25-story buildings; department stores; two apartment buildings; and two hotels, with one rising 37 stories and the other being 35 stories.[80][81]" shouldn't the semicolons be commas?
  • No, this is correct usage. The semicolons separate complex list items with commas in them, and they are called serial semicolons. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "in a layout similar to that of the English town of Chester.[45]" I imagine the shops there are meant, rather than the town itself. I might insert an image.
  • Yes. Unfortunately, I can't find a good image of Chester's layout up close. And in any case, the comparison to Chester was drawn by the New York Times. epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • " by buying leases" I'm really unclear on what is being said here. Are they intended to buy the unexpired term of existing leases from the existing tenants? Or is what is meant committing to a new lease, either from Rockefeller or Columbia?
  • Clarified (it was from the existing tenants, for Columbia). epicgenius (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "invalidated" possibly "mooted"
  • Done.
  • "that Rockefeller pay for half for the old opera house and the land under it, an offer that Rockefeller refused." Maybe, if I understand the reasoning right, "that Rockefeller finance the move by purchasing a half-interest in the old opera house and the land under it, an offer that he refused."
  • Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "With the lease still running," suggest "With the lease term already running,"
  • Changed to "With the lease still in effect," Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • When you say "site" in the first paragraph of "New Plans", do you mean the land set aside for the opera house, or the whole of Rockefeller Center?
  • I fixed it to clarify that it was the entirety of Columbia's site (i.e. Rockefeller Center). epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You mention, I think twice, that the Sixth Avenue El lowered property values. A brief explanation might be a help.
  • I clarified in the first mention that the elevated caused visual obstructions and noise pollution. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The delivery lane was eliminated in this plan because it was seen as unnecessary, what with the road facing the blank walls of the theaters instead of the windows of department stores.[106]" "what with" doesn't seem to me to be the best prose. And the way it is phrased, I am concerned the reader will miss the point as I understand it: that the delivery road was eliminated because theaters don't have heavy delivery needs, whereas department stores do. Whether or not there were windows is a bit beside the point.
  • "the $200 million cost-projection" I might ditch the hyphen. You do when you use a similar phrase, " $350 million cost estimate" later in the section.
  • Dropped the hyphen, as suggested. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "would be relocated to underground tunnels" maybe just "would be covered over"
  • "while the streets surrounding the plot" maybe "development" or "complex" for "plot".
  • It reads "while the streets surrounding the land" in my version. Changed "land" to "project", since that word is used earlier in the paragraph. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "by contemporary standards" to avoid ambiguity, suggest "by the standards of the times"
  • Have so changed. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "which was the maximum distance that sunlight could permeate the interior of a building" I might say "penetrate" for "permeate". Interesting stat.
  • Have changed "permeate" to "directly penetrate". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "since the skyscraper's proposed elevators would move faster." I might cut this. The reader understands, I hope, that a faster elevator will be more effective in moving people efficiently.
  • "in response to Chase National bank's request for a single building." Bank should probably be capped.
  • Have capitalized "bank". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The sculptor Paul Manship was then hired to create a sculpture on top of the fountain; his bronze Prometheus statue was installed on the site in 1934.[150][152]" I would insert "to place" prior to "on top of the fountain".
  • Have inserted those words. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "with the projected $250 million, 4,042-seat facility" that seems a very high cost for the times, almost as much as the cost estimates for Rockefeller Center as a whole.
  • I found the mistake. The $250 million was for the entire complex, not for the opera itself. Thanks for the catch. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "but Junior wanted artworks that had meaningful purposes rather than purely aesthetic ones." Who is Junior?
  • Have substituted "Rockefeller" for "Junior", meaning John D. Rockefeller Jr. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "his father began scrutinizing all of the following artworks commissioned for the center." I might sub "artworks thereafter" for "following artworks".
  • Now reads "scrutinizing all of the artworks thereafter commissioned". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "it has been a tradition to display a large Christmas tree at the plaza between November and January of each year.[311]" As November and January are in different years, I might cut "of each year" or cut "of".
  • I put "yearly tradition" and removed wording after "January". Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the occasional hyperbole" Isn't it more usually "piece of hyperbole" or "bit of hyperbole"?
  • Inserted "bit of", as well as inserted "amounts" after "massive" in previous phrase. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "the United States Postal Service" until 1971, the United States Post Office Department. So you might want to change that "post office" later in the sentence to "facility", if you change the name.
  • There's something of a gap in explanation between the managers wanting there to be subway service and the building of the 47th-50th Streets Station.
  • I added a short "bridge" of sorts, explaining how the Independent Subway System was planning for a Sixth Avenue line in the long term. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Raymond Hood had died, Harvey Corbett had moved on to other projects, and the other three architects had little to do with Rockefeller Center's development in the first place." I might add "in their firm" after "other three architects". You could remove "in the first place" if you make "had little" into "had had little".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, this is pretty awkward. I was trying to avoid repeating words, but "they ... had had little" is concise. I reworded it differently. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "An updated plan, F-19, restored two smaller 6-story retail buildings to the site of the oval building, as well as proposed a new 40-story tower for a nearby site." I might change "as well as proposed" (a bit awkward) for "and also proposed"
  • Done.
  • "Hood thought this was the cheapest way to make the buildings look attractive, with a cost estimate of $250,000 to $500,000 (about 2.9 to 5.8 million in 2017[3]) that could pay for itself if the gardens were made into botanical gardens.[156][152] " You probably need a dollar sign or the word dollars in the parentheses. Also, refs are out of order, if that is how you are doing things.
  • Fixed.
  • " Hartley Burr Alexander, a noted mythology and symbology professor, was tasked with planning the complex's arts installations.[203][201][204][205]" again, refs out of order.
    • Fixed.
  • Was anything of significance done with the schist removed from the building site?
    • Not really. This was basically the Manhattan schist that was underneath the ground. It's not technically accurate to say that dirt was excavated. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Designs for the RCA Building and International Music Hall, to the north, were submitted to the New York City Department of Buildings in August 1931, with both buildings scheduled to open in 1932.[274] The contracts for the music hall and 66-story skyscraper were awarded two months later.[135][113] Ultimately, the project's managers would submit 1,860 contracts to the Department of Buildings.[275] Rockefeller Center's construction progressed quickly; and in September 1931, construction began on the International Music Hall.[276] By October 1931, sixty percent of the digging was complete and the first contracts for the buildings had been let.[135] " It seems to me there is duplicate information, about the contracts for the music hall being awarded in October 1931, you basically say it twice if I'm understanding correctly.
    • Thanks for that catch, I fixed it. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The foundations had been dug up to 50 feet (15 m) below ground, with each of the area's eighty-six piers descending up to 86 feet (26 m). " maybe "structure" for "area". It might be useful to say how far the bedrock (which allowed the skyscrapers to be constructed in the first place) was beneath the construction.
    • Only the 30 Rockefeller Plaza site was underpinned by the piers, so I said that. Regarding the bedrock, there are studies, like this one that show that the depth of the bedrock is only a few meters below the surface in Midtown. However, the lack of skyscrapers from 23rd to around Chambers Streets is not due to the 50-meter depth of the bedrock there, but rather the lack of nearby development in the 19th century (source). In any case, I can't find a reliable source that directly mentions the bedrock depth under Rockefeller Center. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • " The failure of the vaudeville theater ended up ruining Roxy's enterprise, and he was forced to resign from the center's management in January 1934.[301][299][302]" Refs not in order, if that's how you are doing it. Also, "opened on April 1, 1937,[388][377]", " the opera plans were formally scrapped.[390][174] "
  • Out of curiosity, how did they propose to get trains from Bergen County to Rockefeller Center?
    • The source doesn't say, but I think they wanted to build a new tunnel under the Hudson River. After crossing the river to New Jersey, the trains would have probably surfaced around the Weehawken Terminal (approximately across the river from 48th-49th Streets), then turned north to the Bergen Subdivision or Northern Branch. Again, this isn't mentioned in the source, but that's the most likely route since it would have been really expensive to tunnel southward to the North River Tunnels. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The complex's underground delivery ramps, located on 50th Street under the present-day Associated Press Building,[343] were installed in May." I might say "completed" for "installed".
    • Done.
  • "Raymond Hood had died, Harvey Corbett had moved on to other projects, and the other three architects never had much to do with Rockefeller Center's development.[344]" I wonder if there's sufficient definition as to who the other three architects are.
    • Godley, Foulihoux, and MacMurray. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "when Italy's entry in the League of Nations was obstructed by American isolationists.[360][361]" Should this be the U.S.'s?
    • Yes. I've fixed it. I guess the League of Nations article knows what it's talking about, seeing as it's already a featured article. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "and after 29 working days, it was topped out by June.[393]" Since you give a definite figure for the number of working days, the indefiniteness of "by June" is a bit jarring.
  • "In early 1937, the center's managers approached the Dutch government for a possible 16-story "Holland House" on the eastern part of the plot.[398][399] The Dutch government did not enter into the agreement because of troubles domestically, most notably Hitler's 1940 invasion of the Netherlands.[383][400] " First of all, the invasion is three years later, and the building was constructed in 1938; second it's hardly a domestic trouble. Also, the timeline for this whole paragraph appears a bit confused. Eastern signed in 1940 for a building that was surely finished, at the latest, by early 1939?
    • It was very complicated. The building itself wasn't completed until October 1940. The Dutch government had some social unrest at the time which made it infeasible to enter into a long-term commitment for 10 Rockefeller Plaza. There was a gap of two years between the Dutch government's refusal to take the agreement and the Eastern Air Lines' signature of the deal. During that time, 10 Rock was built anyway. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "until 1958, when he became the Governor of New York.[411]" elected or became?
    • Done.
  • "1790 Broadway, in Columbus Circle, " wouldn't this be, more usually, "at Columbus Circle"?
    • Done.
  • What is the timeframe you are using in calling things "Avenue of the Americas" vs. "Sixth Avenue"?
    • It's not a time frame. "Avenue of the Americas" is the name used on addresses. "Sixth Avenue" is the common name of the street. It would be wrong to say "1211 Sixth Avenue" since that's the title, but also confusing to use "Avenue of the Americas" throughout rather than "Sixth Avenue". epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The complex was deemed complete by the end of October 1939.[417] John Rockefeller Jr. installed the building's ceremonial final rivet on November 1, 1939, marking the completion of the original complex.[64][418][419]" I might throw a "Rockefeller Center" before "complex".
    • Done.
  • "The installation of the last rivet was accompanied by a celebratory speech by Rockefeller and many news accounts about the event.[420] The Eastern Air Lines Building, meanwhile, was not officially complete until its dedication in October 1940.[421][401]" I might change "meanwhile" to "though". Also note refs out of order.
    • Done.
  • " The managers of the property originally wanted to built a 16-story, $2 million structure on that property, but Hugh Robertson, the original complex's sole remaining architect, said that the tower needed to be 36 floors high in order to be profitable.[426] " "built" should be "build". I might go with "stated" over "said".
    • Done.
  • "as part of a negotiation" I might make the last two words "an agreement".
    • Done.
  • "so that the new tower could conform with the Zoning Resolution of 1916." should "with" be "to"?
    • Fixed.
  • "Time Inc. and Rockefeller Center formed a joint venture, Rock-Time Inc., which would share the tower's rent income between Time Inc. and Rockefeller Center.[386]" I might cut all after "between" and substitute "them".
    • Done.
  • " (Incidentally, the Metropolitan Opera finally moved to a new opera house at Lincoln Center in 1966 after declining the opportunity to move to Rockefeller Center.[454]) I might shorten to "(by then the home of the Metropolitan Opera, whose need for a new building had helped spark the Rockefeller Center project)" or maybe just put it in a note.
    • It looks better as a note anyway, so I did that. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Lower Plaza" You are inconsistent on whether you capitalize these words. Please look at all uses.
    • They are now all lowercase. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Unlike the old complex, Harrison & Abramovitz's towers did not need to be excessively beautiful: there was no person who cared as much about the new towers' designs as John Rockefeller Jr. had about the original complex's.[457]" I might change "person" to "one". This has the feel of opinion. Perhaps" Unlike the old complex, which had to satisfy John D. Rockefeller Jr., these towers did not need to be excessively beautiful: the present executives of Rockefeller Center were more concerned with the buildings' functionality."
    • Done.
  • "Complications arose with William A. Ruben, a resident at 48th Street" Maybe "of" for "at". I assume that he lived on one of the small pieces of property that were not included in Rockefeller Center because owners did not sell. It might be good to say which one, if so.
    • I mentioned the address
  • Maybe change one of the uses of the word "difficult" in footnote b.
    • Done. @Wehwalt: I have responded to all of your comments above. If there are any other problems, I would be happy to resolve them. epicgenius (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:USA-NYC-Titan_Prometheus4.jpg: what is the copyright status of the artwork? Same with File:NYC-manhattan-rockefeller-eislauf.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: According to the SIRIS record, there is no visible copyright notice on Prometheus (Manship) (created in 1934 and the subject of both photos). The pictures are hosted at Commons, where according to the policy page, Publication requires placing the statue in a public location where people can make copies. A statue published prior to 1978 without a visible copyright registration notice loses its copyright protection and enters the public domain. Additionally, the statue does not physically have a copyright notice on it. epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Both description pages should include a tag reflecting this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I put the tag on one of the images. I just replaced the second image with a view that excludes the statue. epicgenius (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: Pinging in case you did not see this. epicgenius (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ford Piquette Avenue Plant

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 talk cont 17:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant, a former car factory owned by the Ford Motor Company in Detroit, Michigan. From 1904 (when it was built) to 1909, the company used the building to produce several car models, including the Ford Model T, which was created and first made there. It was also the first factory where more than 100 cars were built in one day, and is currently the oldest car factory building in the world open to the public. The factory survives today as a museum and is well-preserved, with almost all of its original structure intact. Pending its promotion, this will be the second FA connected to Detroit (the first was The Supremes), the second FA about a manufacturing facility (the first was New Orleans Mint), and the second FA related to Ford cars (the first was Ramblin' Wreck). Suffice it to say, the subject of car factories is mostly uncharted territory in terms of receiving featured-quality treatment on Wikipedia. I look forward to reading all of your comments, addressing all of your concerns, and successfully completing this review. Jackdude101 talk cont 17:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

The only thing I can bring to the table is that I once went to Detroit. Nevertheless a few comments on what appears to be a well-researched and fine article:

  • a museum and former factory --> do you see it as a museum first? or 'a former factory and museum'?
  •  Done I now have it simply stating "former factory", as the fact that it's now a museum is already mentioned elsewhere in the lead.
  • this factory, including the Ford Model T, which was created and first produced there --> To me, most notable is first Model T creation and production, so I would lead with that, and then add that other models were assembled here too. In addition, I think Model T needs a little explanation of significance. I like what you have in the main body: the car credited with starting the mass use of cars in the United States.
  •  Done
  • spur line connected to a Michigan Central Railroad main line behind the building. --> to avoid ambiguity, perhaps this: spur line behind the building, which connected to a Michigan Central Railroad main line.
  •  Done
  • table of cars: it's quite hard to read the notes in such a narrow column. Can we combine a few columns? Eg., make one for Engine and one for Production dates?
  •  Done The note column in the table was already fixed at 25% of the table width, but I increased it to 33%.
  • The Ford Model AC, produced at the Mack Avenue Plant in 1904, was a Model A that used the engine of a Model C --> do we need this? Were model C engines made at Piquette?
  •  Done We don't need that bit. Per my research, Ford did not start making its own engines until the Model N.

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I know next to nothing about automotive history, but found this to be an interesting read. I'm pleased to see FACs on industrial heritage, though the human dimension could be expanded on here. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • The article is a bit wordy. I've made some example edits to streamline things a bit.
  • I'm fine with these.
  • Given that this was such an early car factory, how did the architects know how to design it? Was its layout based on earlier factories and the lessons learned from them?
  • In the second paragraph of the History section, I noted that the factory was modeled after New England textile mills.
  • "The vast majority of factory tasks were done by men, except for magneto assembly, which was done by women." - how many people worked at the factory?
  • To address that, I added the following sentence to the article: "Due to changes in demand and car model changeover, the number of employees varied constantly, ranging from as low as 300 to as high as 700".
  • Do we also have any figures for the size of the workforce after other companies used the plant? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Only figures for Ford are available. A consistent theme in every piece of source material that I found on this topic is that very heavy emphasis is given to Ford and the current owners, but minor emphasis to the owners in between.
  • What were working conditions like for the automotive workers? (eg, was it cramped, noisy, hot, cold, good for the time, etc). What were safety standards like? Did these change over time as the plant's layout and role evolved and the building aged?
  • In the second paragraph of the History section, note the information about fire safety, especially the fire sprinkler system. This was an unusual thing to add to factories at the time (that is also noted). The factory did have a heating system, but that is characteristic of most buildings of the time, especially in places like Michigan where Winters are long and cold.
  • Given that Ford had a complex relationship with his workers, can anything be said about this? (or relationships at other companies who used the site?)
  • I added the following to the article: "The company did not recognize labor unions at the factory, and each worker was paid a daily rate".
  • Did the workers attempt to unionise? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I added the following: "Ford Motor Company was a member of the Employers’ Association of Detroit, an organization that prevented most of the city's factories from unionizing until the 1930s".
  • "completed components would be brought by hand to the chassis for final assembly.[1]:17–18, 20 Completed cars would be shipped to the company's distributors" - repetition of 'would be'
  • Fixed.
  • The para which begins with "In 1905, Ford Motor Company was the fourth-largest car producer in the United States," seems to break the article's chronology, and lacks a clear purpose. Starting it with a more descriptive sentence would help, but I suspect that things need to be moved around as well.
  • The last date mentioned in the previous paragraph was 1905, so there's no chronology break. The purpose of beginning the paragraph this way is to give context to its final sentence, where it states that Ford was the largest US car producer by 1906.
  • "Plans for the Model T were announced" - to whom? (and was this the blueprints for the car, or the fact that they would be produced?)
  • The source material mentions Ford's dealers, specifically, so that has been added.
  • "a group of factory employees" - which factory?
  • I noted that it was Piquette Avenue Plant employees.
  • "Despite no moving assembly line" - not great grammar
  • This has been changed to "Despite not having a moving assembly line".
  • What was the building used for between 1936 and 2000? The article hints at this, but it's not fully stated.
  • I added more info about 3M from the source material, where it specifically states that it made rubber auto parts and non-adhesive paper tape. What the Cadillac Overall Company made is indicated by the name.
  • Not sure that it is - was it involved in Cadillac cars (if so, do we know what part?) or overalls? - serious question for those of us with little knowledge of this field! Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I noted that it made work clothes, which is mentioned in the source material.
  • Presumably the building's layout and equipment became obsolete at some point?
  • The building itself became obsolete by 1909, when it became clear that it was no longer big enough for Ford's needs, hence their move to the larger factory in Highland Park (this is mentioned in the article already).
  • Yes, but the article then notes it remained in use until around 2000, with the uses of the building becoming seemingly less important over time. Can this be fleshed out? Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Its importance decreased mainly because Ford left (all of the significant historical milestones that happened at the building occurred during the Ford period), and partly because of its location in an industrial area that became mostly abandoned and blighted over time, which coincided with the overall decline of Detroit. On that note, I added this statement: "The Piquette Avenue Plant still stands in spite of the decline of Detroit, which began in the mid-20th century". In terms of factory equipment, there is no mention in the source material about it becoming obsolete during Ford's occupancy (they were only there for a few years), and the type used by subsequent tenants is not mentioned at all. However, I have already mentioned near the end of the article body that the factory currently contains almost none of its original equipment. This suggests that Ford either brought all of their equipment with them when they moved out (the most likely scenario, in my opinion), or it was replaced later by one of the building's subsequent owners. Also, the fact that the factory's power plant was demolished shortly after 3M took over suggests that the power plant became obsolete at some point.
  • Who runs the Model T Automotive Heritage Complex? Is it funded by Ford, a volunteer group, etc? Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Model T Automotive Heritage Complex is the name of the organization that runs the Piquette Avenue Plant. I split the first sentence of the Model T Automotive Heritage Complex section and noted that it's a nonprofit organization.

@Nick-D: I addressed all of your points. Let me know if this is satisfactory. Jackdude101 talk cont 13:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I addressed your additional comments. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

Faith in Buddhism

Nominator(s): Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the nature of faith in Buddhist traditions. I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it is ready for FA. I've tried to get the article to comply with the criteria, but there is much i don't know about since this is my first nomination. The article heavily relies on tertiary sources like encyclopedia articles, due to the broad nature of the topic, but it also contains many secondary sources. It is at GA now.Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I really hope this gets some reviewers with a solid grounding in Buddhism. It strikes me there are many points where things and terms mentioned need explaining quickly. I hope to read through slowly & bring some here, but it is hard going for most Western readers, & me, though I know more about Buddhism than many. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    Okay, we can work on that. Can you give me some terms or paragraphs to start with, John? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

comments by outriggr

April, 5

This is an ambitious undertaking. Excellent work. I have looked at the lead only, and have the following comments.

Thanks for your efforts, outriggr. I should have started an FA sooner, as I can see now that i have written several articles that may have to be rewritten considerably. Well, better late than never. I'm going to go through this chronologically. Here goes:
  • "serene commitment in the practice"--I am not clear if "serene commitment to the practice" would be more idiomatic, or if it would change your meaning ignore this
  • Not sure why this was deleted. Seems a valid comment. And fixed now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why use "dhamma" throughout the article as a pipe to "dharma", when the latter word is much more familiar to an English-speaking audience?
  • "the community of spiritually developed followers, or the monastic community seeking enlightenment"--is the "or" separating two different things, or attempting to define the first thing (the community)? If it is defining the first thing, I would reword, such as by using a dash: "the community of spiritually developed followers—the monastic community seeking enlightenment".
  • They are overlapping categories. See below in the same paragraph. Rephrased now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • is there a reason to not have an article ("a") before the noun in " A faithful devotee was called (a/n) upāsaka or upāsika"?
  • "for which no formal declaration was required"--I don't know what this means, but I can guess.
  • Same with "Early Buddhism valued personal verification highest". What is personal verification?

Those are questions I have after two paragraphs, and my concern is that I could continue this list of "things I don't quite follow" throughout the article. It is undoubtedly a difficult topic to explain clearly, and I hope you will continue to clarify as necessary. Outriggr (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Bring it on!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
My feeling exactly - also I suspect my list from the first 2 paras would be as long, but mostly different. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I will start working on this this weekend.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
April, 7

I would suggest that the article needs a thoughtful copyedit throughout, ideally by someone with knowledge of the subject, and that you take a second look at every paragraph to examine if it adheres to the topic of Faith closely enough to remain. I acknowledge the difficulty (or impossibility) of such a clean separation from other articles about Buddhism.

Alright, I'm doing this after the other comments are fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • One example: I don't believe the current third paragraph of the lead is necessary; the lead is quite long enough without it.
  • I merged the second and third paragraph, cutting out parts.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Another: the beginning of the History section is not an introduction to the section, but rather mentions a couple of concepts that are never stated again.
  • Is it possible to choose between Sanskrit or Pali words, and be consistent? I can see that, depending on the word, either variant may be more familiar for someone with a passing knowledge of Buddhism, but most of the time it will be Pali. We need "dharma" and "sangha", not the other variants. And for a given word, the Pali or Sanskrit may not be used consistently, and it may be capitalized inconsistently.
  • I have changed some terms for consistency, but early Buddhism used Pāli or a predecessor, and Mahāyāna Buddhism used Sankrit, Chinese and Japanese. I believe I'm following scholarly convention as in the sources cited.
  • As for spelling errors, I'll print the text and copy-edit once more.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a somewhat disproportionate mention of Sri Lankan Buddhism.
  • Positive: The use of references appears to be excellent. :)
  • Thanks :-)

I should mention that I am choosing some criticisms that didn't require too much engagement with the content, so there is potentially a lot more where that came from. Outriggr (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've just warmed up.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The way i see it now, is that none if the paragraphs need to be completely deleted, but some sections should cut to the chase more quickly, as the introduction is too lengthy, compared to the part that actually deals with faith. To fix this, it would require some trimming. Is this what you mean?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think I have addressed all issues now, Outriggr.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
April, 16

Thanks for your responses Farang Rak Tham. Just one comment up to the start of the "History" section now. Hopefully I'll get to read more later.

Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Faith in early Buddhism focused on the Triple Gem, that is, the Buddha; his teaching (the Dharma); the community of spiritually developed followers, and the monastic community seeking enlightenment (the Saṅgha)." We talked about this sentence above; now it seems to enumerate four parts of the "Triple Gem". I understand that the last group is the sangha, but it's still a windy sentence. At the least, I would expect an "and" to follow after the last semi-colon as the third thing. Outriggr (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "This does not mean that Buddhism's approach of reality developed in isolation: at the time when Buddhism arose, there was a trend of critical caution in understanding reality amongst Indian religious communities." It's not clear to me how this sentence relates to the text before it.
  • The phrasing is a bit awkward as well ("approach of reality", "there was a trend of caution in understanding...").
  • Is the present tense ("Faith is") appropriate in the discussion of Early Buddhism?
  • It is content based on analysis of textual sources, and thus, to keep an encyclopedic, skeptical tone, I have used the historical present.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it mostly works, but that one paragraph beginning feels wrong.
  • I have changed the tense of some sentences for consistency.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Faith then leads to many other important qualities on the path to the end of suffering..."--this doesn't sound specific, or formal, enough for an encyclopedia article. Outriggr (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Porlock Stone Circle

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of two surviving stone circles dating from the late Neolithic or early Bronze Age that are located in Exmoor, southwestern England. The other, Withypool Stone Circle, is already rated as an FA, and this short article is presently a GA. Those with an interest in archaeology and/or the West Country might like to give it a read. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem

  • Lead
  • Porlock Stone Circle is a stone circle located near to the village of Porlock in the south-western English county of Somerset. It is found within Exmoor. -> Porlock Stone Circle is a stone circle located on Exmoor, near to the village of Porlock in the south-western English county of Somerset."?
  • I like that wording, and have introduced it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ...with the stones perhaps having supernatural associations for those who built the circles. -> "...and the stones perhaps had supernatural associations for those who built the circles."?
  • The term "religion" isn't really used in some of the RS, so I've changed this prose to "The purpose of such monuments is unknown, although archaeologists speculate that the stones represented supernatural entities for the circle's builders." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ...possibly indicates... Never sure about this. It either indicates or it doesn't, surely? Maybe replacing both with "suggests" is better?
  • Location
  • I'm not sure why the lead gives more details about the location than this section does. The lead summarises the main body, so I think the details should be repeated here. Also, Porlock should be linked.
  • Added mention of Somerset and linked Porlock. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Three of the four sentences in the 1st para begin "The circle...". Any way of mixing it up a little to avoid the repetition?
  • I've replaced the latter two with more appropriate wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Context
  • They are most densely concentrated in south-western Britain... Is there any reason why you use "Britain" here, when generally you've used "England"?
  • There's no particular reason. I suspect that I just followed what term that the original RS used (although I could be wrong about that). Happy to change the language if you think it necessary; "Britain" is perhaps a more neutral term given that it has a pan-historical geographical, as opposed to purely national (and more temporally restricted) meaning - plus there are always the Cornish nationalists who insist that Cornwall is not (or at least should not) be considered part of England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fair enough to say that "Stone circles are found in most areas of Britain...", as you do. It does seem a little odd to then say "They are most densely concentrated in south-western Britain...", given that, a) you've generally used "England" up to that point, and b) you finish that sentence with a specific mention for Scotland. Notwithstanding the sensibilities of the Cornish nationalists, that region is nevertheless officially part of England, but at the end of the day, this is just a nitpicky point concerning consistency. Not a huge issue, and not something I'd oppose on. Factotem (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Description
  • ...a strong chthonic element... "Chthonic" is a great word that I've never heard of before. It definitely needs to be linked. Maybe you could add an explanation, but that's a little awkward to do elegantly when its part of a quote.
  • I've added a Wiktionary link to the word. Hopefully that should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The archaeologist Mark Gillings... in the 2nd para. He's already been introduced, so you can simply write "Gillings...".
  • A very sensible idea. Removed the unnecessary wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • 57 metres (187 feet) to the southeast of the circle's edge is a linear setting of small stones. is a MOS:NUMNOTES no-no. "There is a linear setting of small stones 57 metres (187 feet) to the southeast of the circle's edge." would fix it.
  • ... it would suggest that Porlock stone circle... Missing a "the" before Porlock.
  • ...carried out by the archaeologists Mark Gillings and Jeremy Taylor of the University of Leicester Again, Gillings is already introduced as an archaeologist. My feeling is that you could just leave it up to the reader to divine that Taylor is also an archaeologist, but if you want to be explicit, maybe "...Gillings and fellow archaeologist, Jeremy Taylor of the University..."?
Did you miss this? Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ...which Gilling's team... "Gillings's" per MOS:POSS.
  • Well spotted. A silly error on my part. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Stones have also been added to the circle in recent years; thus heritage managers face a question as to whether they should remove the more recently-added stones or to accept these as part of the circle's on-going biography. Not sure that that's a correct use of hyphenation in "recently-added". I would be tempted to simplify this sentence as "Stones have also been added to the circle in recent years, and heritage managers face the question as to whether they should be removed or accepted as part of the circle's on-going biography."
  • Sources
  • I don't see any problems with the quality of the sources, and all books are from reputable publishers.
  • I checked a random set of seven refs across four different sources that could be viewed online, mostly in GBooks previews – Burl 2000 (ref #16), Gray 1950 (#19 & #24), Gillings & Taylor (#37 & #38), Hutton (#6 & #9) – and found only one niggle: the source for the statement 1950 Gray could identify 21 stones as part of the circle... does not make clear in which year, 1928 or 1950, Gray identified the 21 stones; not something that leads me to doubt the veracity of sourcing.
  • You've dated Excavation and Survey at Porlock Stone Circle and Row, Exmoor to 2015, but the SANH index dates it to 2014
  • The journal in question is printed with the year "2015"; it may be that it was actually released in 2014, but "2015" is the number on the front cover, so I think it would cause confusion to go with "2014". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You've dated Geophysical Survey at Porlock Stone Circle to 2012, but the linked document and the SANH index dates it to 2011.
  • As above. I've followed what it actually says on the journal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe it's preferred to use consistent ISBN formats for all books. The ISBN-13 for Riley and Wilson-North's The Field Archaeology of Exmoor is 9781873592588, according to the Worldcat listing.
  • They should all be consistent now (someone else is responsible for that, so my thanks go to them). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this worldcat record provides a valid oclc number for the Proceedings of the SANH Vol 74 listed in the bibliography? I couldn't find any such records for volumes 155 and 158, though I must confess the search was becoming a tad boring and I abandoned it before completion.

Hope this helps Factotem (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Few more comments:

  • The lead is quite short. I wonder if a bit more of the description can be summarised there?
  • You're right, it is. I've added a few sentences mentioning the dimensions of the circle, the nature of the stones, and the adjacent cairn. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The lead gives a date range of 3,300 to 900 BCE, but in the main body, the only figure mentioned is the slightly different 3,000 BCE, and 900 is not mentioned at all.
  • I've added mention of the 3,300 to 900 BCE date to the article, using Burl as a reference. I've also made sure that it's added to all the other GA and FA rated stone circle articles I've worked on too (so well spotted!). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you double check the dates given in your sources? The Exmoor National Park booklet dates the site to 2,000-1,500 BC.
  • Burl gives us the broadest date range in which stone circles were erected (which has been ascertained by looking at absolute dating evidence from a variety of different sites). Obviously, it did not take over two thousand years to build the Porlock ring (or did it....?) so it has been produced at one particular date within that range. Given that archaeological excavation has not revealed any charcoal or anything else that could be used to ascertain absolute dates for the construction of the circle, archaeologists are relying on educated guesswork as to when it was built. Gillings for instance thought it might be Middle Bronze Age, which would put it nearer to the latter end of Burl's wider date range. I'll try and incorporate some additional prose making it clearer when the circle was likely erected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've double-checked Gillings' write up of his excavation and it does not give proposed dates for the monument (merely a reference to the circle perhaps being middle Bronze Age). I'm not sure that the ENP booklet is particularly reliable in this context, so I'd rather just leave the nature of precise dates absent. Hopefully—and this is a point Gillings makes in his article—more targeted excavation can be carried out in future which will provide good evidence for the date of construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Happy with that. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • A fuller archaeological investigation in 2013 revealed eighteen stones, eleven of which are upright and eight of which are fallen Doesn't add up.
  • You're right, but this is exactly what the source says: "This exercise succeeded in identifying 18 stones - 11 upright and 8 fallen - as well as relocating Stone B through excavation." Perhaps it's a typo in the original? I don't really know what course of action to take here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest ignoring the total and simply state that the exercise revealed eleven upright and eight fallen stones. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I find it slightly odd that a 2009 survey found 10 stones, and the dig only four years later found 18 (or 19). Maybe a brief statement explaining the discrepancy, if possible (are the additional stones those that have been recently added, or did the dig unearth buried stones)?
  • The article doesn't explicitly say, but it would seem that these are mostly stones that have been added in the interim. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I googled porlock stone circle, but other than the ENP booklet (which, aside from the date question, is not a significant source), could find nothing to suggest that the article is not comprehensive or is not a full survey of the sources.

Factotem (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your comments, Factotem. I think that I have responded to all those requiring a response, although in some cases you may have a follow up question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Just a few more, very minor points that need responses, either here or in the article, inserted above. I would also add that I'm not too keen on using the dashes where an author is repeated in the bibliography. If someone carelessly inserts a new source by a different author between the two, then it will get messed up. That's a personal view, and a somewhat nitpicky one at that. I don't believe there's any policy that says you can't do this, so it's not going to affect the support I will be happy to give once the last minor points are addressed. Factotem (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

  • "although more recent assessments regard it as a different form of monument, known as "stone settings"" I wonder if there's a singular/plural problem here? I.e., should this be "although more recent assessments regard it as a different form of monument, known as a "stone setting""? Maybe not. Also, I wonder if it's worth linking "stone setting" and creating a stub? I've never heard of this, and I'd be interested to know the difference between a stone circle and a stone setting(s).
  • I've created a page—Stone settings (Exmoor)—through which to expand a little more on this particular monument type. As for the singular/plural issue, I've altered the prose to the following to deal with the issue: "although more recent assessments regard it one of the stone settings, a different form of monument which is more common across Exmoor." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "standing stones, and linear stone settings" This could also be interpreted as unexplained jargon
  • I've linked "standing stones" to Menhir and will see what I can do with "linear stone settings"; it may entail creating another page anew. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've made the distinction clear between "stone settings" and "linear stone rows"; and linked the latter to Stone row. I hope that that cleans up that problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "micaceous sandstone"
  • "into the article" is an odd construction. Also, I'd imagine "chthonic" isn't going to be familiar to many readers (but I may be wrong).
  • I've changed "article" to "circle"; that may have just been a silly error. As for chthonic, I'm just not sure if there are any alternative terms or synonyms that could be used. Perhaps I could wikilink it to the Wiktionary entry? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel we never really got to the addition of the stones. Do we know anything more about this? Why were they added? Which stones are new? When were they added? Who added them? (I'm guessing we really don't know!)
  • Unfortunately, I don't think that the RS really delved into this at all - it remains a bit of a mystery. I don't imagine that the site attracts a great deal of visitors, and of those it receives I can't imagine many of the 'archaeology' lot being interested in adding stones; indeed, they'd probably regard it as desecration! My suggestion would be that the stones have been added by those with Earth mysteries interests (some of whom regard it as appropriate to alter, or in their eyes 'correct', such monuments), or those who see the circle largely as a marker in the landscape rather than a site with specifically archaeological value (must as how walkers add stones to cairns in various hiking areas). This, of course, purely my own conjecture and could not be put into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

A very strong article. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Josh. They proved useful in improving the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Two other quick comments:

  • The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland and Brittany is apparently The Stone Circles of Britain, Ireland, and Brittany. Does your copy look different to that?
  • I've just looked at my hard copy of the book; it definitely lacks that Oxford comma. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why have you italicised "National Heritage List for England"?
  • It's not intentional, it's just that I included it in the "website" part of the citation, and that automatically italicised it. I shall change it to "publisher"; that should convert it into a non-italicised situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hope that's helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Josh. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


Whats with the formatting of the sources? Its ok to repeat source names, rather than type ------- Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me Ceoil, but I don't quite understand the above comment. Could you elucidate further? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I think he means repetition of the author names, replacing them with that rather strange horizontal line. Eric Corbett 10:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well, we have the dash to avoid repetition in several other FAs, including the thematically linked Withypool Stone Circle (which is the TFA of the day, if anyone's interested). So it's just about keeping a level of standardisation to articles on the same broad topic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Eric Corbett

  • You've got "south-west" in the Location section but "northeast" in the Description section. Eric Corbett 10:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well spotted. I've changed "northeast" to "north-east". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Richard Nevell

First of all, good work on an interesting article. I like the approach taken to giving broader context to understand the site, particularly where there are holes in our knowledge. I also like the amount of detail on the investigation of the site as that shapes our understanding and is part of its later biography.

The lead gives a proper summary of the subject and I think it’s a sensible move to state early on that we’re not entirely sure of their purpose. I like the way the ‘location’ section mentions other Bronze Age monuments visible from Porlock Stone Circle. Is there any chance of a map to go with it? The Environment Agency have made their LIDAR data available under an open licence, and the area around the circle has resolution of 0.5m which might show off the landscape quite nicely, perhaps with markers for key features. I think it would be worth saying how close Berry Castle is, because the phrasing in this section makes it sounds like they’re adjacent. The article on Berry Castle indicates it’s an Iron Age or Roman site rather than Bronze Age, so it might be worth noting that. It’s possible a publication somewhere may have commented on the visibility between the two sites.

The ‘context’ section does a very good job of giving background information for this type of site and Exmoor generally. The one thing I’d change is that here you have ‘Mike Parker Pearson suggests that’ whereas later on you have ‘Leslie Grinsell suggested that’ and ‘Gillings suggested that’ so it would be worth double checking the tenses. The ‘description’ section notes that some stones were removed for road metalling, do we know roughly when that was? Would it be possible to comment on the significance of the ‘inversion of the upright stone ideal’ and what Gillings thinks this may have been meant to convey? In the ‘investigation’ section, for the 1928 digging it’s mentioned that no charcoal was found but it’s not immediately clear why this is mentioned. Would it be worth mentioning in the lead that despite excavations no dating evidence has been recovered for when the circle was built? I see Josh asked about the added stones; it’s a shame we don’t more but of course we have to work within the constraints of the available sources. The discovery of the wheel seems significant and while the uncertainty over the dating is tricky to tackle in the lead where you want to be clear and concise, but I think it would be worth trying.

It’s a small world, the 2009 survey in Exmoor was one of the fieldwork options when I was doing my undergrad degree at Leicester. It’s interesting to see the site written up for the public. Would it be worth contacting Mark Gillings to cast an eye over the article? Richard Nevell (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Richard and thanks for taking the time to offer your comments. As per your suggestion, I have changed "Mike Parker Pearson suggests that" to "suggested that" to ensure consistency. As for a map of the landscape, I'd certainly be interested in seeing such an addition made (although I'm not sure if there is much room), however I'm not in the position to spend time making such a map at present. Your other comments require a little more thought and investigation so I will have to get back to you on those. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
As for the mention of no charcoal being found in the 1928 excavation, Gray does not explain the relevance of this absence; he simple states that "no 'relics' were found nor any charcoal". Presumably he said this because charcoal was known to be something found at other stone circles and prehistoric sites. Obviously, these days charcoal is exciting for archaeologists because it can be used in radiocarbon dating, but this was not he case in Gray's day so it could not have been this which he was referring to in his article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
In accordance with your suggestion, I have made mention that no absolute dating evidence has been found to the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments, Richard. Was there anything else that you wanted to add; any follow up questions or the like? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm certainly happy with the article and have no further questions so have moved to support. If Gray thought it was worth mentioning that there was no charcoal, it's worth including in the article - it's just a shame he didn't explain why he thought it was important as it leaves us with OR to fill in the gaps. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. Clear, well written, evidently comprehensive, widely and well referenced, with good images. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. And is a jolly good read too. Tim riley talk 10:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. Like Withypool, an interesting read, clearly well-researched, and does a good job of putting together what is known and identifying holes in current knowledge. A few comments, but just nit-picking, not anything that should hold up promotion (assuming Richard is happy above):

  • about forty-three stones in the circle about seems an odd preposition to a precise figure.
  • The year it was scheduled might be worth including.
  • Similarly, you might consider a very brief definition of scheduling for the uninitiated.
  • heritage managers face the question as to whether they should be removed Is there any clear consensus on this? Or a notable controversy that could be mentioned?

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which is notable as the site of one of the major historical mega-landslides on active volcanoes during a major eruption in 1802 or so and still potentially a threat. This is the first time I've nominated an article for FA status (I've reviewed images in other people's FACs); Ceranthor and Mike Christie should be credited as well if it passes as they did thorough copyedit work on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I did a review pass, but not enough to get a conomination credit, I don't think. I will read through again in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. My comments weren't thorough enough to be a conominator, though I appreciate the consideration. I will also read through again before I !vote. ceranthor 23:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Few More Comments from Ceranthor

  • "bears traces of former glaciation." - seems a little flowery
  • "One of these volcanoes collapsed in historical time, probably in 1802, generating a large debris avalanche with a volume probably exceeding 0.6–0.8 cubic kilometres (0.14–0.19 cu mi), and a pyroclastic flow." - no comma necessary before "and a pyroclastic"
  • "The whole volcano rises from an elevation of 4,400–4,600 metres (14,400–15,100 ft)." - the way you've written this, it sounds as though the volcano is only 200 meters tall
  • Should mention that Shiveluch is in Russia
  • "The collapse apparently started from the hydrothermal system of the volcano and progressed to involve a growing lava dome,[21] " - awkward phrasing
  • Still think the Samaniego thing needs to be changed - perhaps you could list the names of the main researchers? or maybe just adding et al. will be sufficient

Otherwise, I think the prose is good. Support per 1a. ceranthor 00:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I got these; does it merit a dedicated source for the location of Shiveluch? Added the et al. as well~since it's a large number of researchers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Does the source itself not clarify that Shiveluch is in Russia? ceranthor 21:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
No, for volcanologists that is probably common knowledge. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine not to cite that then, as general knowledge. It may not hurt to add one citation for its location if you want to be safe. ceranthor 20:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but suggest editing lead caption for grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Got that one, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

A couple more things I spotted this read-through:

  • Some lava domes form small hills on the southern part of the older complex, and the older complex was: repeats "older complex". I thought about "...on the southern part of the older complex, which was..." but then "which" sounds like it refers to the southern part only. How about "The older complex, which includes small hills formed from lava domes on its southern part, was the source of..."?
  • The occurrence of trachyandesite and trachyte has also been described: how about "Trachyandesite and trachyte also occur", or "have also been identified"?
  • In the "Sector collapse" section, is the source of the two units relevant to the fact that one of them formed a granular flow? If so it's fine as is, but if not I'd move that information up so the information about the flow is more compact:
    The two units of the debris avalanche are distinguished by their appearance. One, which appears to have been formed from the basal part of Tutupaca, features 100–200-metre (330–660 ft) long hummock-like hills, as is typical for volcanic debris avalanches. The other, which appears to come from the more recent lava domes of the eastern peak, has ridges which vary in length from 100 to 150 metres (330 to 490 ft). The ridges range from only a few meters to more than 0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in) in height, and from 10 to 30 metres (33 to 98 ft) in height. The second unit probably formed a granular flow, which is known to cause sorting of the materials within it; similar ridges have been observed in other collapse deposits such as at Shiveluch volcano in Russia.
  • Such monitoring would entail surveilling earthquake activity, changes in the composition of fumarole gases and deformation of the volcanoes, and real time video surveillance: needs a tweak: the first item in the list is a verb, "surveilling", as if we are going to get a list of activities, but then we get two nouns. Changing all three to nouns would probably be the simplest way out.
  • This project, which costed 18,500,000 Peruvian sols: "costed" is wrong, but this is a future project, so I'm not sure if "cost" would be right. Should it be "budgeted to cost" or something like that?

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Did the first two points (with a slight modification on the first) and the last one; regarding the third I'd think so seeing as the source says The ridged deposit sub-unit 2a is composed of this rock from the active dome and the hydrothermal system. This material collapsed and efficiently fragmented while propagating downslope, leading to a granular mass flow that fed the ridged unit. Regarding the fourth point would "the recording" be better? It does sound like an odd sentence thus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
For the second point I meant to suggest replacing the whole sentence with one of the shortened versions -- we don't need to say the occurrence has been described, do we? We can just say either that those forms occur or that they have been described.
OK on the third point. For the fourth, how about "This would entail surveillance of earthquake activity, changes in the composition of fumarole gases and deformation of the volcanoes, and real time video"? I think "surveillance" is implied by "real time video". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
That works (regarding surveillance). Rewrote the trachyte thing to one of the shorter versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. I went ahead and made the last change. The article meets all the FA criteria, except that I haven't checked 2c and 3. Note to the co-ordinators: I take it from the recent WT:FAC discussion that a "support" should be assumed to cover everything but 2c and 3, since those have the specialist reviews. I'm going to assume that's taken as read from now on; specifically, I'll be checking 1c unless I say I am not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • INGEMMET is only mentioned once, why not spell it out?
  • There are a lot of duplicate links, perhaps try this script:[2]
Removed duplicate links and spelled out name in the first instance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the article written in UK or US English? I see "metres" used, but also "destabilized", though I know "ize" can also be used in UK English.
  • "such as at Shiveluch volcano" At the?
  • "a pyroclastic flow was erupted from the volcano" Is "was" needed here?
  • What does the name of the volcano mean?
  • Any kind of folklore or other history associated with the volcano?
The English that I've learned, which I suspect is in part a mixture between two styles. I am not sure if it's correct to say "the foo volcano", my impression was that one does not put an article before a proper name. I think that past is correct for the "pyroclastic flow" since it was erupted in the past, it is not currently being erupted. The only folklore I can find is that the people of Candarave consider Yucamane the "good" volcano and Tutupaca the "bad" one; is that worth mentioning? Unlike say Coropuna or Tacora Tutupaca isn't really that important in religion, seems like, but that little contrast to Yucamane may be still worth adding. Regarding etymology, I cannot find a reliable source for the name - closest thing is this blog and even then it only gives an explanation for "tutu" and "paca". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
As I'm not a native English speaker either, I won't press those issue. But I do think the part about it being "bad" is worth mentioning, and I think it would also be worth to go the extra mile to translate the name, perhaps even looking at a dictionary or consulting someone. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I shall handle these two things tomorrow if nobody comes ahead. Bookmarking Pacocahua (Puno) since its source may be useful for etymology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Added the oral section; I cannot find a dictionary that mentions the word "tutu". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus

Terrible Tutupaca!
Whose snowy peak I do adore..
The sun itself made by your visage darker:
The stars, the sea, the planet evermore
must tremble at the fierceness of your core!

Mateo Paz Soldán, "Ode to Tutupaca", 1832

Terrible Tutupaca!
cuya nevada cima yo venero.
al verte el sol se opaca:
Y los os astros, y el mar y el orbe entero
tiemblan al tu mirar sañudo y fiero!
Terrible Tutupaca!
whose snowclad peak I venerate,
seeing you the sun is overshadowed:
And the stars, and the sea and the entire world,
trembles at your fierce and angry look!

Mateo Paz Soldán, "Ode to Tutupaca", 1832

Just a comment on the etymology section for now. I don't think it is a good idea to mention that means eagle unless there is a source for that specifically being the case in the name of the volcano - there may well be other meanings of /paka/ in Aymara - and it could mean something else in the combination with tutu (this dictionary gives tutuka as "duststorm"[3]). <paca> in Spanish orthography may for example also represent the Aymaraword /paqa/. So what we need is to find a good source for the meaning of the name itself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I am also finding sources seemingly suggesting that it is not from Aymara but from Quechua - but I am uncertain if they are reliable enough to trust them to distingiush adequately between Quechua and Aymara. One source says that the word tutu means "udder" (presumably of llama or alpaca) because the mountain resembles an udder, and paka is from the verb pakay "to hide" - giving a meaning of hidden udder[4]. Another source[5] that I can only access in snippet view mentions the "hidden udder" etymology but seems to be arguing that this is likely a folk etymology, but unfortunately I cannot see the entire discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would suggest removing the Aymara etymology as OR and adding the Quechua etymology "hidden udder" with the note that this has been attributed to the shape of the mountain. I am not sure how to cite the two texts though since it is not possible to find even the authors name in snippet view. It seems only the page number and journal name can be found: Revista peruana de Andinismo y glaciologia (1971) p. 54, Revista andina, Volume 15, Issue 1 1997 p 501.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This source from 1862 by Mateo Paz Soldán describes Tutupaca as a very poetic volcano and includes a small ode to the volcano in French and Spanish.Géographie du Péron, corrigée et augmentée par M.F. Paz Soldan, tr. par P.A. Mouqueron, avec la collaboration de M. Rouaud y Paz Soldan. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Anoher good reason to consider a quechua etymology, Father Jorge Lira publishjed a Quechua folk tale titled "Tutupaka llakta - el mancebo que venció el diablo (Tutupaka LLakta the youth who defeated the devil)". Here Tutupaka llakta apparently is the name of a Quechua youth who bets with the devil and wins.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    To be honest, I was extremely dubious about the whole etymology thing ... in fact I'll remove it. I am somewhat wary of sourcing anything to a Google Books snippet view for the reasons you mention, but maybe there are complete text versions elsewhere ... I'll check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    I think you're right to be cautious; it might be best to pull it all out, make a request at WP:RX, and re-add it if when you get a copy. I don't think it's necessary for promotion to FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    The good thing is that the "Revista andina" has a website, the bad thing however is that I can't find any mention of Tutupaca in the relevant pages. The Mateo Paz Soldán story is also here and seems potentially worthy of inclusion. I'll ask on WP:RX about Revista peruana de Andinismo y glaciologia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it would be expected that the meaning (or proposed meanings) of the name of an article's subject should be mentioned somewhere, whether in a section of its own or not, and it seems there are some reliable sources about it that could be hunted down (WP:RX?) before we give it up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, we can't really expect it in cases where that information is not included in sources. I have written to an acquaintance who is a Quechua specialist to see if he can help.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the ode might even be able to bear being cited in full if you dare using one of the much-discussed "decorative" quote boxes - or maybe just as a block quote. I'd volunteer to translate it if you decide to. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    I don't mind the quoteboxes, so as long as there are no undue weight concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Here is a lyric translation respectoing the original rhyme Below the original spanish text with a literal non-rhyming translation. This is of course just a suggestion, if you (or other reviewers) don't find that it will improve the article you are free to leave it out.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Good. I'll wait for some comments though, since it's one person's ode and not a very well known one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I would say it is probably entirely unknown. But then part of our job here is to inform the readers of that which they don't know. ;) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The author seems to be Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán; if that's right we should link him, of course. I found this on Google books, which as far as I can tell (my Spanish is limited to restaurant terms) is an edited selection of poetry. It includes this ode on p. 415. I'd say that means a third party has found the ode worthy of mention, so we can include it -- if it were just Paz Soldán giving it, it would be harder to justify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It is not completely clear to me whether the ode is by Mateo Paz Soldán (who has an article in the spanish wiki), since his brother Mariano Felipe corrected and prepared his brothers it for publication. The text just says "I wrote this when I was twenty years old", but it is not clear whether this "I" is the original autor or the editor and annotator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I cannot access that ( so I'll pass on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Researching the etymology a bit more I think the Aymara etymology is better - the "hidden udder" etymology of Quechua seems less reasonable than the possible Aymara etymology of tutu "great" + either paka "eagle" or paqa which seems to mean something related to royalty or leadership. This is OR based on this dictionary[6], of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    In that case I would not include it. If there is more than one possible meaning, I would wait until a definitive source comes up rather than engaging in OR. Is there any consensus on including the ode? I personally think that whether we include it or not is not really relevant to FA status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem with etymology, particularly in indigenous languages, is that there is usually no definitive source but often several conflicting ones. Here I think, that the only etymology we have a source for seems unlikely to be correct given the evidence (this judgment, though based on my professional experience of working with etymology in indigenous languages in aother context, is of course also a form of OR- but I think when excluding information we have some more leeway on making editorial decisions). So basically my recommendation is to either exclude the etymology entirely, or to include the Quechua etymology with a hedging wording that demonstrates that this is a suggestion and not a definitive etymology. I agree that including the Ode really has little importance for the assessment of FA status. The Ode and the eetymology is a kind of cultural information that I think is highly interesting and serves to make an article more engaging for the reader - but which in the end is more an item of curiosity than of necessity.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Seems in pretty good shape. Just a few things.

  • "Some lava domes form small hills on the southern part of the older complex,[11] and the older complex was the source of an ignimbrite that covers the western and southern parts of the volcano.[3]" I might delete "and the older complex", and thus begin "which was the source of an ..."
  • You refer to a "Lake Suches" and a "Laguna Suches", both red-linked. Are these the same?
  • "During historical time," I might say "times" for "time".
  • "Today fumaroles occur on the summit of Tutupaca.[30]" I would expect you need a comma after "Today".
  • If you deem INGEMMET worthy of five red links, you could say what it is.
  • "The Peruvian INGEMMET has published a volcano hazard map for Tutupaca,[36] but the volcano was not monitored itself since it is not active.[37]" I would move "itself" to after "the volcano" or possibly to after "was".
  • "This project, which costed 18,500,000 Peruvian sols" I'm not sure you can use "costed" alone like that. Possibly "which was costed at" or similar. Also, I thought the currency was the nuevo sol. In any event, a dollar or other major currency equivalent would be nice.
  • "Hot springs on the foot of the Tutupaca volcano[41] discharge water into the rivers.[5]"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
First two are already done? As is the "costed" one - since 2015 the name is simply "sol" per Peruvian sols and used {{To USD}} for currency conversion. Added a note to explain INGEMMET. Remedied the other issues - is there a problem with the "hot springs" sentence? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, on the last, would say "at the foot".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks quite good.00Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a video game that's a personal favorite of mine. It's got an excellent audiovisual presentation and a story that is ripped out of the 80s/90s Spielberg/high school drama tableau. Article has been through a GA and PR and looking to get this a bronze star. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment I suppose, since it's a video game, I go into it expecting lots of garish imags; ironic, then, that it only has one small screenshot! I do understand that's due to its fair use; howver, do you think it would be possible to find a couple more images to break up some of the (if you don't mind me saying) slightly—plain looking paragraps / sections? Perhaps photos of the creators, designers, etc., or soem packaging, advertising? Just a stylistic suggestion though.
Also, isn't self sent hyphenated? audiovisual too? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 15:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll look into finding additional free images. "self sent" in this instance is a different parsing, not "self-sent", and "audiovisual" is generally one word in style guides I've seen, e.g. [7] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I absolutely love this game, so I will try my best to help with this nomination. Great work with this overall! My comments are below:

  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image/logo.
  • I have comment about this portion (This was expanded to the) from the lead’s first paragraph. I would avoid starting a sentence with “This”.
  • For this part (later in 2016, iOS, Android, and the Nintendo Switch in 2017.), I would replace the comma after “2016” with “and”.
  • I think that the following sentence (There, seemingly supernatural events occur and Alex and her friends must unravel the secrets of the island.) can be better worded. I am not sure about starting a sentence with “There”. Maybe something like (Alex and her friends must unravel the island’s secrets while seemingly supernatural events occur.).
  • For this part (Influenced by classic teen movies and), I would link “teen movies” to the appropriate article.
  • Something about the tone for this sentence (The game's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with sharp, distorted, and digital ones.) seems strange to me. It reads a little too editorial for my taste, and seems more appropriate for a review/article. I would revise it to make it more appropriate and clearer on how it fits in Wikipedia.
  • In the reference titles, avoid putting words in all caps. Examples of this in the article are references 19, 21, and 22, but I would look over all of the references to check for this.
  • Please add ALT text to the screenshot. Make sure that all of the images in the body of the article have ALT text.
  • For this part (built around the "walk and talk" mechanic), do you think that a link to “walk and talk” would be helpful?
  • For this part (suggesting that the player's choice may have had an effect on the characters' relationship.), I would cut “may have had an effect” to “had an effect” as the ambiguity is already established through the previous word “suggesting”.
  • For this part (Oxenfree does not have any "game over" loss conditions), is the word “loss” really necessary here?
  • This may just be a personal preference, but I think that the person’s name should be before the quote. For instance, in this section, ("We thought, why not let you move freely while communicating, interacting, and exploring a branching narrative?" Krankel recalled.), I would putt Krankel recalled before the quote. I think that it would make it clearer to the reader who is saying this rather than having to go through the entire quote to find out, and something about the tone of this sentence structure strikes me as something use more in a fictional work, like a novel, instead of something like Wikipedia. This is up to you, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
  • For this part (The developers were influenced by other coming-of-age stories like Stand By Me), I would make it clear that Stand By Me is a film and include the year in which it was released. I would also make it clear in the prose that Freaks and Geeks is a television series.
  • For this part (Youtuber Jesse Cox posted), do you think that “Youtuber” should be linked?
  • For this part (reviewers also felt that the naturalistic dialogue of Oxenfree was a strength, while IGN’s), I think that “though” would be a better word choice than “while” as it would be better fit the contrast of ideas present in the sentence.
  • Please link IGN on its first use in the body of the article. The same comment applies for Destructoid.
  • When you first mention Playstation 4 and link it, I would put PS4 in parenthesis after it since you use the acronym for the rest of the article.
  • I have a comment for this part (fans playing the ARG discovered). The acronym for ARG has not been established in the article so this could be confusing for some readers.

I hope you find this helpful. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey Aoba, thanks for the review. I'd addressed or adjusted per most of your comments. A few responses: for the game over/loss bit, I included the loss in case there are readers unfamiliar with the term "game over". The references all use OXENFREE in their titles, I'm not sure if the MoS recommends removing them even in those instances? I wasn't really sure what you meant by the sentence being "too editorial" for Wikipedia; it's paraphrasing the Gamasutra reference. I swapped the quotation order on one of the passages in the development section, but I left the other where it was because it bridges the two quotations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I am still honestly not sure about the "The game's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with bright, geometric, and digital ones." sentence. What I mean by "too editorial" is that I find that this sentence seems more appropriate for a review on the game rather an encyclopedic entry on it. It raises some questions on POV, especially since it is right in the lead, as it reads a little bit too much like fan language/praise for the game for my personal taste. I was always told to keep the tone as objective as possible, and I am not sure how that sentence works with that in mind. However, I will leave that issue to other reviewers, as I may just be overthinking it. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Epicgenius

I haven't played this video game. I have only a PS3 and a Nintendo Wii from 2008, plus I'm more of a Cities: Skylines guy. Sounds like a very cool game, though. Anyway, on with the review:


  • PlayStation 4 and Linux versions of the game released later in 2016 - do you mean "were released later in 2016", or is this some video gaming lingo where the games release themselves?
  • assume the role of teenager Alex - I'd suggest "a teenage girl named Alex". You do use "her" in the very next sentence.
  • developer Night School Studio - not sure the "developer" part is necessary, you already described Night School as a "developer" earlier on.
  • collectors edition - does this need an apostrophe after "collectors"?


  • speech bubbles appear over Alex's head giving the player a choice between two or three dialogue options - I'd add a comma after "head".
  • Players can select dialogue options at any time during conversations, choosing to wait for other characters to finish, to interrupt, or to remain silent. Certain dialogue options cause a thought bubble with Alex inside it to appear over characters' heads, suggesting that the player's choice had an effect on the characters' relationship. - Just a question, do these dialogue options affect the subsequent movements of the characters at all, or do you just pick an option and the other characters respond? Like if I chose an option to be rude, would the other character respond in kind?
    • I don't think they affect the characters in such a direct way. If you cut in you can stop some dialogue options and fail to cultivate enough of a relationship for certain endings, but I'm not aware of any source that details this more clearly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      • All right, then. I guess my curiosity on this is satisfied. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oxenfree does not have any "game over" loss conditions; the player's choices and relationships with the characters determine which of several possible endings the player receives - How many endings would there be? (Five are mentioned below, but I think it would be helpful here as well.) And if I'm understanding correctly, it's not possible to lose the game, since you're just going through the storyline.
    • I haven't found a source that gives an express number of endings; counting variations in the ending characters there's more than five. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      • This should be clarified, in that case. I was assuming from this - In an epilogue, Alex reveals the fate of the characters, with Nona's picture of the group shown and the outcomes dependent on actions made during the game - that there were only five examples. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Clarissa (Avital Ash), Alex's late brother Michael's ex-girlfriend - Are they the same person? (Just to clarify, I've never played this game, so if I'm asking a question, it's because I really don't know.)
  • time looping repeatedly - I guess you can link time loop at this point.
  • In a small cavern, Alex tunes her radio and unexpectedly forms a rift - like a physical rift, or a metaphysical rift? This is a bit confusing.
    • The exact nature of the rifts is never elaborated on; I can't really give you any more detail than it's a rift (possibly to another dimension, but exactly where the crew are blasted is also never really made clear.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What is Harden Tower?
  • Not a criticism of the article, but this entire "Plot" section is a bit confusing to me personally. It seems like significant choices can't really be made until the end, and that all you really do is move around and click on speech bubbles. But then again, I'm more familiar with playing games that don't specifically have storylines.
    • As the article states, it's a walk-and-talk game. You don't see the effects of your choices until the end (aside from variations in character moments.) The more mundane differences aren't covered in the plot because it'd start getting excessively long. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
      • So the game is basically asking you to select dialogue and walk around? I suppose it's not my type of game, then. :( epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)



  • Krankel had previously met or worked with many Night School members at Disney - do you know which part of Disney? Theme parks? Animation? Video games? Additionally, Night School didn't exist yet when these members worked at Disney, so I'd change it to "future Night School members".
  • Rather than developing the gameplay and attaching a story to it, Night School focused on developing gameplay that would support the story they wanted to tell - How I'm understanding this sentence is that Night School wanted to develop the gameplay around the story itself, not add the story as an afterthought to the game.
  • This meant making sure branching dialogue trees never became too sprawling - so would this be like having too many options?
  • I guess you can clarify that Backstage is a magazine, because I was confused the first time I read it.
  • prior to actors being cast and lines recorded - To be consistent with the previous sentences, I would suggest, "prior to casting actors and recording lines".
  • Oxenfree was developed primarily using the Unity game engine, Adobe Photoshop, and Autodesk Maya - these pieces of software cover three different things. Unity powers the game play itself, while Autodesk Maya is for the graphics, and Adobe Photoshop is for graphical touch-ups. Am I correct in that analysis?
  • The team's need to show multiple characters, dialogue bubbles, and places to explore in the environment on the screen simultaneously directly influenced the game's camera distance from the player characters and two-dimensional look - "need" can be confused as a verb, and this sentence is in need of an extra comma. How about "The team wanted to show multiple characters, dialogue bubbles, and places to explore in the environment on the screen, which simultaneously directly influenced the game's camera distance from the player characters and two-dimensional look"?
  • but found that it helped organize their story better in the process - I suggest "but they found..." since, as currently written, the subject for this phrase is "The unique animation, art, and effects required for the game's major plot developments".

More later. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC) OK, continuing. epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Initially, Night School Studio did not know exactly what they wanted the music of Oxenfree to sound like. - I'm guessing that this is the case for any company that is creating a video game for the first time, because you can't get it exactly right on your first try. It's more probable that they are simply unsure. How about this? "Initially, Night School Studio was unsure about what they wanted the music of Oxenfree to sound like."
  • American film, TV, and game music composer and sound designer Andrew Rohrmann, known under his alias scntfc, composed the music and sound design of the game; Krankel knew Rohrmann through a friend of a friend and had not known of his game music pedigree. - I personally think this should be 2 sentences because it's pretty long. I particularly find American film, TV, and game music composer and sound designer awkward. It's clear that "film, TV, and game music composer" and "sound designer" are two different things. Would it be OK if you just said "American sound designer and film, TV, and game music composer"?
  • What is "John Carpenter meets Boards of Canada", compared to the music they got in response? I am genuinely confused about this.
  • The soundtrack was released on January 15, 2016 to accompany the game, with a vinyl release on May 25 - there should probably be a comma after "2016". I don't think "with" is the best conjunction; I'd personally phrase it similarly to this: "...and the vinyl record was released on May 25."

Promotion and release:

  • The game's January 2016 release announcement in October 2015 coincided with a second teaser from the game - Grammatically, the first part of the sentence is unwieldy, there are two dates here and I think it would be better if they were separated more. There also seems to be two separate ideas here, and I'd suggest phrasing them like this: "In October 2015, it was announced that the game would be released in January 2016; this announcement coincided with a second teaser from the game."
  • Writer Robert Kirkman is planning to help adapt Oxenfree into a film and a web-series via Skybound - So what's the status of this now? If there were no updates, could you describe when this plan was made?
  • which featured items like - I'd forgo "like" in favor of "such as", only because in context, this is awkward.
  • Alternate reality game - should this be lowercase?
  • This phone number led players to the Twitter account @xray9169363733 - how was this connection made?
  • Fort Ward, WA - I would spell out "Washington" completely. I would also suggest a link to Fort Ward (Washington), unless this is the wrong link. By the way, why was this location chosen?
    • Presumably the location served as an inspiration for the Fort Milner location in the game, however I have seen no info detailing why. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


  • Destructoid's Nic Rowen praised the game for taking inspiration from old movies but still being "anything but generic"; "It dials into its own style and mood, tapping into something very heartfelt and special. It might just be the best 'horror' game I've played in years," he wrote - It looks weird with two separate quotes juxtaposed. I'd say, "Destructoid's Nic Rowen praised the game for taking inspiration from old movies but still being "anything but generic", writing: "It dials into its own style and mood, tapping into something very heartfelt and special. It might just be the best 'horror' game I've played in years." "
  • A less enthusiastic review was offered by Allegra Frank for Polygon, who wrote that - this too clashes with the overall style of the paragraph, but this time it's because of this sentence using passive voice rather than active voice. "Allegra Frank of Polygon offered a less enthusiastic review: she wrote that..."
  • "The studio’s choice to completely split the art styles between the normal world and the mystical is a massive success." said Buchholtz - The period in the quote should be a comma.
  • In contrast, Corriea appreciated - You have never mentioned Corriea before, but you don't put her first name like you do with the other authors.

I think that's all my comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Epicgenius for your comments. I've taken a stab at addressing these, and left inline comments with some responses to certain points. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
All right. I'll wait until you finish with your edits, or you can just tell me if you didn't want to take up some of the suggestions. I appreciate your answers to my questions. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943

Nominator(s):  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

It is no overstatement to say that the topic of article is hugely important in the academic literature regarding famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 is considered by academic consensus to be the paradigmatic case of a "man-made famine" (generally considered an inadvertent outcome of WWII; though some Indian nationalists consider it rather less inadvertent). Other scholars disagree, holding that it was a natural disaster, but its natural origins were obscured by the fact that accurate records were not kept of a decisive crop fungal infestation... In any case, it is a seminal event in world history, because of its horrendous death toll, its impact on world opinion regarding [British] colonialism, and its continued controversial nature even to this day... (special thanks to Brianboulton, Ceoil, Outriggr, Mr rnddude & others whose help is greatly appreciated). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I cried reading the article and feel that I won't be able to review it properly. I can say that you did a remarkable job on a difficult subject.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. You also said you cried reading the article... I hope this isn't too strong or impolite to say about the text that was on the page before, but quite honestly, the reason I have never given up through 2 years, many arguments, gathering over 300 sources, 2 FACs (1 failed and 1 withdrawn), 1 failed MILHIST A-review, and making well over 5,000 edits is that I felt that the original version of this article (before I ever touched it) failed disgracefully in its responsibility to honor the memory of those who died during the crisis. It did very little to preserve and present the memory of all that happened. Honestly, if not for that feeling, I certainly would have given up after 2 or perhaps 3 weeks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Godammit I gonna go through it, review and give you a pass. I can state that this article deserves it for it preserves the memory in a neutral yet absolutely implacable way.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
@Iry-Hor: I really didn't want to say this, out of sensitivity for your emotional response, but I have to: May I ask you to strike through the last two sentences of your reply? They are alas POV. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Fine, I might actually better stay away from this article, it might be too close to my family history.Iry-Hor (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • You can review, and in fact that would be helpful because there may be a shortage of reviewers (?). But try to do so from a detached, academic perspective, if at all possible. If not, then.. thank you for you comments so far! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


Lingzhi kindly acknowleges my contribution to the article, which was mainly the removal of about 6,000 words of text from some gross overdetailing in the Background and Pre-famine sections. These length issues were raised at the last FAC and at the PR that preceded it, and I took a somewhat bold approach to the problem. I believe that the article now has much more impact, and I think the current length is justified, given the importance of the topic. At this point I'll just mention a few minor issues:

  • The i/box image caption says: "These photographs altered world opinion on colonialism." Is there a source for this statement? If there is, I would have thought this would be worthy of mention in the main text, but I don't see it there.
    • I thought that was in the article. Did someone take it out? I will look. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Brianboulton: UPDATE: I have revised the i/box photo caption and added a longish sentence with two sources in the "Media" section. [The first part of the sentence was lifted from SV's article on Ian Stephens but I verified the sources and the content personally, and agree that the sources fully and clearly support the assertion]. Moreover, a little farther below on this FAC page you can see me diligently working on another issue you raised. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm happy with the revised caption, since the statement is now fully cited in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Although most of the difficulties in identifying the various levels of "government" have been resolved, there are still pockets of confusion. For example, the "1942–44: Refusal of imports" section begins: "From late 1942 high-ranking government officials and military officers made repeated requests for food imports..." What government were these officials of?
    • I can double-check. I think it was Governor Herbert and and even a little bit Linlithgow, but mostly Herbert. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I no longer have full access to "Churchill's Secret War" which devotes an entire chapter to discussing this question in detail (obviously, from an Indian nationalist perspective). I can try to get access to that again, and to other similar quotes. WAVELL's initial requests were turned down, even though (if i recall correctly) other high-ranking officers such as Auchinlek signed off on the requests... I'll try to find that info and add a relevant cite that backs up "military officers made"..... meanwhile, the info currently cited only says "Government of India":
    • But the shortage seemed absorbable, and the Indian government used this 'rice shortage' estimate only to supplement its request to London for shipping allocation to meet the existing 'wheat shortage', viz. shipping facilities to import 'an additional 600,000 tons of wheat'" ... Relevant footnote says: "See the Secretary of State's telegram to the Viceroy on 16 January 1943, Document no. 350 in Mansergh (1971), pp. 514—515. London continued to turn down requests by the government of India for shipping allocations throughout 1943; see Documents nos. 59, 71, 72, 74, 98, 139, 157, 207, 219 in Mansergh (1973), and also Wavell (1973), chs. 2 and 3."

    • ANOTHER, with more names:

      While Herbert was insisting that Bengal needed imports, Linlithgow was still arguing that there was enough in the province. Further reports of the rapidly deteriorating crisis forced Linlithgow to change his tune. By mid-July he was demanding food imports as a matter of extreme urgency, no matter 'how unpalatable this demand must be to H.M.G.' and realizing its 'serious potential effect on military operations'...Amery, now also convinced that disaster was looming, took Linlithgow's plea seriously and argued the case at a meeting of the war cabinet on 31st July. Relying on military rather than humanitarian rhetoric, he advised that unless help was forthcoming, India's role as a theatre of war would be seriously compromised.32 However, the war cabinet held, against all the evidence, that 'the shortage of grain in India was not the result of physical deficiency but of hoarding', and insisted that the importation of grain would not solve the problem. Amery pleaded in vain with them to reject the position of the Minister for War Transport, who offered merely 100,000 tons of Iraqi barley and 'no more than 50,000 tons as a token be ordered to Colombo [ceylon] to await instructions there'. Ministers hoped that on the strength of this measly offer but 'without disclosing figures' the Viceroy would announce that supplies were on their way as required. Amery conceded that he 'might be compelled by events to reopen the matter within a very few weeks'.33 Just a week later, General Auchinleck, commander-in-chief of British forces in India, echoing Amery's request, pleaded with the chief of imperial general staff in London (apparently Alan Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke: 'so far as shipping is concerned, the import of food is to my mind just as if not more important than the import of munitions'.34 To no avail: on September 24th the war cabinet decided that it would not be possible to divert ships to lifting grain for delivery in India before the next Indian harvest.

      • There is still confusion in the opening sentence. The natural chain of communication would have been provincial governors and military commanders to Viceroy, then Viceroy to Amery and then Amery to the War Cabinet, and you say that this chain was operating "by the end of 1942" and experiencing repeated rejections or waterings-down by the War Cabinet. But you then contradict yourself in saying "Early in January [1943], the Secretary of State for India, Leo Amery, communicated the first of many requests for food aid to Churchill's War Cabinet, initiating a cycle of requests and refusals". So some rewriting around the dates is obviously necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • In the same section you say: "Leo Amery sent the first of many requests to the UK for food aid". As Secretary of State for India, Amery was a minister of the British government, so he was based in London and would not have had to "sent to the UK" for anything.
    • I will check wording. Avery stood between the people on the ground in India and the bigwigs in London (esp. Churchill). I will try to clarify. Alas I think this whole "government of India" and "Government of bengal" bit would be lost on Americans and perhaps others as well. It confused me for a very very long time. Even the provincial government was largely run by British men appointed by other British men. Suhrawardy (after Pinnel retired) was an exception; he was a Muslim Indian appointed by British men. He screwed up too. His name isn't mentioned because he only played a role in one scew up (the Food Drives). I think it might take an entire article (wikilinked within this one at some point) to explain all this.
      • Avery would have been based in London. He was the minister in the UK government with responsibility for India. The Government of India was separate, and largely based in New Delhi. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this FAC and will be interested to read comments as they appear. I am well aware of the physical and emotional energy that has gone into producing this article, an effort deserving the full respect of the WP community. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It will take a while to work through this article, so my comments are likely to be iterative.

  • As an initial question, is there now consensus among the editors involved in this article that it is of FA standard? A factor which led to the failure of the earlier nominations was concerns over the lack of consultation during its development. I can't see a discussion on the article's talk page regarding this.
  • As a broad comment, there are far too many notes. I appreciate that this is a complex topic, but we're up to note G by the start of the second para of the main body of the article, and by the end of the article we're up to note BI. These notes contain references which should be presented as such, material contradicting the text of the article, estimates of fatalities which should be covered in the body of the article and excessive and sometimes irrelevant detail. This is likely to be confusing to readers. If the material isn't important enough to be in the body of the article, it should, in general, not be included at all.
    • Yes I added many notes, then stopped, then argued that other editors should not be adding more and more and more and longer ones. They were unconcerned, so i thought "Screw it" and continued adding more myself. I can look into which could be deleted. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Pretty much all of them in my view. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this. I feel footnotes are extremely helpful. Really extremely helpful. i can still try to delete one or two or maybe even three. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I cannot support the article's promotion to FA class with anywhere near as many notes as this, for the reasons noted above. Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
            • I also cannot remove all or even most of them. I said I will try to remove a few, if possible. But I have been sick and as weak as a kitten for the past 8 or 9 days, even while traveling, and yet have completely rewritten the "Relief" section... One holdup with the notes is that I didn't add all of them, and so if there was anything I would want to keep or remove, I would have to go back and verify everything other people added. It would take a while. A second thing is that you and I disagree on the basic idea of footnotes. I think they are extremely helpful. I deal with footnotes all the time at work (read, college professor, albeit an extremely humble professor in an extremely humble college). To me, they are par for the course. So I will try to remove a few, if I can, but if you hate them so much, you can Oppose and then match your disapproval of footnotes to some part of WP:WIAFA. I of course hope you won't, but there is a gap between our positions. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "while access to international sources was largely denied by Churchill's War Cabinet" - not that simple: worldwide shortages of shipping were also a problem, as the article later discusses.
    • But you can't put shipping up early in the article, because that would be a straightforward case of POV. You could say they claimed shipping was the problem, but then that begs the questions, "Why do you say 'claimed'? You mean it wasn't?' And then you'd have to launch into an explanation.. which is done farther down. In short, I don't even think you can mention shipping early on. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • It is POV to omit this. The Allies were in fact suffering significant shortfalls of shipping at this stage of the war, especially in this region (which led to the cancellation of multiple plans to conduct amphibious attacks to outflank the Japanese in Burma). The article notes that this meant that a famine was probably inevitable somewhere. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • And now you see the dilemma. It's POV to mention it without saying it's highly debatable. It may be POV (I don't think so, but I see how others would) to omit mentioning it. The only answer is to move the entire "Sipping" section into the WP:LEDE. Or to omit it Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
          • The lead is presenting a simplistic and one sided view which does not represent the actual content of the article, and which could be easily corrected with a few words. Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
            • UPDATE: I added "arguably due to a wartime shortage of shipping" plus a footnote. I know you hate footnotes. I am sorry. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

() "Some scholars suggest this was because of a lack of shipping, but others disagree"? Butthen you'd have to add, "Churchill also repeatedly turned down offers of aid from the US, Canada and Australia. Some scholars again suggest this was because of a lack of shipping, but others again disagree." And then you'd have to explain both disagreements. And.... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • The lead does not need notes explaining what's covered later in the article. This sentence still uses the incorrect "Churchill's War Ministry" formulation. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Crucially, the (debated) shortfall in rice production in 1942 occurred during the all-important aman harvest" - this sentence is unclear. If there wasn't a shortfall, it's meaningless.
    • No one actually knows if there really was a shortfall, and if there was, then by how much. The crop production statistics were meaningless gibberish at the time. Most sources agree there was a modest shortfall, but a minority (Tauger, Bowbrick, and others) think the shortfall was very large indeed.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Say this in the article then. The current sentence is very unclear. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although imports were a small part of the total production" - how could imports be part of local production? Do you mean that imports were small compared to local production?
    • I'll look into this; at first glance it seems to be simply a poorly chosen word. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • UPDATE: changed to "Although imports were a small portion of the total available food crops," Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm troubled by the Malthusian tone of the narrative in the 'background' section. While Bengal wasn't self-sufficient in food by the start of the war, it didn't need to be given that it could and did import it (the UK also wasn't self-sufficient in food at this time, ditto Japan). While this led to a vulnerability, it was manageable as long as transport networks worked.
    • And you have hit on perhaps half the problem: the transport networks didn't work. They were quite destroyed, first by the Denial schemes, and then by the fallout from the Denial schemes, while the trains were used for military transport. Boats are the main (almost only) means of transport, and the Denial schemes screwed them. Some key sources go into a Malthusian discussion, but then sometimes say, "Well, they it's quite possible that they might have still have been OK-ish, with considerably less loss of life, perhaps even only minor loss of life, if x hadn't happened (often saying, "if the transport hadn't been screwed," but other thing as well). This certainly was not a straightforward Malthusian famine, but it was preceded by a very obvious and oft-repeated dire vulnerability to famine. That vulnerability was to some significant degree (sources disagree on the percentage of influence) caused by Malthusian population factors and then also to some significant degree (sources disagree on the percentage... ) caused by fragmentation of holdings for debt/inheritance reasons.. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "The refugees fell victim to dysentery, smallpox and malaria, and later to cholera.[61] According to one estimate, between 10,000 and 50,000 refugees died from various causes even before they reached India.[62]" - is this relevant to the topic of the article?
    • Perhaps the numeric detail could be deleted. But the refugees are important, as is their condition upon arrival. A key point is that Bengal was subjected to shock after shock after shock after shock. Some meaningful proportion (sources disagree, as always) was psychological. The bombing of Calcutta, forex, played a huge role. The populace nearly abandoned the city (for a very short time) because a couple poot-butt little bombs dropped. The populace panicked, then the government panicked. The bombing and ultra-brief evacuation largely inspired the Priority distribution scheme. And the bombing caused (brief) panic largely because Burma had fallen and people were expecting invasion. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • If you want to say that the situation before the food crisis was bad, just say this directly. Don't force readers to try to piece things together. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "After the loss of Burmese imports there was increased demand on the rice producing regions" - but note W says that Burmese imports were "small"
    • Yes. I though that point was clearly covered: the effect was not only supply to Bengal, but on 1) supply to other provinces, which began a bidding war that gravely affected Bengal, and 2) on the 'cushion that Burma provided in case of trouble, and 3) on morale/psychology. It's not a straightforward hit on Bengal's supply, but it is a huge factor nonetheless. Would you like me to add quotes from sources to this discussion? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • OK, I see this now. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Despite this, Bengal continued to export rice to Ceylon[Y] for months afterward, even as the beginning of a food crisis began to become apparent" - who was doing the exporting? Businesses which the government wasn't stopping, or the government from stocks it was acquiring?
      • Update: I trimmed this a little. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I think (not sure) Bengal was exporting to everyone, and it was businesses and government. That is my recollection. The point of Ceylon is that 1) it was a significant proportion of the exports, and 2) government did not see it necessary to prioritize Bengal (or more specifically, the rural poor of Bengal). I would need to double-check to make sure this recollection is accurate. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Using "Bengal" in this context implies that it was some kind of official action. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh. yes. exports to Ceylon were govt, all the way, no private. Meanwhile, however, there were also exports to other provinces, which were largely (maybe solely) private. Sorry for the confusion. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "All this, together with transport problems that were to be created by the government's "boat denial" policy, were the direct causes of inter-provincial trade barriers on the movement of foodgrains,[73] and contributed to a series of failed government policies that further exacerbated the food crisis" - internal links within articles are generally discouraged, and there are three in this sentence alone.
    • You can delete the internal links if you like. I think in a large article they are useful. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • It is not my job to make the article compliant with the MOS and similar. Moving this section down as I suggested elsewhere would also remove any need for such links. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of the para starting with "The fall of Burma had brought Bengal close to the war front; the war's impact fell more strongly on Bengal than elsewhere in India" has already been stated.
    • I have been considering moving a few sentences. That may be aa part of this; I'll look into it. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of the para starting with "Nearly the full productive output of India's cloth, wool, leather, and silk industries were sold directly to the military"?
    • Cloth famine, which aggravated unsanitary conditions. And more importantly, inflation, which many people think caused the whole famine (tho.. inflation was both structural and speculative...). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing the link to the topic of this article. I'd suggest deleting this and the 'Cloth famine' section, or reworking this material in a more concise way which makes the link explicit. I'd note that there were worldwide clothing shortages at this time as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I'll look at tweaking it. Deleting it is a non-starter. The military buildup and the means by which it was financed are the reason for the initial inflation. Most scholars, including the Nobel-prize winning Amartya Sen, are very clear on this point. And delete the cloth famine? No way, that was a key element of the suffering and lack of sanitation. This wasn't a cloth shortage, it was near-complete cloth non-availability, at least for the rural poor. They could not afford it. Its price was skyrocketing, as discussed. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "the United States Air Force flew" - it was the United States Army Air Forces at the time
    • OK thanks will fix.
  • The '1942–45: Military build-up, inflation, and displacement' section should be moved to later in the article: it's mainly about the period after the crisis of early 1942
    • Mmm, I'll think about this. The section is about inflation, and dislocation of populace. If you move it later, it can't be moved much later. It's still about the build-up to the famine. It clearly belongs after the fall of Burma, and before the famine. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • " Rice was directed away from the starving rural districts" - this appears to be the first time the emergence of starvation is noted, yet where any why this occurred isn't described.
    • I'll check on this, thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "it was difficult not to conclude that the Churchill war ministry and Winston Churchill himself had a visceral hostility toward India:" - the source does not go this far: it states that "it is difficult to escape the impression that the War Cabinet [note the proper title] was simply hostile to India" and then notes that Churchill greatly disliked Indians. This sentence is lightly paraphrased from the book, but exaggerates its argument - not least as the Labour Party which was somewhat more sympathetic towards India contributed several members of the War Cabinet.
    • Many sources make this point again and again specifically with respect to Churchill. Key advisors were either hostile (Cherwell) or apparently unconcerned (Leathers, perhaps seeing himself as a hard-nosed pragmatist). Yes the Labour party was considerably more benevolent, as is very briefly mentioned in the "Social discord (Quit India)" section. But Churchill was hostile.. in fact, I really toned down the arguments against him, for fear of devolving into a running vitriolic paraphrase of "Churchill's Secret War." Even his own contemporaries/countrymen essentially called him racist (I recall that General Wavell had a very sharp quote to that effect, as did... someone else... was it Avery?) . Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I am not referring to the material on Churchill. Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "as the cessation of Burmese imports continued to drive up rice prices" - if these were small, how would this have much of an impact?
    • I though that was explained in the article... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Girls were also sold to the military," - highly dubious. A strong source is needed to support claims that the British and British Indian Armies had sex slaves or similar. I presume what's intended is that these women were forced into prostitution where they serviced soldiers.
    • @Nick-D: The sources on prostitution of girls/women to the military are omnipresent; saying that that didn't happen wouldn't pass WP:SNIFF. [If you need more sources for rampant prostitution, dealing mainly with the military, I might be able to scrape together ten or fifteen.] As for the possibility of "chattel", however: the source currently quoted says "girls were sold to the military" but crucially, doesn't define "sold"; it could easily mean "brought into prostitution" or it could mean "sold as chattel". There was in fact at least one case where a UK officer purchased a girl outright as chattel and it caused a stir in the UK House of Commons. I don't recall whether it was Linlithgow or Herbert or Amery who had to testify in front of the House of Commons and deny everything. But I am just saying all that for the sake of completeness. To the point, I am not at this time prepared to argue that girls were sold as outright chattel. I changed "sold" to "prostituted". Is that sufficient?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • That still states that the Allied militaries were the purchaser of the prostitutes' services. These forces did not run official brothels or the like, and individual personnel (using their own money) were presumably the clients. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Despite a long-established and detailed Famine Code that would have triggered a sizable increase in aid, and a statement privately circulated by the government in June 1943 that a state of famine might need to be formally declared,[265] this never happened" this is already stated
  • The coverage of the relief effort seems rather thin. Why did the military take over the relief effort, how did it manage to solve the problems, and how long did this take?
    • I think the coverage is thin because the coverage in sources is thin. IIRC they said, "And the heroic WAVELL stood up to London, and relief was offered, and it went well, but the real solution was the harvest. The End". But I will try to see if i overlooked something. It is very possible... Why did the military take over the relief effort? In a word, WAVELL, the "Good Viceroy". Apparently Churchill thought Wavell was a bit of a loser, and allegedly put him in charge hoping he'd continue to be ineffective. But Wavell shocked Churchill by transforming into a bold and determined lion. Wavell was not the only "good guy" here; Herbert almost kissed Wavell's boots and wept with joy (figuratively speaking) when Wavell stood up to London. And yes there were reports of soldiers helping, and.. were they ordered not to? yes that rings a bell.. I can try to find it, sounds like "Hungry Bengal" to me... and the rank-and-file soldiers were universally praised as the relief efforts took place. MMmm, I remeber a quote, "Six months into Wavell's efforts, little had been accomplished.." but that seems to contradict the praise that everyone heaps on that effort. The two key points are 1) WAVELL. 2) But even tho he was heroic and impeccably correct, even wavell wasn't the real turn-around. It was the harvest. [Just like FDR didn't really turn the US economy around, it was WWII that did that.. but I chase rabbits..] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • This kind of response is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I don't understand. Let me try to give very straightforward answers: 1) Why was the military involved? Linlithgow had been Viceroy through most of the famine, but did nothing. Then General Wavell became Viceroy, stood up to London, and soon after that the military was handing out relief. 2) Why is coverage so thin? Because, you have to understand, most books/articles do not devote words to Wavell's efforts. They praise him unreservedly, but don't describe the details of his operations very much. Except that he got rid of the interprovincial trade barriers, using precisely the same authority that Linlithgow pointedly declined to use.. [Ah, I do recall, many relevant high-ranking military officers were very keen to obey Wavell's orders. They were all for it. I'l try to find that quote.] I certainly need to add a sentence or two about his standing up to London and removing the trade barriers. But.. I don't know how many further details i can find. I will look. 3) How long did it take? It took until the harvest was brought in. That brought prices down dramatically (but still not to pre-war levels). It brought grain into the markets. Now, bear in mind, the famine in a larger sense was still raging, because of the disease phase. But the food crisis phase ended when the harvest was brought in. Is this a helpful response? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Lizzie Collingham's book has a useful summary of the relief effort. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Go to ""Good%20Viceroy"&f=false Hungry Bengal" and search for "Good Viceroy" Pages 140-145... I will try to find more. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Various sources also refer to military personnel providing aid to the starving on an ad-hoc basis (and policies being in place prohibiting this)
  • How was the record rice harvest in December 1943 achieved? - the article describes the problems which were suppressing the harvest, and how this was turned around dramatically seems important.
    • Do you mean, " Who harvested all those mountains of rice?" I know this sounds stupid, but: As far as I know, nobody knows. There was a huge excess of population before the famine, and a huge number of redundant workers, but they were surely too weakened to do heavy lifting etc. Perhaps they came from other provinces? Greenough mentions this. I can try to find a quote.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The article does a good job of describing the complex and often entrenched societal, economic, logistical, political and climatic problems which led to the disaster. How these were overcome so quickly (thus saving vast numbers of lives) seems pretty significant. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The various estimates of the number of fatalities should be moved into the body of the article (the 'Famine, disease, and the death toll' section does not in fact discuss what the death toll is estimated at - I can understand the mortality table, but it needs figures to provide context)
  • "Overall, the table shows the dominance of malaria as the cause of death throughout the famine" - I'm not sure that it does. Malaria made up 43% of deaths in the famine year of 1943 (up by 10 percentage points), and increased after the point when the article says the famine ended (eg, over 1944). The growth of cholera seems to have been more significant in 1943.
  • Also, I'm not sure why some of the percentages in the table are negative?
    • I've only had half a cup of coffee so far, so I hope I can be coherent. Percentages (%) for 1943 and 1944 are of excess deaths (that means, the percentage of the deaths that were more than usual and therefore due to the famine, not the percentage of total deaths or even of average deaths) as compared to rates from 1937–41, while those for 1937–41 are with respect to the average annual deaths of that period. For one thing, that means you cannot take the (%) column from 1937–41 and make any straightforward comparison of it to the two (%) columns for 1943 and 1944 in the same row (same cause of death), because they are percents of totally different things... But you can compare the % from the single year 1943 and the % from the single year 1944, because they do measure the same thing.... Meanwhile, you can compare the Rate columns straight across any row to each other, because all cause-specific death rates are based on a constant denominator - the enumerated population in the 1941 census. So the explanation of the weird negative percentages in the "Respiratory" and "Injury" rows goes looks like this: the death rates for both remained more or less the same and in fact slightly falling throughout the famine. That kinda makes sense. Take injuries, for example, many fatal injuries are probably caused during manual labor or whatever, and millions were too sick to work. But the negative numbers aren't really really because those rates were falling (or not mainly because they were falling). The negative numbers are mainly because the explanatory power of other causes of death for the famine was growing dramatically, while the explanatory power of injuries for famine deaths was... negative... [In super-simple terms, I suppose you could say, "Dying from Injury spared him from dying from famine"; so the rates are negative]... As for Malaria versus Cholera (which was bigger/biggest overall?), if you look at Rates, in overall numbers, Malaria was the bigger (and also the biggest overall) killer both before the famine (6.29 versus 0.73) and during the famine (11.46 versus 3.60 in 1943; 12.71 versus 0.82 in 1944). Malaria was always and everywhere the biggest killer. That makes it even more remarkable, from a numeric standpoint, that the rates in Malaria took a huge leap up. The biggest killer became a super-killer... The story of the Cholera numbers is that they took a HUGE relative jump in 1943, Rate jumped from 0.73 to 3.60, and this jump explained very nearly one-fourth of the famine-caused deaths (not the total deaths, not the average deaths) in that year. But then Rates dropped down in 1944 to almost (or slightly higher than) their previous average (0.82 as compared to previous average of 0.73). hey then explained only a tiny fraction of excess (famine-caused) deaths.
    • I have a masters degree in demography, and after reading that I can't understand this table. Your explanation of it suggests that it is fatally flawed: essentially it's presenting relatively advanced demographic concepts in an unusual way. If the 1943 and 1944 figures are for excess deaths, this isn't actually noted in the table's title or column headers, and I don't understand why the table would present different kinds of data alongside one another. The figures hidden away in note A seem much better suited to Wikipedia's audience. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Are you talking about the very first footnote in the whole article, the one that runs through various estimates? First, those are not broken down by cause of death, which was kinda the point that was being explored at that point in our article. Second, forgive me, but I find it slightly frustrating to keep repeating (see article's Talk Page) that that info is Just. Plain. Outdated. And. Superseded. I will try to set up a bit of a table with a narrative that is easier to digest. I need to emphasize twp points: 1) Dyson/Maharatna is academic consensus, and 2) whatever we eventually wind up with must deal with excess mortality figures (as opposed to raw mortality)... I will have time tomorrow... thank you for your patience. [By the way, that fatally flawed table is reproduced from the academic source; I didn't conjure it up myself... Also, if you have a master's in demography, then you could in fact read Dyson/Maharatna yourself. I will happily send them to you]. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @Nick-D: I still promise I will replace that complicated table with certainly a simpler narrative explanation and hopefully a new, simpler table. Meanwhile, in response to you & SV and esp. because I found a very nice quote (by Devereux) that permits me to do so, I have stricken my "Just Plain Outdated remarks above, and replaced excess mortality figures with a range (2.1 to 3 million) and an explanation. More later but I have many chores at the moment. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
        • @Nick-D: Sorry to keep pinging you. The table has been greatly simplified and its explanation amplified. Your input solicited.
  • Finally here, the article and its notes say that the figures relating to the population of Bengal and the impact of the famine are all at least somewhat reliable, yet this isn't noted in relation to the table. How reliable is it?
    • UPDATE: I answered this question earlier at length (below this), but in brief, the answer to this question is the same as is explained in footnote "A" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • No statistics are anywhere reliable in any absolute sense, period. The numbers in the table have a little fudge room because they weren't always 100% sure of the cause of death, but they are MOSTLY kinda reliable because healthcare workers were actually counting dead bodies and death rates in various hospitals, clinics etc. and comparing them to previous death rates in hospitals, clinics etc. No one knows the TOTAL death counts because countless thousands died in ditches along the roadsides. But they do have hospital records, and the death rates from those records can be assumed to also reflect rates from the larger population. Meanwhile, the crop statistics only very, very roughly reflected reality. In very many cases, unqualified, unequipped and unmotivated people just made stuff up... making extremely rough guesses.. just to satisfy the govt requests for statistics... OH PS if you're asking what Maharatna's staistical source was, looks like it was annual Bengal Public Health Reports, mentioned by Maharatna on p. 239. He says that "great confidence seems to be attached" to them (here talking specifically about malaria numbers). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The article states that "Contemporary mortality statistics are unreliable, particularly for the rural areas where methods were rudimentary even in normal times", but then presents readers with a table (referenced to the same source as this proviso) giving changes in mortality rates at a two decimal point level of detail. This is obviously contradictory. Your assertion about statistics never being reliable is wrong: official statistics produced by modern advanced economies tend to be highly reliable, especially on topics such as this (the point being that, say, modern Australia mortality data is of a vastly superior level of reliability to the figures collected in colonial-era India during a major crisis but readers wouldn't understand this from the article)Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
        • UPDATE: Thanks, I have changed text to "Contemporary mortality statistics were to some degree under-recorded". Thank you for the observation. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "This greatly affected domestic and international perceptions of the famine and sparked an international media frenzy" - how did the publication of photos in an Indian newspaper have an international impact? Where they also published internationally?
    • UPDATE: Yes added. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, was there really a "media frenzy"? This seems rather imprecise.
    • UPDATE: Reworded. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "The images had a profound effect and marked "for many, the beginning of the end of colonial rule"." - was this in India, or elsewhere?
    • Alas, the source doesn't say. We now have a strong link between "famine photos" and "spurred govt action; saved lives", but the link between photos and "world opinion about colonialism" is weak. I will try for a couple more days to find more, but if I don't, I will delete that bit. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Such comments are also a bit simplistic, given the general consensus among historians is that Indian independence was inevitable by this time. Focusing on the impact of the images also seems to under-sell the impact the famine had on the credibility of British rule of India locally and around the world.
    • yes perhaps the logic skips a step, but the conclusion remains the same. To wit: yes, the famine had a huge impact on world opinion. But the key point here is that no one in the world even knew the famine existed until the Statesman published those pix. And hold your breath, but even many in India did not even know there was such a massive crisis. I am not joking, even tho that sounds alien to modern ears. There was essentially a news blackout. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • "...Until The Statesman publicized it, [note from Lingzhi: several editorials (unnoticed by the world) over a number of weeks, but the really big bang was the photo spreads in Aug. 1943] the calamity in Bengal had been unknown to most of India and utterly unheard about in the rest of the world. In New Delhi, [the capital, far from Bengal, which had hitherto been oblivious] storefronts displayed the pictures of famine victims, and in Washington the state Department circulated them among policy makers." Churchill's Secret war p. 175.
      • "Thereafter, the Statesman— and Amrita Bazar Patrika—adopted a policy of reporting on the extent of starvation frequently and graphically. Its photographic images of the famine made world headlines." - Sufficiency and Sufficiency and Sufficiency p. 57 [Can still look for more quotes, if you want them] Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • " transforming what should have been a local shortage into a horrific famine." - not currently covered by a citation
    • yes thank you, it's added now: Ó Gráda 2015 pp. 39–40. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "British Field Marshal Viscount William Slim observed that "the horrible thing about Calcutta was the contrast of the blatant wealth of some of its citizens with the squalid misery, beyond mere poverty, at their very doors" - the location of this material implies that it refers to his views relating to the famine. From checking the book, it is actually his views on conditions in pre-famine Calcutta.
    • I'll put that on my list of things to double-check, but for now I'll take your word for it that I made a mistake about the time frame. Deleting. The quote is not necessary anyhow. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't describe who ordered the Famine Inquiry Commission and the impact of its report - which seems remarkably bluntly worded if it was an official inquiry, especially in the context in which it was written. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • It was ordered by the top. UK. And it actually is not bluntly worded, at least not in a key sense: It shifts 90% of the blame onto Provincial government. And that is highly controversial to put it very mildly. It omits the fact that the Indian Government stood by and did nothing, when in fact it certainly had the power to do things that might well have cut the famine short or greatly reduced its impact (see Weigold). I'm not trying to start a political discussion but to show the nature of the inaction and then harsh (yes very blunt, but blunt toward others — businesses, the provincial govt, but never themselves) finger-pointing. The report also cheerfully elided the forcible repatriation of Calcutta destitute, forex. [they said something like, "Oh and by that December the destitute population had been greatly reduced" but did not say how or by whom]. But I can't add that bit about their elision to the article, because no sources mention. I just noticed it myself. Some sources mention repatriation, but none mention that FIC didn't mention it... So adding that would be WP:OR Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      • UPDATE: The Famine Inquiry Commission which was appointed by the Government of India in 1944. there was a clamor for its creation. they dragged their feet for months before starting it. its meetings were held in private and all notes destroyed except those secretly kept/hidden by Nanavati. DETAILS ABOUT FORMATION OF COMMISSION added to article. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As an extra comment, I was poking through my copy of Srinath Raghavan's book India's War, which notes that the communists provided an effective famine relief program which contributed to them being very popular in the region as of 1946 (pages 453-534). Aside from this not being mentioned in the article, it does raise the issue of the article also not noting any other non-government relief efforts. The population of Bengal is presented as either starving powerless peasants or their oppressors, which seems rather simplistic. Even families are presented as mainly betraying their members. Surely there were civil society organisations, etc, which tried to save lives - however ineffectively - and families tried to help one another. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Contai and Tamluk are what you're talking about, I assume. In Midnapur. The "Civil Unrest" section mentioned this aeons ago, but perhaps it was deleted. Anyhow, the Communist and or/nationalist rebel relief, IIRC, was only for the cyclone, and only in Midnapore. They rebel forces (can't say that without thinking of Luke Sjywalker) actually set up an entire parallel govt in that area, which claimed to be.... a national govt, I think? But overall, the peasants were to a large extent every bit as helpless as you describe. They begged. They migrated. They died. Unless they were middle class or upper class. then the govt saved them. OH... and... Raghavan... I seem to recall... isn't that the one with many inaccuracies? I think I deleted it from my sources? Will check... I will check further on [presumably, urban, middle-class?] nationalist groups launching relief aid. But yes, the great mass of peasants died passively. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • I will write a small paragraph about private relief. May take a while. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: Many changes made as per your comments, but some still remain... "Relief efforts" section beefed up considerably to highlight vital role of Wavell and the military. That section also explains (in a footnote) why the harvest was so huge, as you mentioned. I also changed "Amery contacted UK" to "Amery contacted War Cabinet"... I have not forgotten your comments about the WP:LEDE. More later... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the new material added today

  • It now uses the confusing "Churchill's War Council". Presumably the war cabinet is meant, but even here it's confusing given that Avery was also a minister (albeit not a member of the war cabinet)
  • The material on the rice harvest is still unsatisfactory. This seems to have been a remarkable success in responding to the crisis, so why it's hidden away in a note and not explained is unclear to me. It goes to the point I raised earlier about the relief efforts: Presumably there was some kind of coordinated effort to get this going, with the workers then making it happen.
    • I can move it out of the footnote next week. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
      • Update: I am sorry, but I really, really, really have never seen anyone mention there was any kind of centralized coordination or management of the post-famine harvest. I was mildly surprised when I stumbled on the footnote in Greenough that said the increase was due to shifting crops toward rice (presumably, away from jute). I also think I remember that a lot of the labor came from other provinces (which was not unusual, in other contexts) , but I am not certain I could find that smallphrase or clause in my sources. I will give it a try. As for moving the Greenough "they used more land" quote out of the footnotes, well, I have to say that looks like footnote material to me. It is kinda peripheral to the famine. But if you want it in body text, I can oblige. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The para is also a bit confusing: it starts by saying that the central government didn't do much to help until September, but then notes that assistance actually commenced earlier but was delayed due to various logistical problems. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    • THat wasn't aid that was delayed; it was various purchases. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Added clarifying text a few days ago. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: I have completely re-written the Relief section, greatly expanding to meet your requests for information about the military, private aid, etc., and even throwing in a bit of communalism. I have made many other smaller changes. Please let me know if these changes are agreeable to you, then I can move on to your other concerns. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I volunteered to check everything about the references given. I checked every journal citation, via URLs, for accuracy, made numerous small corrections, and removed inconsistent formatting practices. (diff1d2) In previous interaction with the article, I found (to the limited degree I looked) that claims made in the text matched the sources. There is maybe one non-academic source (NYT). This review is going to hinge on much more substantive issues, but I want to make a note of this so that we can check off the most literal aspects of "source review". The lengthy "Works cited" section should be close to impeccable at this point. Outriggr (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • @Outriggr: I added two sources, to rectify issues pointed out by Brian (above). Sorry. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


I have been following this page almost since Lingzhi began his userspace draft. I have added no content, but have watched it develop over the last two odd years. Like Outriggr, I think this review is going to hinge on much more substantive issues, but want to note that the article is especially well written, and I was most impressed by Brian Boulton's re-sizing and adjustments to the article's balance of focus and overall scope. As such I Support on prose. Any remaining issues I have in this regard can sort myself or on talk, but they are minor. Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your kind support! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2018

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The last few years of Boat Race articles have made it to FA (and every single one of the others are GAs) so I'm following in that tradition and nominating this year's which was the greatest sporting triumph in modern history. Well, Cambridge won all four races... Thanks in advance for anyone who has the time and energy to provide any comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review
All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Source review
  • Sources are all good quality. Several archived are still available, but fn 48 didn't load for me.
  • 63 is an official Facebook page. -okay

Support All looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added an archive link to ref 48. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. Three points come to mind having only read the lead and background. Firstly, what do you make of the inconsistency in the naming conventions of these? List of The Boat Race results links to four others that are called "The Boat Races [year]", which makes sense given that more than one race occurred on the same day in each of those, yet this article uses the singular. Are you happy with the title as-is? Secondly, is this article in potential contravention of the CC BY-SA 3.0 license? The article is modeled on the previous Boat Race articles, and it clearly began life as a paste of the relevant information from the 2017 edition, yet there is no attribution in the article history. The 'finished' product we see here has even more similarities to previous years' articles, structurally and with whole swathes of text incorporated unchanged. Now, that's not necessarily a problem; I just wonder if by a strict interpretation of the licence we're not dotting every 'i' here (and I realise that a complicating factor may be that you were likely the original author of much of that text). Thirdly, does the recency of this event give you pause? I mean, it felt like I was in London just yesterday hearing about this ... wait, I literally was in London yesterday hearing about this :-) Is that enough time to ensure 1b is met? The last few articles at least had six months before they reached FA. Do you expect nothing else of note to be written? Steve T • C 22:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Steve (a) it's named for its common name, there's no inconsistency, just an adherence to WP:COMMONNAME. (b) Happy to add attribution of the background to the talk page, not a problem at all, although I wrote virtually every character, so it's not really an issue. But for dotting i's and crossing t's I'll do that. (c) No, there's no pause for me right now. As a counterpoint, what do you think is missing? What part of the coverage of this event will percolate in the next week, month, year? Let me know, as I'm keen to keep the article as comprehensive as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Steve oh, and given you've made fewer than 250 edits in the last two years, are you actually going to come back here and respond to any comments made or is this just a hit-and-run? Just checking, have you given pause to that? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Hi. There'll be no 'hit-and-run'; I'll keep this watchlisted for the duration. Thanks for clarifying the first two points. On the third, to answer your question: I don't know what might be missing, which is why I'm not opposing on that point; I've just never seen anything based on a recent event come to FAC this quickly and wanted your take on it. However, I think it should be something that other reviewers with more familiarity with the topic (and what is likely to be written about it) should consider. Steve T • C 23:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Sure. My advice to you is to look back over the last few Boat Race articles, The Boat Races 2017, The Boat Races 2016 etc which are already featured, and see if you can find anything fundamental missing from the articles. They all conclude pretty much on the day of the races themselves. If something's missing, please let me know. If not, then your concern is not actionable. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    Steve P.S. It may be helpful to understand that I generally used to take these articles to GAN first, but since that process can take an eternity, and since I know how good the articles I write are, I decided to bypass that dreadful wait and go straight to FAC. Perhaps, as an additional aid, you could look at the article histories of the FAs I've noted and see how much changed from the date of the race of the date of FA promotion. And I mean fundamentally changed or where fundamental information was missing, not just tweaks as a result of the review process. Please let me know if you spot anything I haven't. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    The GAN queue for sports articles is currently a year long, and the half-life of sports references is notoriously short, so immediate FAC nomination makes a good deal of sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose on 1b, further to my comments above and below. I've reviewed a couple of the previous Boat Race FAs and can see that, for example, The Boat Races 2017, though promoted in October 2017, does not contain anything new written more than three days after the event at the beginning of April 2017. Assuming 1b was met in that FAC, this backs up the claim that nothing new of substance is likely to be written on the subject of this race. However, a simple 30-second search reveals evidence of at least some potentially-useful content written well after the 2017 date that may have been relevant there, for example this pair of articles written on April 6 and May 2, respectively. Or this, from July 2, which provides the sorely-missing UK viewing figure data (which, incidentally, won't even have been compiled/released yet by BARB for the 2018 race). My point is, even though I might buy that you've deemed those examples (and that's all they are) irrelevant from an editorial point of view, and while I agree that sporting events such as this leave such a fleeting footprint on the news cycle that we can likely be assured of comprehensiveness after a relatively short period of time (unlike an article on a popular book, perhaps, which likely needs a few years), I don't think two days is enough time to know what might come out about the 2018 race, and possibly means that encyclopedic data (such as viewing figures) is not going to be available. To be clear: I do not believe that GA is a prerequisite for FA but the rush to FAC here is I think unprecedented, and it absolutely gives me pause. Steve T • C 22:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    The first two links are trivia. The third is useful and can be incorporated. But I'm not hanging around for months for the possibility of other news relating to the topic to arise. That's just daft. Thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    Further, the 2017 article went to GAN on or about the day of the race itself and was reviewed four months later, passing with basically no changes. The FAC immediately followed and passed within around a month with basically no changes. This oppose is basically unactionable without withdrawing the nomination and waiting for, how long? Six months? Sorry, but I think that's bordering on nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • One other, minor point I wanted to ask you about without cluttering the above: do you think it's a little odd that—owing to the fact that much of this article has been taken from the previous years'—there are a bunch of citations with 'retrieved by' dates that pre-date this article's creation? The accessdate parameter is supposed to be the date when the content pointed to by the url was last verified to support the text in the article. Some of these still say 2014. Is that really the last time some of these sources were verified? Steve T • C 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    As predicted, this commentary from Steve is a hit-and-run. What a shame we couldn't actually work on making the article better, but apparently it's nothing to do with that, it's about the fact that the event itself took place a week or so ago, despite the prelude starting months and months ago, and nothing realistic being offered in favour of the "1b" oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I have this watchlisted, and have checked in every day. If I have not responded, it is 1) because I have spent actual hours researching this race, much of which I was witness to, 2) because I have gone back and forth about six times on whether I should strike my 'oppose', 3) because an article at FAC is likely to stay in the list for several weeks, and 4) because I have spent most of my free time these last few days with my family, owing to the fact that this is Easter weekend. I do not appreciate the bad-faith assumption of a hit-and-run review. As anyone who remembers my contributions here will attest, I am and always have been a conscientious FAC reviewer. I am not surprised that FAC reviews have dried up the last few years when at every turn my concerns about this article have been minimised and treated with condescension. Your first reply, before my 'oppose' and when I was simply raising a concern, was to make immediate reference to the fact that I had only made 250 edits in two years, despite the fact that most of those were major rewrites as a result of weeks of research—and actual money spent—to save someone else's Featured Article that had been listed at FAR. Your combative attitude is one which I imagine most editors will find off-putting to a degree where they will opt to avoid reviewing articles for fear of having their contributions scrutinised and used against them, rather than as an opportunity to improve the article in question. To address the substance of your complaint, 1) the FAC coordinators will make their own decision on whether or not my 'oppose' (should I decide not to strike it) is actionable, and 2) I understand that the article was started months ago, but to give you an insight into my viewpoint, over at WP:FILM we start film articles when principal photography begins, but there is often—always even—major content written months or years after the film's release; we would never dream of listing a film at FAC that had been released only a few days beforehand. I see that Boat Race articles are almost certainly different owing to the news cycle, but it's that potential for extra content that gives me pause. It may be that your stance is correct, but I urge you not to immediately confront reviewers who disagree with that viewpoint. I will be back this way to reassess, but at my own pace and backgrounded by my extensive experience with FAC reviews. Good day. Steve T • C 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    Right, so you're sticking with an inactionable oppose. You've yet to offer any substantive content that is missing from any Boat Race article, so this is all very unhelpful, despite your self-proclaimed "extensive experience", how do you think that benefits anyone? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    No, I'm considering it and reconsidering it; as explained above, I've gone back and forth several times on whether to strike my oppose, and have attempted at every turn to ignore the condescending tone of your responses (even before my 'oppose') and focus instead on their substance. I have already conceded that this may well be an unusual circumstance in which nothing new of note is ever written about an event mere days after it occurs; films, elections, TV, literature, meteorology, music and most other sporting events require much longer to percolate through the cultural consciousness. I am unaware of any other article on Wikipedia that has been seriously considered for promotion to FA only days after the event they are about has occurred; even if I strike my oppose and this is promoted uncontested, this will still be precedent-setting, and that reason alone should justify some hesitation in reaching a decision. Steve T • C 09:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    Yes, you've made your point but there's no actual evidence to support your position, or at least none that you've provided. And that's a shame because it just means that you're providing an oppose that can't be actioned apart from withdrawing the nomination and waiting some arbitrary time during which nothing will happen. This isn't "precedent-setting", this is approaching a very stable topic with the application of common sense. What is unusual is that I produce such high quality material so rapidly after an event has taken place. I have very extensive experience in this field, as evidenced by the 150+ GAs and half a dozen FAs on this very topic. And mark my words, if I discovered something vital was missing from any one of the 164 articles, I'd be the first person to add it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
    Oppose struck. If I get the opportunity, I'll read through again to see if I have any suggestions. If not, good luck. Steve T • C 20:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. I am very familiar with The Rambling Man's Boat Race articles, and this one is well up to his customary high standard. Meets all FA criteria in my view. Glad to add my support. (And extra points for being so quick off the mark. V. impressive.) Tim riley talk 11:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96
  • Alt text for all images would be of benefit to those who have image dsscriptions turned on
  • "including SuperSport across Africa and EBU across Europe." - If I'm mistaken, EBU is referred to as "the EBU"
  • "The Championship Course along which, for the third time in the history of the event, the men's, women's and both reserves' races will be conducted on the same day" - was conducted
  • "led by their chief coach Steve Trapmore. Trapmore, a gold medal-winning member of the men's eight at the 2000 Summer Olympics," - Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
  • "Both CUWBC president Daphne Martschenko and rower Paula Wesselmann were unavailable " - Why were Martschenko and Wesselman absent?
  • "The Dark Blues feature one returning crew member" - featured
  • "The Light Blues also feature the 2015 World Rowing Championships quad sculls gold medallist Olivia Coffey." - same as above.
  • "The Cambridge crew includes a number of experienced Boat Race rowers:" - included
  • "will be the tallest individual ever to have competed in The Boat Race." - was the tallest individual to have competed in the history of The Boat Race.
  • "Cambridge's crew contains four individuals who have featured in the Boat Race:" - contained

Apart from the issues raised above, I believe this piece of work to be quite neatly put together by TRM. MWright96 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

MWright96 thanks for your comments. I've addressed them all, the only one which wasn't simple was the absence of Martschenko and Wesselmann. I know the former was ill, there's no information on the latter and in other sources Wesselmenn's absence isn't even noted, so I removed that. Hopefully all addressed to your satisfaction, please let me know. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Apart from a couple of infelicities already listed by MWright above, I could see nothing of concern. They appear to be uncontentious and easily fixed, so happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Jimfbleak. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

First Battle of Dernancourt

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a joint British/Australian defensive battle on 28 March 1918 which played a small part in stemming the tide of the German Spring Offensive of WWI. A Tasmanian sergeant, Stanley McDougall, was instrumental in defeating the only real German breakthrough of the defences, and was subsequently awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions. This is the first WWI battle article I've developed from scratch, so hopefully it flows well. I believe it is comprehensive. All constructive comments gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Operation_Michael_1918.jpg needs a US PD tag, and the uploader is not the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

  • "northwestern" should be "north western"?
  • Per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional. This is the case with the Spring Offensive navbox at the trop, but not the WWI navbox at the bottom. But its up to you.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Removed the WWI navbox, it really isn't needed here. Thanks for taking a look Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this article when it was up for GA, and it has been improved greatly since then. I have the following comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • some of the the images lack alt text. I'm not sure if it is an FA requirement, but it might be helpful to add: [8]
  • the external links all work and there are no dab links
  • do we know the German commander's name?
  • in the lead "2nd Army (German Empire)" is overlinked
  • elsewhere "Lancashire Fuisiliers" is also overlinked
  • I spot checked the citations to Coulthard-Clark and Carlyon as I have those sources
  • three German armies: suggest linking Field army here
  • 4th Division, Major General Ewen Sinclair-Maclagan was ordered: possibly needs a comma after "Maclagan"
  • He hosed them down with the gun: not sure about "hosed" here, it seems a bit informal

Messier 87

Nominator(s): UbedJunejo (talkcont) 03:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an elliptical galaxy in Virgo cluster, some 50 million light years from Earth. It is famous for its enormous supermassive black hole which weighs about 6 billion solar masses and a relativistic jet emanating from the core, that extends up to some 4500 light years. This article was listed as GA in 2010, has been improved over this period of time, has been reviewed recently and I have also made some improvements. So article is broad in coverage, neutral, stable, well referenced and thorough. And so, I believe it meets FA criteria. UbedJunejo (talkcont) 03:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

Did more than one person add the references? They seem to be in at least two different styles, perhaps more. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, article has been on Wikipedia for 15 years and many people have added references. But all citations are in <ref>author, year, publication name, publisher, volume/issue/edition, page, bibcode/isbn</ref> style and none in Harvard (author,year,page) style. So they seem to be consistent. Could you please provide a specific example? Thanks --UbedJunejo (talkcont) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Sure. Compare the formatting of the page numbers of the book sources in fn 2, 6 and 14 - all different Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Fixed it--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 03:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

Image review
  • All images have appropriate licences, at but one being from NASA, ESA or ESO. I updated one licence on Commons.
  • The exception is File:Virgo constellation map.svg. Seems to be okay. The copyright holder asserts (on his talk page) that the legal status of all my star maps is the GFDL

Therefore, all images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Suggest moving fn 25 into the Notes section
  • Template:Cite journal is called with more than one value for the "display-authors" parameter.
  • Weirdness: The DOI system says that the DOI for fn 74 is wrong. I checked it against the journal page [9], and it is indeed what it says.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Now it is number 73. DOI is as given in the article pdf. May be, as the says, The DOI has not been activated yet. :-/ --UbedJunejo (talkcont) 02:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I considered that, but the article was published in 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Praemonitus

Support – I gave it a read through and it mostly seems reasonable from an accuracy perspective. However, there are a few items that may need to be addressed:

  • There is no mention of it being a LINER-type active galaxy. A discussion of what this means for M87 would seem appropriate.
Done (in section properties).--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 17:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no discussion (I could find) of its enormous radio lobes,[10] or the implications thereof.
Done (in jet section). Unfortunately, I couldn't find a free image.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 01:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Regarding the statement: "At the time it was the only known example of an elliptical nebula for which individual stars could be resolved": the reference for this sentence says on page 51 that this claim has been criticized because, at that distance, clusters and groups would be indistinguishable from individual stars. I have to suspect that what was being detected were members of the globular cluster population rather than individual stars, but I'm not sure how that could be referenced.
I think I have fixed it in a reasonable way. You may have a look.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 12:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Graeme Bartlett

"refer to caption" is not up to the standard required. The idea is to say what the picture looks like for those that cannot see the image. It is not to replace the caption. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not possible to describe many images of the article without introducing redundancy. One can not explain how X-ray emission looks like to somebody who can not see it. Nevertheless, I have tried to fix most of them.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 01:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
The idea is just to say what we see. We don't see X-rays, but you can say what we see in the pic, a yellow circle with red bubbles coming out the top and bottom, upper right, and lower left, A blue beam shoots to the top and another to the lower left. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I have seen the pic before, but still, while reading this description, I couldn't generate any visual in my mind that matches with actual image. Maybe you should add "deformed rectangular region, with red shades, surrounded by blue background, with many stars .......". But as policy page says "alt text needs to be short and to the point, detailed explanation should be left to body". On the other hand, caption is descriptive and to the point.UbedJunejo (talkcont) 12:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Done. Previous caption was inaccurate. Fixed that + equivalent description in alt. You may have a look.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 17:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • ö B¨ohringer should be Böhringer
  • extragalactic or extra-galactic
Titles of publications are not altered, other instances fixed.
  • Gebhardt or Gehbardt (initial K - probably the same person)
  • intracluster or intra-cluster
Same as number 3
  • Inconsistent apostrophe: M87’s or M87's
  • 'p' - should this be in double quotes "p"?
  • In the Jet section there is a phrase "and vice versa" but it is not clear, do you mean the reverse faster→smaller or opposite bigger→slower.
"vice versa" is not commutative, I think ;) So, "small diameter=fast variation", --vice versa--> "large diameter=slow variation", i.e it will take first argument first and reverse :D
  • At one point Virgo-A makes a mention, but later it is always "Virgo A".
  • Should VIRGO CLUSTER in reference 91 be all caps?
  • Slight inconsistency with X-Ray (in external link) or X-ray in text
Fixed (as X-ray), although it was in publication title, but since title was all caps, so justified I guess
Done (wherever wiki article exists)--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 13:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also where authors have articles use authorlink. (The first I checked Christian Luginbuhl, has no article, but does have an asteroid named after him!) but Brian A. Skiff exists

(I will check references and also do a spelling and symbol check) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Comments from Jim

Looks pretty comprehensive, just a couple of nit-picks

  • it lacked any spiral structure, but appeared to belong to the same family of non-galactic nebulae as spiral nebulae—a few words explaining why it's classed with spirals despite not being one might be helpful
It actually means that it was identified as non-galactic nebula (like spirals, which were also identified as being far from the Milky Way), as opposed to galactic nebula (like planetary nebulae, which are within the Milky Way). I have clarified it a bit in the article.
  • with former being independent star systems—"the former"?
Done.--UbedJunejo (talkcont) 21:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to watchlist, happy with changes, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking pretty good overall...notes below:

  • has been shown that M87 has absorbed a medium-sized star-forming spiral galaxy over the period of last billion years. "the" last billion years? or even better "sometime within the last billion years"?
  • I'd link chevron, and corona
I am not sure on this one, if it would be appropriate.
Agree/point taken. Ok not a dealbreaker Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Gamma rays coming from M87 have been observed since the late 1990s, but in 2006, using the High Energy Stereoscopic System Cherenkov telescopes, scientists have measured the variations of the gamma ray flux coming from M87, and found that the flux changes over a matter of days. - I'd split this long sentence
  • Interaction of relativistic jets of plasma emanating from the core with surrounding medium gives rise to radio lobes in active galaxies. - should there be a "the" before "surrounding"?
Done.UbedJunejo (talkcont) 14:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok - all looks good prose and comprehensivenesswise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Cooperative pulling paradigm

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Something different: an article on animal cognition. Will two animals pull a rope in a synchronised manner such that they both can obtain food? In reading the research I encountered quite a few interesting findings, which I hope you will enjoy as well. I'm pleased to report one of the researchers involved kindly donated his drawing of a cooperative pulling experiment with elephants. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi

I fixed a few p/pp errors for you but there are still a dozen left. And 13 instances of Hyphen in pg. range Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing a few, I believe I have fixed them all now. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jackdude101

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: The prose is satisfactory overall, but some things need fixing. Lead section: Researcher Meredith Crawford, who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937, used as apparatus two ropes attached to a rolling platform that was too heavy to be pulled by a single chimpanzee. The phrase "used as apparatus two ropes" should be replaced with "used an apparatus consisting of two ropes", or something similar. A similar sentence in the Apparatus section requires the same treatment. Overview subsection of Findings section: Bonobos, also social animals but with higher levels of tolerance, can outperform chimpanzees on some cooperative tasks. This sentence needs to be reworked. Perhaps something like "Bonobos, which are social animals with higher tolerance levels, can outperform chimpanzees on some cooperative tasks.".
      Fixed both by following your suggestions. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    2. comprehensive: The article appears to address everything notable about the topic.
    3. well-researched: The article appears to be well-researched with 169 separate references cited. The vast majority of these are books, so good faith is assumed.
    4. neutral: Neutrality is satisfactory.
    5. stable: The vast majority of edits have been from the nominator, who is also the article's creator. All good here.
  2. Style guidelines
    1. a lead: Lead has no problems besides the item mentioned above.
    2. appropriate structure: Structure is appropriate.
    3. consistent citations: Citations are good overall and are present in every section. However, there are several instances where more than three citations are back-to-back. Whenever possible, no more than three should be used at a time, or else it's WP:Citation overkill. Either remove the unnecessary citations, spread them out within the information that they're citing, or give a solid case for why they should remain where they are.
      Fixed, mostly by spreading them out.
  3. Media: The number of pictures in the article is just right and they are spread throughout the article appropriately.
  4. Length: Length is satisfactory.

This article looks solid overall. Fix the items above and I'll support it. Jackdude101 talk cont 20:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and effort to comment, much appreciated. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
All issues raised in my comments have been resolved. Support. Jackdude101 talk cont 21:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Not sure there is a lot of benefit to having images just for the sake of having them - for example, I think it's safe to say most readers will understand the concept of "dog" without the photo
Hi Nikkimaria. The idea is that the images convey the actual subspecies that participated in the experiments, e.g. Asian elephants, spotted hyenas, and Labrador Retrievers. There are a few species that are uncommon and benefit from an illustration ((kea, tamarin), and it just looked better to be consistent once I had added a few. Happy to remove them all if that's the consensus of reviewers.
  • File:Sketch_of_a_cooperative_pulling_experiment_with_elephants.jpg: given that this image has been published in a copyrighted journal, I'm not sure the author retains the right to release it as CC BY. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The article does not have this illustration. It has a better one, but this is the one the author says is still his.Edwininlondon (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The only difference between this illustration and Figure 1 View 2 in the source article is a dashed line - that's not significant enough a change to have a different copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Too bad. I've removed the offending illustration and have asked the scientist if he has an alternative sketch with full rights. If that fails, is it okay for me to make my own sketch or does that count as original research? Edwininlondon (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
See WP:OI. In that case you'd also need to avoid creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
The scientist just responded and said that as per he has retained the rights.
Looks like under the default license only noncommercial reuse is permitted, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. So the license should be CC BY-NC 3.0, correct? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not a permissible license - that's why {{cc-by-nc}} redirects to a deletion tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I drew one myself instead based on the raven, rook and kea experiments. I assume this is fine now? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I asked a friend to sketch one with dogs. Much better. No license problems anymore. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. I noticed that the elephant image mentioned here was removed as a copyright violation, but it should be fairly simple to redraw in a way that doesn't violate copyright? It does seem a shame that there is no lead image. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem a shame. I'll see if redrawing without violating copyright is possible. I'll do one of the bird experiments, seems safer than elephants.
Added a lead image. Not as good as the elephants, sorry. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, could there be some arrows or description of what and how they are attempting? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A friend made an even better one. I think arrows will clutter it too much for mobile. Should the caption explain a bit more?Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I think the new image is very clear. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • There are some duplicate links, perhaps try using this script:[11]
That's a nifty little tool! Thx for the tip. Deduped.
  • The first paragraph under "Elephants" ends without a citation.
  • I know it may not be necessary, but could the first sentence under "Conditions" get a citation?

Thank you for you helpful comments so far. I look forward to more. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Does the name Meredith Crawford have to be spelled in full after the first mention in the article body? Everyone else only gets last names anyway.
Removed Meredith in the second mention.
  • "who invented the experimental paradigm in 1937" Does the idea have any history before this?
No source has mentioned anything. De Waal calls Crawford the pioneer.
  • You are inconsistent in whether you list the publication year of a mentioned study or not.
Would the following approach be alright: years are mentioned in Apparatus section, for pioneering work by Crawford, and Hiroto's invention of loose string, but then nowhere else. With the exception of "In 2008, Seed, Clayton and Emery said the study of the proximate mechanisms underpinning cooperation in animals was in its infancy" as that statement leads to misinterpretation without a year. Should I follow that approach? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I made this change and I think it looks better now.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure how that happened, but seems the talk page of this article is not tagged with any Wiki projects?
  • It is a bit unclear in each animal example whether wild or captive animals were tested (you specify for some of the chimp experiments, but not for many others). I think this would be interesting to note.
I have added this for each.
  • "was the Clever Hans effect" Could be briefly explained in parenthesis or in a footnote.
Added explanation in parentheses
  • "Labrador Retrievers" Is this the kind of dog used in the studies, or is the image just arbitrarily chosen? If the former, could be mentioned.
It is one of the breeds used yes. Added to caption.
  • "10 meters apart", "1 cm, 3 cm and ultimately 6 cm apart". Perhaps a conversion could be given, as in other science articles.
  • "Asian elephants (Elephas maximus)" Missed italics.
Good catch.
  • It seems off to have a section on "parrots" and one on "keas", considering the latter are parrots too. Since the first section is only about a specific kind of parrot, I think it should be renamed "African grey parrots" accordingly. Or simply "Grey parrot", as that seems to be the preferred name.
  • "birds native to New Zealand" Also seems misleading, as they are simply parrots. Saying "parrots native to" would make more sense, as we already know they are birds by them being in the bird section.
  • "use cooperative pulling experiments in order to try to understand how cooperation works and how and when it may have evolved." Maybe it should be stressed there that it only applies to animals with high intelligence and cognitive abilities (judged on what species have been chosen for study). Social insects cooperate, but I doubt they would be considered for such experiments.
Funny you mention that. I have asked two researchers mentioned in the article if any one ever has done anything with ants. I will try to find a source that makes your point and then add. Thanks for all your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I will try to find a source that describes the selection criteria.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Not much luck. The best I can find is something like this: "Researchers of experiments in cooperation have favored as subjects species that are tool users or live in complex social groups." This doesn't really exclude the ants, plus is broader than the cooperative pulling paradigm. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, not much to do then. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - the content looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and support. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just one thing really

  • observed in the air (e.g., among hawks— I'd prefer a link to bird of prey, instead. if you follow the link, hawk is somewhat imprecise, and although you cite only Harris hawks, cooperative hunting is reported in Aplomado falcons (Hector D.P. (1986). "Cooperative hunting and its relationship to foraging success and prey size in an avian predator". Ethology. 73: 247–257. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1986.tb00915.x.) Cooperative between different species has also been recorded (Cudworth, J., and Massingham, C. 1986. Hen Harrier and Merlin hunting together. British Birds 79:430, also Dickson, R. C. 1984. Falcons hunting close to harriers. British Birds 77: 481-482, and this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. I only picked out hawks as an example. I changed hawks to Aplomado falcons, but still only as an example. It should probably be species specific and not make readers think all bird of prey hunt cooperatively. Plus keeps it in line with lions, killer whales, driver ants. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, not a big deal anyway, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Final Destination 3

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Final Destination 3 is the third installment of the eponymous franchise. It was released in 2006 and stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead as high-schooler and photographer Wendy Christensen. It also saw James Wong and Glen Morgan return as directors and co-writers from the first film after being absent during the second. After Wendy has a vision of Devil's Flight derailing, the roller-coaster she and her friends are on, she manages to save some of them. Unfortunately, soon afterwards, Death starts hunting them down. The film made quite a bunch of money during its run, almost five times its budget, and got mixed reviews from critics. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Serial Number 54129

  • "...everyone on board dies. Wendy survives the derailment..." might want to be slightly re-worded. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
      • @Serial Number 54129: Is there anything else that I should change? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, you didn't actually address my point  :) It should say someting like "everyone on board dies in the derailment except Wendy, who..." or something. At the moment it still says everyone (100%) dies, but clearly not everyone does, since Wendy was on the train too—and doesn't!
          I guess more editors will come along at some point and advise on other aspects, prose, style, images, etc. Good luck with this! —SerialNumberParanoia/cheap shit room 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mojo0306

  • Just a small thing: in some sentences, the phrase "roller coaster" is not hyphenated, but is hyphenated in other sentences: "the first two weeks of which were spent filming the roller-coaster scene" and again "Meteor Studios produced the roller-coaster and subway crashes while Digital Dimension handled the post-premonition death scenes." Could do with consistency throughout. Mojo0306 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mojo0306: Done. Anything else? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • None that I can see, so I Support. My favourite film series, and one of the better ones in the series IMO. Good luck with the nomination! Mojo0306 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Oh God, it's always great to see another fan of this film. :D Thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

I try and help with film related articles and biographies, so I'll try and take a look soon. 04:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC) Some observations:

  • You could avoid the repetition of Final Destination 3 in close proximity in the second paragraph of the lead.
    • Changed it.
  • "This makes them inconsistent with many analyses of horror films, according to which they require a monster." - This sentence is awkwardly phrased.
    • Tried to make it more clear.
  • The Development section uses a lot of "According to" statements​, which could get monotonous. You might want to try and very the sentence structure a little.
    • Changed them.
  • I don't know how the prior works of some of the actors add anything relevant to the casting section, it seems a little irrelevant. I would remove them, unless of course they had something to do with them getting cast in the film.
    • Removed most of them.
  • "Winstead and Merriman said the filming took three months, the first two weeks of which were spent filming the roller-coaster scene and the rest of the filming was done out of sequence." - You could easily split this.
    • Done.
  • "The cast members often rehearsed with each other for better on-screen chemistry." - How is this significant? I mean a lot of people rehearse with the fellow cast members.
    • Removed.
  • "The death of Ian McKinley" paragraph could use some simplification, but that might just be me.
    • It's definately not just you. I'll try making it simpler.
  • "Lee stated he enjoyed "being able to put [his] own darker spin on it for the movie"." Lee enjoyed would be just fine.
    • Done.
  • The Release section is really just jumping from one thought​ to another without any flow. Do we have any information on how the audience responded to the marketing strategies: the novel? and the website?
    • @Numerounovedant: I'm afraid I don't understand the first part of that sentence. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately no, I haven't been able to find any article or something similar about what fans / critics had to say about either the novelization or the website. Granted, the film is more that 10 years old, so even if an article like that did exist, it's long dead. I did try to change the paragraph a little so the flow from the website to the novel is better and more connected in regard to the film's promotion. I've seen other articles like Captain America: Civil War, where the "Marketing" and "Release" sections are separate, but considering how little information exists about both, I think it's more sensible to have them combined, with a chronological order. PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, it is better than before and I wouldn't push you to look for information that might not be there. I agree that there is no point in having separate sections. That said, the transition still may read staccato to some. It's alright though. VedantTalk 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll get to the Reception section later today. VedantTalk 07:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • A quick glance at the Reception section brought to notice the varying use of tenses: "Rotten Tomatoes reports ... CinemaScore reported". Make sure that tge tense remains consistent. VedantTalk 18:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

More comments:

  • I don't think the quotes in "describing the third film as lacking "intricacy"" are required.
  • You also might want to attribute the review to the author and not the website.
  • There's no reason to have both the positive and negative reviews in the same paragraph. You can spilt them (maybe add another positive/mixed review and have an independent paragraph about the general praise) and start the second paragraph with an opening statement similar to "Other reviewers were more positive...".
  • "Empire and The Guardian found the story to be enjoyable" - In cases where multiple critics say similar things you could avoid naming all of them and write "Commentators found the story...:: I do think that you should considering rephrasing this as suggested.
  • Also, reviewers that have absolutely no notability do not need to be mentioned either, their claims can stay with in-line citations.
  • The idea of combining the tone and the death sequences in a paragraph is a little confusing. You might want to rearrange the section; the tone could go with the general praise and you could try and expand the repsonse to the death sequences as an independent paragraph.
  • Although, I understand that cast performances are not a priority in the genre, but a little more on the same could give the last paragraph more substance.
  • I'll look into some of the other reviews to add.

I'll take a look again once you have gone through my comments. Let me know if you have any concerns. VedantTalk 15:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Numerounovedant: Regarding the section—excluding the review aggregator websites—I originally had it like this: positive reviews, then negative reviews. However, user Slightlymad suggested that I rewrite the paragraphs so that I include what critics praised in one paragraph (the tone and death scenes) and what they criticized in the other (the film's plot being formulaic). I followed the example presented here. Additionally, constantly referring to "A said B, C said D" can get kind of repetetive. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, the reading of the section can obviously never make everyone happy, it's​ really subjective. That said, I do think that removing the names of the critics does not really solve the A said B, C said... problem it just transfers it from A of X publication said B, C from Y publication said... to Publication X said B, publication Y said... if that makes sense. corporating the opinions into the text is encouraged.
For instance: This "Variety compared the narrative negatively with the franchise's second installment, describing the third film as lacking intricacy.[58] The New York Times similarly described the film as lacking the "novelty of the first [or] the panache of the second"" could be: "Writers compared the narrative negatively with the franchise's earlier installments​ and felt that it lacked "intricacy".[citation] and the "novelty of the first [or] the panache of the second"[citation]".

Let me know how you feel. VedantTalk 06:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh crap. I just realized I made a mistake. The above essay stated that constantly using "A of Publication B said C" is repetetive; which is why I tried to alter the structure or remove names when the publication is more notable (like Variety). As to the example you used with Variety and The New York Times, while I do think combining it her would work, I think it's important to have the names of the publications / critics, especially when they are notable. Moreover, I feel like trying this specific example (at least the first part of the sentence), is basically repeating what the beginning of the paragraph says. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Alright, the idea was to lay it all out there. The discussion has produced varying versions for the section and I am almost okay with all of them. I'd leave it to you to chose what you see fit as you obviously know the article best. I do not think I'll support or oppose here, but this is a thorough article without any obvious deficiencies. I appreciate the work that you have put into the articles of the franchise! I am big fan (1 and 2 are my favorites!). Good luck getting this promoted, let me know if you need any further help. VedantTalk 15:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm sorry for coming off as uncooperative in regard to the "Reception" section. For what it's worth, I really appreciate your help on this article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
That's alright, it was a great read! VedantTalk 05:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


  • What makes CinemaBlend a high-quality reliable source? Scriptologist? Moviepilot? Ain't It Cool?
    • CinemaBlend is owned by Gateaway Blend, Scriptologist is operated by Glenn Bossik who is a screenwriter, script analyst and doctor who has worked with Alan J. Pakula and Ain't It Cool has pictures. Don't know about Moviepilot, don't care much about it either, so I just removed it.
      • Unfortunately simply having pictures doesn't make a site reliable. What are the editorial policies of these sites? Have they been cited by reliable sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned about the presence of close paraphrasing between the article and its sources. Compare for example "The death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D graphic enhancement; the roller-coaster scene is composed of 144 visual-effect shots" with "All the death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D enhancements. The roller coaster sequence alone comprised 144 vfx shots"
    • @Nikkimaria: Is that the only article where that's a problem? I can check the copyright violation tool and see which references are used too much and try to change them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
      • No, and I would not advise relying on automated tools to check for close paraphrasing - they are intended to catch direct copy-paste only. Unfortunately the only effective way to evaluate is direct side-by-side comparison with the sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Conversely, some of the facts in the article don't line up with the sources. For example, the article claims that Winstead, Wong and Morgan went to the San Diego Comic-Con; however, the cited source states it was Winstead, Wong and Merriman.
    • Changed it.
  • Prose needs work for clarity and flow - for example, "The first two weeks of which were spent filming the roller-coaster scene and the rest of the filming was done out of sequence." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Well, I looked through the references and didn't really find any sentences in the article that matched the ones in the references too much. I also looked at the overal article and changed a few things for more clarification or connect / flow better. Do you think it looks better now? PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
To give you an example, "The death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D graphic enhancement" is too close to "All the death scenes required varying degrees of 2D and 3D enhancements" - the difference between those two phrases is minimal. You may want to take a look through this Signpost article. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I still have no idea how else to write it. The whole section is pretty technical and I'm not an expert in the field. I tried to transfer it as best as I could. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess one can always just change the structure and voice of a sentence. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
You might see if anyone at a relevant WikiProject knows enough of the subject matter to be able to help. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Is that the only section with close paraphrasing? Cause I've checked the rest and I think they're okay. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Edward the Elder

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Edward the Elder was the son and successor of Alfred the Great. He built on his father's achievements to defeat the Vikings in southern England, and united Mercia and East Anglia with Wessex into one southern kingdom. He has been described as perhaps the most neglected of English kings. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

A nicely researched piece. Thoughts from me:

  • "When Edward succeeded, he had to defeat a challenge from his cousin Æthelwold, who had a strong claim to the throne" - I'd have gone for "When Edward succeeded to the throne, he had to defeat a challenge from his cousin Æthelwold, who had a strong claim", as "succeeded" read oddly to me without a mention of the throne adjacent to it. May just be me though!
  • "Alfred had succeeded Æthelred as king of Wessex in 871, and almost faced defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. After the battle, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control. In the early 880s Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd, and around 886 Alfred adopted the new title King of the Anglo-Saxons as the ruler of all Anglo-Saxons not subject to Danish rule." - this didn't quite work for me in the lead - it seemed to digress siginificantly away from Edward (who isn't even mentioned in the paragraph)
  • How about "Alfred had faced almost certain defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. In the 890s the Vikings renewed their attacks, and Edward led the defence, together with Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, who had accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd. However, when Edward came to the throne, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control.
  • On second thoughts this is not quite right as it almost certainly exaggerates Edward's role compared with the veteran Æthelred. How about "Alfred had faced almost certain defeat against the Danish Vikings until his decisive victory at the Battle of Edington in 878. In the mid-880s Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, the ruler of western Mercia, accepted Alfred's lordship and married his daughter Æthelflæd. In the 890s the Vikings renewed their attacks, and Æthelred and Edward led the successful defence. However, when Edward came to the throne, the Vikings still ruled Northumbria, East Anglia and eastern Mercia, with only Wessex and western Mercia under Anglo-Saxon control." Does this look OK to you Hchc2009? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Edward has been described as "perhaps the most neglected of English kings"" - I'd be keen for this to say who's described him as such.
  • "His reputation among historians rose in the late twentieth century, and he is seen as destroying the power of the Vikings in southern England" - I'm wondering if "and he is now seen" might work here; I'm assuming that the second half of the sentence applies to his improved reputation, not his former one?
  • Done. I try to avoid the word "now" as it sometimes leads to accusations of recentism, but hopefully I can get away with it here. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Alfred the Great married Ealhswith in 868. Her father was Æthelred Mucel, Ealdorman of the Gaini, and her mother, Eadburh, was a member of the Mercian royal family. Alfred and Ealhswith had five children who survived childhood. " - would it be possible to frame this paragraph so that it began by focusing on Edward? (e.g. Edward was the son of...)
  • "so Edward was probably born in the mid-870s" - could this key fact be brought closer to the beginning of the paragraph?
  • I do not think this would work as I am explaining first the reasoning behind the date. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • How about "Historians estimate that Edward was probably born in the mid-870s. His eldest sister, Æthelflæd, was probably born about a year after her parents' marriage, and Edward was brought up with his younger sister, Ælfthryth; Yorke argues that he was therefore probably nearer in age to Ælfthryth than Æthelflæd. Edward led troops in battle in 893, and must have been of marriageable age in that year as his oldest son Æthelstan was born about 894." - I reckon this would give the reader the heads-up about why we're describing his sister's date of birth etc, and would also give the key fact in the first sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "More is known about Edward's childhood than about that of other Anglo-Saxon princes, providing information about the training of a prince in a period of Carolingian influence" - I'm assuming that this is the description given by Asser above?
  • "experience in royal business" - I wasn't sure if royal business was like royal administration (running the country), or more like actual business affairs (trade etc.).
  • "The principal currency was the silver penny, and some coins carried a stylised portrait of the king." - is this a general statement for the period, or Edward's particular reign? If the latter (as the next sentence implies), this should be "the King" as it is referring specifically to Edward.
  • It is general relating to the later Anglo-Saxon period. The source does not make that clear so I have added another which does. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


  • I've cleaned up the image of the coin a bit. Some other images that might work well (and look okay from a licensing perspective) are [:File:Early-Medieval coin , Penny of Edward the Elder (FindID 223825).jpg], [:File:Edward the Elder coin imitation silver brooch Rome Italy c 920.jpg], or [:File:Edward the Elder on the Coronation Stone.jpg]. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clean up. I have added the penny. The brooch was in the article but taken out as Nikki queried the lack of licensing details by the uploader. I was doubtful about the coronation stone as it is thought to be an eighteenth century fabrication, but in view of the shortage of suitable images, I could put it in with a sceptical caption. What do you think? See also query above. Many thanks for the review Hchc2009. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

I always perk up when I see one of Dudley's Anglo-Saxon articles up for review. One is sure of an interesting and informative read. I shall be adding my support for the promotion of this excellent example, but just a handful of v. minor points first:

  • "Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia with their support" – ambiguous: does this mean "with their support Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia" or "Ceolwulf became the last King of Mercia who had their support"? (I assume the former, but it's as well to avoid any shadow of doubt.)
  • "...more information about Edward's childhood and youth than is known about other Anglo-Saxon princes, providing information..." – too much information (to coin a phrase).
  • "The effect of the changes were to strengthen" – singular noun with plural verb.
  • "a major monastery for men, possibly in accordance of his father's..." – two points here. First an idiot question, viz can you have a monastery for non-men, a.k.a. women? (Forgive a layman's ignorance.) Secondly "in accordance of" looks odd: one might expect "in accordance with".
  • OED suggests a monastery is mainly for men, but two of its quotes are for women. I have changed to "religious community" as monastery is in the following sentence. Also fixed "of". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "however" – there are nine "howevers" in the article and one does start to notice them after a while. A judicious pruning would be beneficial: most "howevers" add nothing and can be blitzed with advantage to the prose.
  • I have never understood this terrible prejudice against "however". It is a lovely word, which signals that you are qualifying the previous sentence. 2 of your nine are in quotes, but I have pandered to your views and got it down to 4. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • They're fine in small doses, but when there are lots of them they do rather break flow. However, no problem on this page now. Tim riley talk 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Them's my meagre gleanings. I'll look in again anon. Tim riley talk 13:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your review and kind word Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Very happy to add my Support. The phrase "page-turner" seems silly when one's looking at a screen, but if this article were on paper that is what it would be. One really wants to know what happens next. Meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 19:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Support by Johnbod

- excellent stuff - just some small niggles: I am reading through, and doing some edits. Anyone interested in saving "however" from a Viking-like campaign of extermination, might like to comment at Talk:Anglo-Saxon art, where another editor has asked for comments. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

  • So far so good:
  • "and the Danes of Northumbrian York offered her their allegiance, probably for protection against Norse (Norwegian) Vikings who had invaded Northumbria from Ireland," - gets a bit compacted. Aren't all Vikings "Norse" - Norsemen? Norse activity in the British Isles covers the lot, and people are always trying to rename Vikings. I wonder if such clear distinctions can be drawn between Danes & Norwegians at this point - the leaders perhaps, but weren't the rank & file mixed Scandiwegians, with no doubt Irish etc too? It's rather like those who try to distinguish between Angles & Saxons after about 600. Perhaps: "protection against a Norwegian-led invasion of Northumbria from Ireland".
  • The Oxford Dictionary of English defines Norse as 1. the Norwegian language, 2. "Norwegians or Scandinavians in ancient or medieval times." Historians of Anglo-Saxon England use it to mean Norwegians, and Stenton refers to the threat to Danish-ruled York from "Norse raiders from Ireland". I do not think we should change correct usage by historians because some editors object to it. As to the lack of clear distinctions between Danes and Norwegians, you are very likely right, just as there were almost certainly Vikings who had accepted English rule and fought on the English side. Oda, one of the most respected Archbishops of Canterbury, was the son of a Viking who came over with the army in 865. However, historians speak of Norse and Danes, not Norse and Dane led, and I do not think we can correct their language. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, but something needs to done about " [[Norwegians|Norse]] (Norwegian) Vikings " I think. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I have changed to [[Norwegians#Viking Age|Norse]] (Norwegian) Vikings " and added the alternative name with reference to the linked page. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If it was me, I think I'd move another summary quote from "Reputation" to the lead.
Ok Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • That's it - various links added, all correctly I hope. I'm afraid my books are all boxed up at present so I can't check if there is more to say about art from his reign.

Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your edits, support and comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Reading through now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Mercia was the dominant kingdom in southern England in the eighth century [and maintained its position] until it suffered a decisive defeat by Wessex at the Battle of Ellandun in 825. - I suspect the bracketed bit is redundant and can be removed safely without changing the meaning
  • You are no doubt right, but as deleting would strictly imply that 825 is in the eighth century I prefer to keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah my bad, you are right. I wasn't familiar with the dates....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Err...what's an illustris femina? needs a link, footnote or explanation...
  • Added translation to "noble lady" with reference. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise...looks on track. Reads well. I guess it is complete but am not too familiar with this stuff...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Riddle of the Sphinx (Inside No. 9)

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a half-hour (very, very black) comedy about cryptic crosswords. I've never attempted a cryptic crossword, and I didn't find the episode particularly funny. Nonetheless, I think it might be my favourite ever episode of my favourite ever TV programme. It is brilliant, and I spot something new every time I rewatch it. I hope this article is a worthy one for such a great piece of television. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Bilorv

  • "A second was introduced accidentally, and then incorporated into the episode. This second nina was interpreted by some viewers as having a political meaning, but Pemberton, Shearsmith, and the BBC have denied that this is the case." – The second sentence is just confusing without being told the nina is "RIPNHS". I think it's also undue weight anyway; just the first sentence would suffice.
    • Yes, that's fair. Removed. I try to avoid anything too spoiler-y in the lead. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • ""The Riddle of the Sphinx" was the third episode of the series, after the Christmas special "The Devil of Christmas" (December 2016) and "The Bill" (February 2017), the latter of which was the first of a run of five episodes." – This seems like a weird order to write things in. I would say that "The Devil of Christmas" was a 2016 Christmas special, and then the rest of the series aired in a run from February 2017, of which "The Riddle of the Sphinx" was the second of five (or third in the series).
  • Can the running time be added as a parameter to the infobox? (It might also be worth a mention in the production section – was the final cut exactly 33 minutes long?)
    • Indicated based on claims from BBFC. That doesn't quite match up with losing five minutes, so I've rephrased slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "civilisation was then "stripped away"" – I don't understand the "then". Does it refer to a change in the writing process or the chronology of the episode? I also don't understand how this links to the previous "very English" clause.
    • I've rephrased: "The first half of the episode, for the executive producer Jon Plowman, played out like a radio play. The word-play and tea-drinking in this part of the episode were, for the writers, very English; the episode then changes character. Civilisation is "stripped away", resulting in the episode having the elements of a Greek tragedy." Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Elsewhere, Pemberton explained that" – The "Elsewhere" is unnecessary as the sources for the previous sentences were not mentioned in the prose.
  • "On a stormy Cambridge night" – Surely this should be "On a stormy night at the University of Cambridge".
  • "predicting that a DOWNANDOUT will find Charlotte WRAPped in her UNDERSLIP in SWAMPLANDS" – As well as looking messy, these clues have already been revealed: I think it would be better to write "predicting via reference to solved clues that a down-and-out will find Charlotte wrapped in her underslip in swamplands (references to previous clues)".
  • "Shearsmith denied that the nina RIPNHS (("Rest In Peace National Health Service") was a political message" – It seems misleading to me to give the 'explanation' in brackets when Shearsmith is saying that is not what the nina refers to. The clause could be rephrased to "Shearsmith denied that the nina RIPNHS stood for "Rest In Peace National Health Service"" or something similar.
  • "ironic" does not need a link to irony.
  • The blockquote from the Den of Geek review probably belongs under Analysis rather than Reception.
    • I've sympathy with that idea, but I'm inclined to think that it belongs in the reception section as a demonstration of the (highly praised) attention to detail. I'm inclined to think it's a little laudatory to be framed as dispassionate academic-style analysis. I can look into moving it if you/others strongly disagree with me, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Other than these 1(a) concerns, I think the article meets the FA criteria. It is very comprehensive in coverage and an excellent article on what is also my favourite Inside No. 9 episode. Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look; it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support: I've made one uncontroversial edit, and all my comments have been addressed. I would still prefer the Den of Geek quote to go in the Analysis section but I am not particularly bothered about this and I can see the case for it to belong under Reception. Bilorv(c)(talk) 11:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks! I have changed 31 minutes to 32 minutes, as the 35 seconds would presumably round up, rather than down! Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments edwininlondon

I'm not familiar with the subject but found this an interesting read. The article looks worthy of FA status but a few comments:

  • all FA articles I checked all started with the plot as first section. Is there a reason to deviate?
    • I followed the production-plot-analysis-reception structure in my other film/TV FAs. It just makes more sense to me; it feels chronological! It's (roughly) "Here's what happened before it was shown, here's what happened in the thing, here's what was really going on in the thing, here's what people said about the thing after the fact." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • in Summer 2015 --> I found this odd, why not describe everything chronologically?
    • The paragraphs are thematic, rather than chronological; I can move things around if you think it doesn't currently make sense. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • in Summer 2015 --> I'm not a native speaker, but just checking if this should not just simply be lowercase "in the summer of"?
  • was originally Morales's --> just checking the need of originally here: am I right to infer that there is some dispute about whose idea this was? If uncontroversial it's probably better to drop originally
  • play Sleuth,[12] Shearsmith --> should that comma be a full stop?
    • No, it's part of a list; Pemberton said this, Shearsmith said this, and BBC producers said this. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • caption: He selected the episode as one of his favourites from the third series.--> I don't think this is needed in the caption, it makes it unnecessarily long
  • Pemberton also noted that not everyone enjoys crosswords, ... Tyler. --> this sentence would fit better in the next section
  • Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith relish the challenge set by writing limitations, such as basing an episode around a crossword: these challenges, he explained, would lead to the writers producing their best work. --> doesn't really flow for me. Two times explained, mix of tenses. Perhaps a rephrase?
    • "Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith relish the challenge set by writing limitations, such as basing an episode around a crossword. Such constraints, he felt, encourage them to produce their best work." Is that better? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The episode's second nina --> which is what?
    • I would rather avoid specifying it here to avoid spoilers. My understanding is that it is acceptable to avoid "springing" a spoiler on someone (such as in the lead or a production section). Spoilers are naturally going to be present in (for example) the plot and analysis sections. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The two of them, Pemberton explained, --> I don't think that "Pemberton explained" is needed
  • Suddenly spluttering, .... She suddenly --> repetition
  • predicting that a predicting --> ?
  • Nina, as well as being the name --> this has already been explained in an earlier section
    • The article is yet to tie together the name of the character with the crosswording term. I know it might sound obvious given what's already said in the article, but I have no doubt that a lot of viewers will have missed the reference, and it's something that several sources point to, so I think there's a good case for leaving it in. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the references later. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to have a look, and thanks for your edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image. The same comment applies for the images in the body of the article.
  • For this part (but particular inspiration came from Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword by Alan Connor.), I would make it clear in the prose that Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword is a book as it was not immediately clear to me.
  • Please link Inside No. 9 on its first appearance in the body of the article.
  • For this part (at the end of the episode, Squires faces a situation that mirrors a situation faced by Michael Gambon's Albert Spica), I would avoid the repetition of the word “situation” in such close proximity.
  • The references for this sentence (Pemberton had long been a fan of cryptic crosswords, and he was inspired to develop the episode by reading Two Girls, One on Each Knee: The Puzzling, Playful World of the Crossword by Alan Connor.) are out of order. The same comment applies to this sentence (Reading Two Girls, One on Each Knee led Pemberton to ask whether one could "dramatize doing a crossword, which is so un-dramatic?”).
  • Just a clarification question, but is the word “nina” something that was already associated with crossword puzzles or did the writers of the show invent it for the episode? Is it at all related to the character Nina?
    • It's a word used by crossworders, but probably not well-known outside of that world. The character was named Nina (at least in part) because of this fact. @Edwininlondon: This is perhaps a demonstration of why I want to keep the explicit mention in the analysis section! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Guardian is linked twice in the body of the article.
  • I am a little confused by this part (she was "devious and deadly”) for the use of the quote. Is this quote from the episode? If so, do you think you should attribute who said it in the prose?
  • I am a little confused by the Charlotte/Nina parts. Is Charlotte Nina’s real name? Do you think more context would be helpful here?
    • Yes. I have few words to play with in this section, so I'm nervous about adding much more explanation. I thought that was clear from this: "He tells Charlotte—"Nina"—to". Do you think more is needed? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Makes sense. I just wanted to make sure that I was following it correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by this part (Tyler hands Squires the flesh, and he eats, fearing Charlotte will die.). I was under the impression from the previous paragraph that Tyler was one that proposed that Squires should eat Charlotte, which by extension I had assumed that he wanted her to die. In the above sentence, he does not appear to want Charlotte to be dead or eaten so I am a little lost here. I apologize if this is very obvious.
    • It's Squires who's scared; he fears for her life, and so eats in the hope that once that's out of the way, something can be done to save Charlotte. I've rephrased slightly to make this clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by this part (Squires confirms that his middle name is Hector as he weeps over Charlotte). Was there a particular reason that Squire mourns Charlotte’s death? Was it because of the reveal that she is Tyler’s daughter?
    • She's his daughter! "However, Simon's autopsy—Tyler explains—revealed that Simon and Charlotte were actually Squires's children". (Not to mention the fact that there's a dead student on the floor of his office and he's published a crossword that basically says he killed her. Everything has come crashing down around him.) It's a hugely twisty-turny plot... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The referenes are out of order for these parts (drawing upon gothic themes) and (A number of critics identified Sleuth—"a grandfather of sorts" to Inside No. 9—as a key influence.).
  • The citations for this part (The episode was widely noted as both very dark) are out of order. It also borders on citation overkill (as there are six citations here). Maybe bundle them together to avoid this?
    • I can't bundle them together without changing my whole citation style, sadly. I've trimmed two of the less useful references and reordered the others. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The citations for this part (with particular praise for Roach,) are out of order.
  • For this part (Patrick Mulkern, writing for,), do you think it should be Radio Times instead of
    • I don't honestly know if it was published in the print version, so I'd rather specify just the website. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this. Once my comments and questions are addessed, I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my current FAC? Either way, have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a look; it's appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

One of the first articles that I reviewed at GA! I'd love to take a look. VedantTalk 13:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Here are some comments:

  • Why italicise "Sphinx"?
  • I know that this might complicate the sentence, but the mention of Shearsmith as Dr Jacob Tyler, another Cambridge academic at the end is a little odd. Why not have it as right next to mention of the other two?
  • The article also seems​ to not italicise "Sphinx" and put it in quotes later in the lead.
  • I've been told that the among others bit can be WAFFLE.
    • Sorry, could you expand on what you mean by this? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been told that if the details of the "among others" is worth mentioning you should spell it out or drop the "among others" altogether.
  • Why not mention the year of the play as the article does for the film?
  • "clashing with first episode of the third series of Catastrophe, the acclaimed Channel 4 comedy" - Is this really important? I mean I would get it if it affected the ratings and stuff, but did it?
    • I couldn't say for sure, but it was picked up on by at least one critic. It certainly seemed to affect the number of reviews published. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "filmed in December of that year" - Isn't filmed in December that year just fine too?
  • You could replace onr of the "filmed" with "shot" in the following sentence.
    • I already use the word "shot" in the sentence, and I worry it's a bit of an Americanism, so I'd rather not! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, this is an awfully long sentence. One might loose track of all the details. It might just be me though.
  • I do not get this bit: "as well as the house of Oscar Lomax in the Shearsmith and Pemberton collaboration Psychoville".
    • Shearsmith and Pemberton previously did a programme called Psychoville. On Psychoville, there was a character called Oscar Lomax, and Langleybury was used as the character's house. I've rephrased this slightly but I'm not quite sure what isn't clear! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Umm, idk Oscar Lomax somehow didn't strike me as a character name, Apologies!
  • "The script was 32 pages in length, resulting in a first cut that was 38 minutes in length." - 38 minutes long? to avoid repetition?
  • "the production team still needed to lose several minutes in the edit" - too wordy for me, can't we just say had to shorten it? a more suitable one word verb?
    • I am not sure it would be clear what the it referred to if I was to say that. " The BBC permitted the final version to be a little longer than the half hour typical of Inside No. 9, but the production team still needed to shorten it." I could say "shorten the first cut", but then that's not very interesting; I think first cuts basically always need to be shortened. Having to lose several minutes in the edit for a 30 minute episode is (I think) quite significant. I'm definitely open to suggestions, though! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I think that it's alright the way it is.
  • Is there a reason why the article uses such long sentences. the opening one of the second paragraph of the Production section is real long (almost ahlf the paragraph).
    • Probably bad writing on my part! I have reworded this (I assume you meant "third paragraph"), as you aren't the first person to pick up on that sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't say that, it reads almost brilliantly! xD
  • Release years could be added for the films and publications used.
  • The article mentions that "Sleuth" is a play, but doesn't do the same off any of the other plays/movies/books/TV shows?
    • Yes, that's fair. I've expanded a little; I think I got everything. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll read through the rest soon. VedantTalk 14:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do not see any more obvious changes that need to be made, the analysis and reception section are really well written. I think you might have missed a couple of release years here and there and another reading might help fix that, but other than that I can support this for promotion on the prose standards. Good luck! P.S. I really have to watch this episode now. VedantTalk 07:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot for your comments! Point taken on "among others". I'll have a think about it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I don't see television much, haven't heard of the series in question, and thought Rees Shearsmith was an actress, but the words "cryptic crossword" caught my eye. A few minor comments, which I hope will be of use:

  • Production
    • "The first half of the episode, for the executive producer Jon Plowman, plays out like a radio play. The word-play and tea-drinking in this part of the episode are, for the writers, very English" – I don't quite understand what this is trying to get across. Why is the first half for the producer and the other part for the writers? Or does it perhaps mean "in the opinion of the producer" etc?
      • Yes, sorry; I suppose that "for the" construction is a little odd. I've removed it. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • "keeping the cast small, meanwhile, kept production costs low" – the import of the "meanwhile" isn't clear.
      • I was meaning to suggest that the smaller cast wasn't solely for financial purposes. I've gone with "keeping the cast small also served to keep production costs relatively low". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Crossword setting
    • "Such constraints, he felt, encourage them" – is there a clash of tenses here?
      • In the past he made a general claim about what is the case. It'd be like saying "Nietzsche claimed that God is dead." Do you think the current wording is problematic? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
        • As long as you're happy with it, that's fine. Tim riley talk 08:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
    • "prior to working" – I'm with Fowler: why use "prior to" in preference to a plain "before"? Here and in the next paragraph.
  • Plot
    • Caption: In what way does the picture show an adaptation of My Fair Lady? It looks exactly like the familiar My Fair Lady.
  • Analysis
    • "cruciverbalists" – could do with a link to Wiktionary or somewhere. Not a word many readers will know.
    • "George Bernard Shaw" – it would be a courtesy, as well as following general scholarly practice, to pipe this to "Bernard Shaw", which is how Shaw insisted on being known and is how most leading Shaw scholars term him. See here. (Not a chance of amending the title of the WP article on him, for obvious reasons, without wishing to be rude about our American cousins. Palliative measures are the best we can get away with.)
    • "Higgins's line "By Jove, I think she's got it!"" – Higgins has no such line in the musical. Best not to misquote.
      • I blame my source for that. There're definitely allusions, so I've changed the sentence to "while Squires's language echoes that of Higgins in My Fair Lady, the musical adaptation of the play". Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. An unpleasant subject, but the main author has dealt with it commendably. Tim riley talk 19:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a read through. Watching the episode has made me think about giving a crossword a try, but I'm yet to pick one up... I should probably start with some novice puzzles and work my way up... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Happy to add my support. I'll drop you a line on your talk page about ways into cryptic crosswords for those who are so inclined. Tim riley talk 08:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review/Spot check from Cas Liber

  • Refs formatted consistently
  • FN 24 - used 6 times. material faithful to source
  • FN 29 - used 2 times. material faithful to source
  • FN 30 - used once. material faithful to source
  • Earwigs has inflated score due to (attributed) direct quotes - copyvio clear.
Thanks, appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

William Matthews (priest)

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 19th-century American Catholic priest that led a really remarkable life. He was the first Catholic priest born in British America and was heavily involved in the establishment and expansion of the Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. He founded and was the president of numerous religious and civil institutions, among which was Georgetown University. During his lifetime, he was a very well-known figure in both Washington society and the Catholic Church in America. I created this article in 2016 and recently expanded it significantly. I've researched the subject thoroughly online, at the Library of Congress, and at an academic library. As far as I'm able to tell, there is nothing encyclopedic about this person that is not included in the article. Ergo Sum 21:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Very_Rev._William_Matthews.png is missing the author's date of death, but how is the date after the publication date?
  • If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • The book was published in 1891, which means the image must have been created in 1891 or before (very likely before, since Matthews died in 1854). So, even if the author of the image were 1 year old when they created the image, and even if it were created in the year the book was published, 70 years from 1891 is still 1961. Ergo Sum 19:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 70 years ago is 1948. It would be possible for someone to be old enough to create the image in 1891 and young enough to survive past 1948. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • File:St._Matthew's_Cathedral_door_mural_cropped.jpg: in the US the photographer of a 2D work like a mural garners no new copyright, so the current tagging is incorrect
  • File:Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_of_Philadelphia.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources question: There are 37 citations to Durkin's book, which, according to WorldCat, has 169 pages. There are no page references, no online links. How are these citations to be verified? Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I think I've resolved the hiccups regarding licensing for the first two images. For the third one, that image is transcluded by {{Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia}} at the bottom of the article, which I haven't worked on. Maybe Alekjds, the creator of the work, can assist? As for the book, it is not available online and it does not have an ISBN printed in the book. It is only available in academic research libraries (and perhaps the Library of Congress). My understanding of Indicating availability was that citing that book would be acceptable, as it was published by Benziger Brothers, a reliable publisher. I also don't know how to cite individual page numbers without being extremely repetitive with citations, since the citations all refer to different pages in the book, and having 37 different citations to the same book, but with different page numbers, would seem odd. Ergo Sum 05:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not responsible for the image review, but I'm sure Nikki will pick up your responses. As to Durkin's book, you've been misinformed if you understand that citing the whole book without page references is sufficient. Citing each of the 37 refeferences individually is not at all odd, it's exactly what you have to do. Look at any number of the book-dependent nominations on the FAC page, and you'll see how it's done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, overlooked @Nikkimaria:'s signature. As the for book, I didn't realize that. I'll try to get my hands on a copy of the book within the next couple days and add page numbers. Ergo Sum 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ergo, having 37 different citations to the same book, but with different page numbers, would seem odd. It serves another purpose - indicating than an article is over reliant on a single source, and thus may not reflect the full breath of available scholarship. Note this will not always be the case as some topics are better covered in the literature than others, but may explain the request. Its a lot of work for you now, but may be a good approach for you to build into your editing technique from here. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


  • The article is quite well written, but fragmented throughout into very short paragraphs (the lead was 6 paras on a 3996 word article) which makes reading a bit disjointed. I'd do a lot of merging, which would certainly help with flow. I would probably support after a resolution of source issues and a light c/e. More comments to follow. Ceoil (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    As I see Brian's request on page numbers has not been met, I'll have to register an oppose pending resolution. I have to say I'm a bit concerned that the nomination was made without having to hand a copy of the book used as the primary source. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a book from an academic library that is only available to be taken out for brief periods of time. I have my hands on it again and seek to add page numbers this weekend. Haven't done it until now because I've been quite busy with real life things. Ergo Sum 22:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus

  • I agree with Ceoil's point on short paragraphs. Combining them would improve the article.
  • Early life: It might make sense to put the family part before the education part, since that is more in line with actual chronology.
  • "St. Patrick's was the largest parish in Washington, D.C. at the time[9] and the first Catholic church constructed." The first constructed in D.C.? If so, add "there" to the end of the sentence.
  • "He sought that there be no lay trustees for St. Peter's Church" I see what you mean here, but the phrasing is awkward. Maybe "He sought to avoid having lay trustees in positions of authority for St. Peter's Church"?
  • "Matthews was firmly opposed to the control of church properties by lay trustees, which resulted in Matthews later being selected for an ecclesiastical mission in Philadelphia." I know what you mean here, but only because I wrote the articles on Michael Francis Egan and Henry Conwell. Maybe add something to the end of this sentence to explain it, like "where a long-running dispute over trusteeism was in progress."
  • St. Peter's Church: I'm not sure what you're getting at with the second paragraph here. It seems like a minor point about something that may not have happened.
  • Miraculous event: I'm curious why you didn't make use of this 2011 book, which is entirely about the miracle. Seems like a good source to me.
  • Georgetown College: the parts about the Corporation of Catholic Gentlemen of Maryland and its relationship to the Society of Jesus will be confusing to most people without an explanation of the suppression of the Jesuits and their subsequent restoration. Without that, the idea that the Corporation considered itself a continuation of the Jesuits in America doesn't make much sense. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  • These are good ideas. I'm going to work on the article this week and will try to incorporate these. Thanks for the link to the book, especially. Ergo Sum 00:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Central Link

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Joining my two nominations of Seattle train stations, here comes the line that connects them. Central Link (most call it "Link" or "the light rail") runs 20 miles from the city's airport to the central business district and the university campus. It took over forty years between conception and construction, and was nearly derailed by a budget crisis at the turn of the millennium. But it was built and carries 72,000 passengers per day (ranking high among U.S. light rail systems), and will eventually form the backbone of a 110-mile rail network spanning the entire metropolitan area. The article went through a copyedit and GA review recently and I feel it easily meets the FA criteria. SounderBruce 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Note: This article is part of an ongoing Good topic nomination and was improved as part of WikiCup. SounderBruce 23:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

A fine article. Little to quibble with on prose. Just a few comments:

  • will also open in 2023 --> a comma can help here: will also open, in 2023,
    • Rephrased that sentence in a different way.
  • forced the interurban system to shut down --> forced seems a bit strong. Did the Great Depression have something to do with it? See perhaps History of rail transport in the United States
    • @Edwininlondon: The first interurban shutdown was a year before the Black Friday crash, so I don't think it's attributed to that. Reordered that sentence and added a reference. SounderBruce 03:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 2016 dollars --> a few instances of these, which ideally are updated to 2018
    • These are generated by an inflation template and will automatically be updated to the newest GDP-based inflation rate when it becomes available.
  • 20 hours per day from Monday to Saturday, from 4:00 am to 1:00 am --> that would be 21 hours
    • Fixed (actual start time is 5 am).
  • 12:00 am is normally ambiguous, less so here. Still, midnight would be better I think
    • Fixed.
  • is reduced to 15 minutes --> is reduced to every 15 minutes
    • Fixed.
  • not sure now if on Tuesday morning the second train comes at 6:06 am or 6:15 am. Is that not early morning for most people?
    • It's what Sound Transit considers to be its "early morning" schedule. Commutes can start rather early here, thanks to the long days during the summer, so it can be on the edge for some people.
  • The record itself --> is itself necessary?
    • Removed.

I'll look at the references later.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Formatting references seems fine. Sources reliable.
  • Spotcheck: 58 59 81 124 all fine
  • 130 seems to have 2 authors and published May 22

Nice work. With the caveat that I am not an expert or local, my support. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Came here to do an image review but found fewer than three supports. so am reading. comments below...

  • The Central Link project was originally planned to open in 2006 and cost $1.9 billion (equivalent to $2.76 billion in 2016 dollars) - sounds like the actual cost. Might read better as "projected to cost" here

Otherwise looks ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: Fixed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 22:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

All images are licensed appropriately. I support this nomination. Jackdude101 talk cont 19:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Tracer (Overwatch)

Nominator(s): Soulbust (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the character Tracer, from Overwatch, a 2016 video game developed by Blizzard Entertainment and related Overwatch media. She is arguably the game's most popular character, being featured in the game's animated media, digital comic series, in its marketing, and the game's cover art. I believe the Tracer article has been edited and developed to FA standards; it has gone through a GA review, a peer review, and 2 copy-edits. While Tracer is occasionally referenced in media nowadays, and the possibility of further changes to Overwatch is open, for all intents & purposes, the Tracer article is virtually comprehensive when it comes to relevant material. This is my first attempt at a FAC nomination, so I'd just like to especially thank anyone who helps out (or has helped out) with this process in advance, and I'll definitely receptive to any feedback. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Soulbust: This isn't showing up on the main FAC page. I think you forgot to list it there. JOEBRO64 19:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Thanks for the heads up, but I really don't know what else to do though. Like I thought I had followed the 5 steps under "Nomination procedure". I see it listed here. Is it supposed to show up elsewhere? Soulbust (talk) 14:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, I see it now. Guess it missed my eye. JOEBRO64 19:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments by TheJoebro64

I'll be posting some comments in a bit. From a glance this article looks pretty clean. JOEBRO64 21:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Round one:

  • Just a general note: I'd publishers wherever I can. For example, Vox Media publishes Polygon. I don't think this is an absolute requirement for FAC, but I'd do it.
  • Similarly, some references link to the websites they cite, but others do not. Keep your references consistent.
  • Her design is based upon an element from Blizzard's canceled project, Titan. How so?

More to come. JOEBRO64 19:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

NB re: noting publishers in {{cite web}}—this is actually incorrect usage. WPVG does it by habit, but the |publisher= field is more for books or as a non-italicized |work= field. Otherwise |work=Polygon should be sufficient. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Comments by David Fuchs

Oppose for now. The article is a solid foundation, but it needs a lot of love.

  • The article suffers from bad sentence construction throughout. Semicolons are used haphazardly, resulting in linked clauses like Geoff Goodman, lead hero designer for Overwatch, was influential in Tracer's design; she was the first hero designed for the game and was used to test the basic gameplay which suggests that Geoff Goodman was the first hero designed, not Tracer. Later on the character biography makes it sound like Tracer is a member of Overwatch but then states that Overwatch was created concurrently with her timey-wimey background. There's unnecessary passive voice that should be reworked.
  • Tracer belongs to the Overwatch universe but she was first introduced as a playable character in an April 2016 update for Blizzard's crossover multiplayer online battle arena game Heroes of the Storm. First, I'm not sure why I care what universe she "belongs" to, but more importantly, it's really confusing to split hairs about "playable character" and first appearances. Makes far more sense to say that she first appeared in the Overwatch trailer and then was a playable character in Heroes of the Storm. Otherwise on first scan it seems like the infobox and article body are disagreeing.
  • There's a lot of weird contextual fluff that's unneeded at best and confusing at worst. I'm not sure why it's important that her fictional biography be appended with Outside the game... for instance. The character is fictional, so telling me there was an "in-universe" incident that caused her powers (as opposed to an out-of-universe one?) is irrelevant.
  • There's an excess of quotes throughout, both in unsourced fragments (this is distracting) and long paragraphs that seem undue in weight (why does every single Kotaku panelist get sentences to talk about the character's sexual orientation?) This was noted as a problem in the PR, but it's still an issue.
  • Single sentences aren't paragraphs. Non-paragraphs shouldn't have subheadings dedicated to them.
  • Was Tracer's orientation not controversial or controversial? The article suggests the former but ends the section with another long quote that suggests it was divisive.
  • Probably most critically, this article is designed around someone who is familiar with Overwatch, not a casual reader, let alone someone who doesn't follow video games. The actual term "Overwatch" isn't explained until after it's already been namedropped, for instance.
    • Her Blink ability, which comes with three charges, allows her to teleport a short distance in the direction she is traveling.[34] Using this ability she can "zip behind an enemy in an instant for surprise attacks, or dodge completely out of the line of fire".[43] It has a cooldown period, requiring the player to wait for each Blink to recharge.[45] Her Recall ability allows Tracer to return to her position three seconds prior, resetting her health and reloading her gun; this also has a cooldown period is an example of the article trending into gameplay minutiae that's not relevant for a Wikipedia article, as well as bogging us down with bad sentence construction. Why do we get "this has a cool down" after each mention of the ability? Does her ultimate ability *not* have a cool down, since it's not mentioned? What is a Heroic ability in Heroes of the Storm, and why is this important to spend three sentences on it versus explaining that her moveset is similar to Overwatch?
      • Do not use "nerf". And definitely don't just wiki link it to an article about NERF guns.
    • Tracer is depicted with her chronal accelerator removed; the game's Twitter account confirmed the accelerator still works if removed as long as it is charging nearby.[70] Again. Relevance to someone who's a non-fan; no one is asking where that one thing that was mentioned once before is or how it works.
  • I don't see File:Tracer & Emily kissing comic panel.png or File:Animethon 23 - 2016 (28552553510).jpg having justification for the article. The former is just two people kissing, it's not the subject of critical commentary in and of itself and it's not necessary for visual identification (people know what kissing people look like.) And the cosplay shot is dubiously declared free, when Tracer's costume is elaborate enough it's not clear whether it falls under non-protection as utilitarian clothing.
    • Given that the infobox shot is a cropping of a full shot and you later have two full-body shots to illustrate the character's poses, I'm not sure the infobox image is justified for visual identification purposes when there's a better argument for non-free usage later.
  • I'll do a spot-check for sourcing issues later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a couple for now, but:
  • I've tweaked some of the minor things so far (like the semicolon usage in the Geoff Goodman sentence and the Nerf wikilinking).
  • I've inserted an explict clarification of when something is in-universe as opposed to out-of-universe due to past suggestions that not clarifying when applicable would be detrimental (I believe, as per this)
  • I'm currently working on some of the other issues you've mentioned.

Soulbust (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

some more comments:
  • I think it's important to clarify in-universe at the beginning of the Story and character section b/c it's under the "Development and design" section, so I think it would be helpful for readers to understand her in-universe story was designed the way it was in the fashion it was (i.e. Tracer's backstory can be found through a fictional biography).
  • I have tweaked the article a bit more.
  • I would like some reasoning as to why not to use "nerf" & if there is an alternative phrasing for that concept.
  • I'll be trying my best to retool the article to be less technical/full of minutiae when it comes to the gameplay mechanics.
  • I'll have to respectfully disagree on the kissing comic panel's justification. It's not necessary for visual identification on kissing. I assume people know what kissing looks like. It's necessary for visual identification on Tracer's identification as a lesbian, which Blizzard devs seem to have tagged as something that "just felt right to make" as "an aspect of her character." It's a critical visualization of her portrayal in the comic series, as she's not just exclusively featured in the game. And it's hard to argue that this isn't the most notable panel of her in a comic portrayal, or honestly any non-video game portrayal, seeing how in-depth her kissing scene and lesbian identification overall was covered by reliable VG sources.
  • I'm thinking about tweaking the Appearances section to have 2 subheadings: "Overwatch media" and "Other media", to fix the issue of that one-sentence paragraph. The only problem this causes is it separates her appearance in the HotS game from her appearance in Overwatch. The only other solution I can think of is perhaps combining Merchandising and Films into "Other media" or something like that. I'd like to have some feedback on that.
  • Thank you for all the suggestions, so far. I'll be working on the article to improve it. Soulbust (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The subheadings idea sounds good. The merchandising doesn't really mesh with the film appearance, though. It'd make more sense I think to fold it into an 'other media' heading separate from the merchandise, since that's often considered more "promotion" than an "appearance" (tie-in products versus a work in and of itself.)
    • Regarding the image, WP:NFCC criteria is that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (emphasis mine.) Removing this image doesn't remove the readers' ability to comprehend she's a lesbian. One's sexual orientation is not inherently denoted by one's visual appearance, nor even apparent behavior (one can be bisexual despite never having kissed a member of the opposite sex). Her portrayal in the comics itself is a very small facet of the character, given that they are notable for the video game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WestJet Encore

Nominator(s): Vanguard10 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the WestJet regional airline. WestJet is the second largest Canadian airline brand. Airline articles are reasonably popular, based on edits. This article is particularly compliant with guidelines, unlike some other airline articles. As such, it could be a model of how to improve other airline articles if it is a FA. Thank you for your kind consideration and comments... Vanguard10 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from EricEnfermero

I think it's evident that a lot of work has been done on this entry's references, but I don't think that the prose is up to FA standards and I'm wondering if a GOCE copyedit might help. Here are a few examples:

  • In the History section, the "Lack of turboprop aircraft..." sentence is written in passive voice and it reads a little rough.
  • "The ATR-72-600 had been considered, being offered at a lower..." - I think you're saying that this one was less expensive but it's wordy.
  • "WestJet Encore was to start separate routes..." - I think this one needs to be broken into two sentences.
  • "In 2015, WestJet Encore was the fastest-growing..." - You have two verb tenses (was/is) in this sentence. Does the first part refer to 2015 while the second part refers to the present?
  • "teal-and blue-geometric" - If I understand correctly, there should be a hyphen after and and not after blue.
  • "the management initiated WestJet Pilots Association, a subgroup of the WestJet Proactive Management Team, ratified contracts..." - I feel like there is a missing word here.
  • You mention Jazz in this paragraph, but unless the reader checks the cited source, it's unclear what that is. There's a grammar error as well ("unlike Jazz, who do not...)
  • "being characterized by the Calgary Airport Authority CEO as 'the new terminal is long on aesthetics and short on functionality'" - this leaves a sentence fragment by itself after a semicolon.
  • "from 2016-2019" - generally we use "from... to" and don't mix from with a dash.
  • There are a few missing hyphens - i.e., two kilometer walk.
  • "WestJet Encore services two destinations outside of Canada, Boston and Nashville." - At first I read this as meaning that they go Canada, Boston, Nashville and two other destinations.
  • "WestJet Encore aircraft has a Plus section, which consists no change fees..." - consists of

I think there's probably more, which is why I wonder if GOCE might be helpful. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed comments. I have made corrections to address all of the above issues as well as improved the prose in many other areas. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would add ALT text for the logo in the infobox.
  • For this sentence (It is owned by WestJet Airlines, Ltd. which also owns WestJet Airlines.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “own”.
  • Make sure all of the images in the body of the article have ALT text.
  • In the “History” section, I would move the image down to be by the second paragraph. That paragraph is the one that really talks about that particular type of plane, and it would avoid having the infobox push the image down in an awkward way.
  • I am not familiar with this subject matter at all so I apologize in advance, but I am a little confused by the structure of the “History” section, particularly the opening two paragraphs. It is not until the third paragraph that you mention WestJet Encore by name, and I was lost when reading the first two paragraph. I understand that these paragraphs are important, but is there a way to make it clearer that these paragraphs are about the conditions that set up the creation of this airline? I hope that makes sense.
  • For this sentence (Nashville was added the following year.), do you think that you should put the airport in Nashville rather than just the city (only if it is included in the source cited of course).
  • For this part (a $2 billion, 2 million square foot international terminal), 2 should be spelled out as “two”.
  • I would add a citation for this part of the sentence (for U.S. cross border and international flights opened at Calgary International Airport, the largest hub of WestJet Encore and its affiliate WestJet. Despite consultation with the airlines, the terminal design proved problematic.) to make it clear what reference is being used to support this information.
  • The lead seems rather short, and does not appear to include much information from the “History” section.
  • This ( or, until July 31, 2018, American Airlines AAdvantage.) needs to be cited.
  • In the “Cabins and services” section, I am confused about the Plus section. You say that it “does not have increased legroom or space”. Is the plus section then just a portion of the seating that is closer to the cabin? Are there any advantages/reasons to book a seat in the Plus section?
  • I would revise this sentence (In 2017, McDonald's McCafe coffee service was announced.) to (In 2017, flights began to offer McDonald's McCafe coffee service). The “was announced” structure of the original sentence is slightly awkward and opens the question of who announced this in particular?
  • I would simplify this (altering taste bud sensation) down to (altering taste buds).
  • Something seems to be wrong with Reference 39. The bare URL is showing up in the “References” section.

Good work with this article. I admit that I am not familiar at all with the subject matter, and I have never worked on this type of article before so I apologize if I miss anything. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comments. I have addressed every point noted. I have also made some improvements, small in byte size, but to improve the flow, make it understandable to both the airline enthusiast and general public. I have also tried to meet the definition of FA, which is the finest work in Wikipedia. In comparison to some airline articles, I have tried to avoid making the WestJet Encore article an advertisement.Vanguard10 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Comments from the first 25 references:

  • Ref 4: I think "ATW" means "Air Transport World", not "Air Transport Weekly"
  • Ref 5: Reuters should not be italicised. Use "publisher=" not "work="
  • Ref 6: Conversley, The Globe and Mail should be italicised, and needs "work="
  • Ref 13: Same point re Mississauga News
  • Ref 14: Same point re Financial Post
  • Ref 21: ...and re Toronto Star
  • Ref 24: ...and re Calgary Herald

As you can see, there are recurring errors over the question of italicisation, and I'd be graeful if you would work through the rest and make any necessary adjustments. Call me when you've done, preferably by a brief talkpage message, as my ping messages tend to disappear and then I told I'm rude for ignoring them! Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. This was a systems problem from using the citations template. I did not know that "The Globe and Mail" was a work and not a publisher. When entered as a publisher, there are no italics. When entered as a work, there are italics. It should be The Globe and Mail. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
it's quite common with well-known publications to treat the title as the publisher and use the work field to ensure italicisation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've completed my review:

  • There are still a couple of print sources not italicised: see refs 21, 25.
  • There are quite a lot of italicised non-print sources. The ones that concern me are refs 28, 31, 33, 34, 42, 45, 49, 50, 54, 59, 60, 61, 64, 66, 67, 70. I believe that in these instances you are using either work= or website= when you should be using publisher=. The website= field should not be used without also publisher=, because the website is the thing being published, not the publisher. My advice is to change all of these to publisher= and forget about website=.
  • In ref 41 the publisher is WestJet, not; likewise, in 52 the publisher is MRO Network.
  • There are a few nomenclature inconsistencies: you have "Global News" and "Global News (Canada)"; WestJet" and "Westjet"; "Cision" and "Cision PR Newswire" (there is actually a WP article for Cision that you can link to).
  • Ref 65 is confusingly presented. American Airlines is the publisher, the correct title seems to be "WestJet partnership ending". You don't need, but you do need a retrieval date.

I'm sorry to be asking you weed the garden again, but try and think of it as a hot day with a beer waiting in the fridge. Let me know when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. Especially helpful is your explanation that "publisher= " in the citation template should used rather than "website= " in order not to get improper use of italics. One reference I did not change is 34, which is a name of a small town newspaper, Powell River Peak. It should be in italics, just like the Calgary Herald or New York Times. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

  • Wikilink both "McDonalds" and "McCafe" in the lead.
  • "Having more flights on a route than a competitor is a competitive advantage." — According to who? and how so? elaborate on this.
  • "The WestJet Encore fleet of Q400s expanded to 18 aircrafts by March 2015, and later to 34 aircraft by December 2016 and to 43 aircraft by December 2017." — You can reword this like "The WestJet Encore fleet of Q400s was expanded to 18 aircrafts by March 2015, and later to 34 and 43 aircrafts by December 2016 and December 2017 respectively."

That's about it from me, Vanguard10. Quite an offbeat article from those I usually work on. A keener pair of eyes can go through more than what I have. Address these comments and you have my support.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. 1. I have made the correction. 2. Having more flights being a competitive advantage is a well known principle and not disputed. I have added another reference, a book, so that the sentence has two citations. 3. You kindly made the third suggestion and edited the article - thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Support on prose.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Acefitt

How necessary is the paragraph about the new terminal? Not once has an Encore plane bridged over there, nor has WestJet announced any plan to fly Encore from there. It really has nothing to do with Encore. -- Acefitt 03:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

True, but I have done some original research and have been told that WestJet Encore was and is considering cross-border flights but is discouraged by the international terminal. To comply with Wikipedia's original research prohibition, I cannot write about things that I know but are not in print. The international terminal mention is not critical to the Wikipedia article but is there for this reason. There are reliable sources attesting that Calgary is a WestJet Encore hub and pilot base.
I might also add that 50% of WestJet Encore traffic is connecting traffic (mentioned in the Wikipedia article along with a citation) of which some, mostly WestJet flights, are international flights. This causes a problem for WestJet Encore. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Is "transborder" to be hyphenated? I have never seen that word hyphenated before. -- Acefitt 14:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a hyphen according to the Calgary Herald. See (6th paragraph). If you support this FAC, thank you. If not, I am happy to strongly consider your suggestions and implement them, if possible. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
She uses it, but Air Canada doesn't, WestJet (subject of the article) doesn't, YYC doesn't, YVR doesn't, and other Canadian journalists appear to not be using it. Not a big deal, I support the article. -- Acefitt 04:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

OKish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The logo is used by both WestJet and WestJet Encore. It may be somewhat similar to the logo of Royal Dutch Shell plc (incorporated in the UK, headquartered in the Netherlands) and the logo of Shell Oil Company (headquartered in Houston, TX, USA). However, I like the purity of an article with no fair use and only free use so I am removing the logo image. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I expressed concerns that the fact used in this article's recent DYK was misleading at WP:ERRORS during its run, so would like to take the opportunity to review the whole article. As a starting comment, the thought of flying Canadian distances in a Bombardier Q400 is horrifying - I've endured these planes many times on relatively short flights by Australian standards (with Australian planes being pretty comfortable compared to North American planes), and longer trips with worse service sound awful!

  • "The airline was formed to allow increased frequency of flights by using smaller aircraft as well as start service to routes with less traffic." - this makes it sound like it was established as a public service: presumably WestJet saw this as a market opportunity.
  • "The airline is a low cost carrier." - already stated. I'd suggest dropping the first mention as this is then discussed throughout this para
  • "it was operated with non-union employees but union drives began starting with the pilots joining a labour union." - repeditive
  • "An airline variant of McDonald's McCafé was later introduced" - what it is 'later' after isn't clear
  • I'd suggest providing some background in the 'Market conditions leading to the formation of WestJet Encore (2005-2013)' section on why WestJet was at the point of saturating the market (assume that readers, such as me, have only barely heard of WestJet!)
  • "WestJet Encore's service was initially limited to Western Canada, but it opened service in the eastern part of the country in June 2014 with a route from Toronto to Thunder Bay, Ontario" - is this when it also established the pilot base in Toronto?
  • "WestJet Encore moved into the international market in 2016, with flights serving Boston Logan Airport;[21][22] Nashville International Airport was added the following year" - where do these flights originate from? (Toronto I presume?)
  • "WestJet Encore flies Q400 NextGen on regional flights up to 700 nautical miles, including both direct regional flights and connecting flights" - this seems a bit out of place given that the airline's fleet and routes are described in the earlier paras. The limitation on how far it takes these planes seems worth noting.
  • "In 2015, WestJet Encore was the fastest-growing operator of Q400 aircraft" - is this really very significant? It just means that it had a lot of the things scheduled for delivery that year.
  • "Pilots are guaranteed an eventual higher paying position flying larger jets at WestJet" - presumably this is dependent on satisfactory service, as well as time served?
  • " WestJet Encore and its flight attendants reached an agreement " - was this also a union agreement? - it's unclear from the next sentence (which implies it was not)
  • "The first president of WestJet Encore was Ferio Pugliese, who retained his title of Executive Vice President at WestJet Airlines, Ltd. He was hired in November 2012 coming from WestJet, " - this is confusing and repetitive: was he or was he not still a WestJet employee?
    • Not addressed yet. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I note that the current president also holds a position at WestJet: presumably this is a standing arrangement?
  • "He left to become an Executive Vice President at Hydro One Ltd" - when did he leave?
  • "Some routes are increased frequencies on existing routes, such as between Calgary and Saskatoon." - also unclear (were these increased frequencies on existing WestJet routes?)
  • " To prevent freezing of water lines during overnight stays at airports with cold weather, the airline rendered the water flow to the lavatory basins inoperative in 2013" - the issue I raised at WP:ERRORS was whether this fault has since been fixed (noting that the 2013 reference said that work was underway to fix it)
  • "EFB and ICAS could determine whether or not objective thresholds were exceeded resulting four hours of maintenance and inspection instead of previously having pilots subjectively characterize the level of turbulence, which would automatically result in maintenance and inspection" - complex and unclear (and the grammar looks a bit off?)
  • What does a WestJet Dollar buy you? Is this a 1-for-1 discount on future flights? - or the usual airline arrangement where you need several zillion points to get anything useful?
  • "WestJet also participates in WestJet Rewards" - seems a bit obvious? I'd suggest tweaking this para to state that this company doesn't have its own rewards scheme, but uses that of its parent company.
  • "WestJet Encore flights are ground loaded" - I'm not sure what this means.
  • "The Q400 NextGen aircraft have large overhead lockers in the cabin allowing for larger luggage to be brought aboard." - larger than what? (the usual carry on bag size allowed on aircraft?)
  • "Food is available for purchase but beverages are served free" - the bit about beverages being free doesn't seem to be referenced in the body of the article?
  • What kind of assessments has this airline attracted from professional reviewers and the various airline ratings?
  • Has the airline been involved in any noteworthy operational incidents? Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

- - -

Thank you for your comments, which are of a different type than other comments. This is useful and not a criticism. I have addressed and modified the article for most of the points raised and have further explanations below.
  • "WestJet Encore's service was initially limited to Western Canada, but it opened service in the eastern part of the country in June 2014 with a route from Toronto to Thunder Bay, Ontario" - is this when it also established the pilot base in Toronto?
I cannot confirm nor deny that the Toronto pilot base was established when the first Toronto flight started. With the mainline WestJet Airlines, they started Toronto flights while they only had a Calgary pilot base, which was very awkward from an operational standpoint.
  • "WestJet Encore moved into the international market in 2016, with flights serving Boston Logan Airport;[21][22] Nashville International Airport was added the following year" - where do these flights originate from? (Toronto I presume?)
WikiProject Airlines discourages listing too many routes. Nashville-Toronto is the only WestJet Encore route but there are several routes from Boston.
Seems like something worth noting to me. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 2015, WestJet Encore was the fastest-growing operator of Q400 aircraft" - is this really very significant? It just means that it had a lot of the things scheduled for delivery that year.
This appears to be significant enough to be cited by the manufacturer.
The source seems to be a press release from the airline. I'd suggest removing this. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "Pilots are guaranteed an eventual higher paying position flying larger jets at WestJet" - presumably this is dependent on satisfactory service, as well as time served?
I cannot find any references about the promotion criteria. Looking at a random selection of 27 airline articles, I find none of them describe the promotion criteria for pilots.
I'm not asking for the promotion criteria. It's unlikely that pilots are "guaranteed" promotions as long as they don't quit (especially by an anti-union employer). Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I note that the current president also holds a position at WestJet: presumably this is a standing arrangement?
I cannot confirm or deny that it is a standing agreement nor have I seen their employment contracts. There have been two WestJet Encore Presidents. Both have concurrently been Vice Presidents at WestJet.
I'd suggest noting that both presidents held the role then. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • " To prevent freezing of water lines during overnight stays at airports with cold weather, the airline rendered the water flow to the lavatory basins inoperative in 2013" - the issue I raised at WP:ERRORS was whether this fault has since been fixed (noting that the 2013 reference said that work was underway to fix it)
From original research, I have information that there is no running water as of December 2017.
OK Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • What kind of assessments has this airline attracted from professional reviewers and the various airline ratings?
Many, including me, do not believe in airline ratings. The best and middle of the pack are often similar. That said, WestJet Encore does not have a reputation as a bad airline for passengers nor does it have a famous reputation, like Singapore Airlines. Skytrax, a common rater, does not rate WestJet Encore.
No professional reviews at all? Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Has the airline been involved in any noteworthy operational incidents?
Yes, two flight attendants were injured due to turbulence. This was not included because of guidelines from WikiProject Airlines, which emphasize severe damage (hull loss) of aircraft or deaths. Another flight had visible smoke in the cabin.

Vanguard10 (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Some extra comments:

  • " Plus section seating and frequent flyer programme participation is offered." - many readers won't know what "plus section seating" is, and does the existence of a frequent flyer program need to be noted in the lead given that this is standard for airlines?
  • " After internal marketing studies about future growth were initiated, WestJet Encore was formed..." - unclear. Presumably it was formed as a result of the results of this analysis.
  • "If such thresholds were not exceeded, four hours of maintenance and inspection would be prevented compared to previously having pilots subjectively characterize the level of turbulence." - still unclear and a bit wordy
  • "The Q400 NextGen aircraft have larger overhead lockers in the cabin than previous versions of the Q400 allowing for larger luggage to be brought aboard" - but the airline hasn't used other versions of the Q400? I'd suggest deleting this.
  • A map showing the locations served by the airline would be useful, and fairly easy to create (the map at [12] could easily be adapted). This would help to give the article a bit of the 'wow' factor expected for FAs. Nick-D (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your additional comments. I have made corrections to all, except the last suggestion. For the first comment, I've removed mention of the Plus Section seating in the lede because the Plus Section is really a joke airline tactic. The seat is the same. The leg room is the same. There are just some relaxed ticketing rules. The frequent flyer mention is, however, even more noteworthy than I originally thought and revised it. Most airlines require a zillion points for a free ticket. WestJet Rewards is different. You can redeem an award for as little as $15 off. That might mean that you can redeem an award after as little as two round trip flights, albeit $15 off being a small discount. As far as the map, I am uncertain whether creating such a map exceeds the original research prohibition in Wikipedia. The link provided is helpful but it is outdated. Nashville-Toronto is still operated, according to booking tool, but Nashville isn't shown on that WestJet link. If I try to create some lines indicating routes, I would not be using any published source but rather creating it from looking up Expedia or Orbitz or Travelocity websites used for buying airplane tickets. Seems like original research to me.
Most routes are those that include the hubs, such as Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, and Halifax as either the origin or destination. However, there are a few thin (low traffic) routes such as Fort McMurray, Alberta to Kelowna, British Columbia that don't seem to make any sense except that WestJet Encore probably discovered that there are people that want to travel between those cities. Not enough for a Boeing 737 but enough for a Bombardier Q400 NextGen. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking it up, I see that the Kelowna-Fort McMurray flight was discontinued after two years of operation. I did add the fact to the destinations section due to the oddity of the route. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that a map referenced to the company's website and other reliable sources (the major booking websites seem great sources for what airline flies where) would be original research. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Done and not a non-free use image! Vanguard10 (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest swapping to either a map of North America, or leaving the US cities out and noting them in the caption. The red dots in the caption aren't a good look ;) Given that this will change regularly, having an 'As of' date would also be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Yeah that map isn't rendering properly at all. I question why it's even necessary... -- Acefitt 14:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
The map is for, as Nick-D put it, for the wow factor! Another user took out the red dots for Nashville, TN, USA and Myrtle Beach, SC, USA. Those were the two dots in the captions. I considered a North American map but the problem is there is no USA+Canada map. If the whole of North America is used, all the dots in British Columbia and Alberta are squished together. The map is good to show that there aren't too many destinations in the middle of Canada (Saskatchewan, Manitoba, most of Ontario). Let's keep the map unless there is a desire to remove it. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Support I think that my comments are now sufficiently addressed - nice work. I'd encourage you to keep an eye out for opportunities to expand and deepen the article as new sources become available. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Buckton Castle

Nominator(s): Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Buckton Castle isn't the kind of historic site that interests most people as there are no ruins to explore or inspire the imagination. The view over the east of Greater Manchester is impressive it you catch the weather on a good day. But as one of the earliest stone castles in the region, and one of the few that have been excavated, it is an important site and one that interests me at least since I excavated there for two (I think) seasons.

The article is based largely on the book published in 2012 about the excavations as it is the most recent comprehensive source available (worth noting that I'm one of the authors). Fieldwork finished in 2010, and interpretation of the site is unlikely to change in the near future. I've tried to ensure a good level of detail without putting the reader off, but in a nutshell there isn't a whole lot know about Buckton Castle so there are quite a few ifs and maybes. All feedback is gratefully received! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SN54129

Nice little article, Richard Nevell; I for one wouldn't criticise ifs and maybes, as working on any period such as this, that is precisely the language the RSs take—and for good reason. Couple of minor points to kick off with.

  • You use "gatepassage"; I think separate words are favoured?
  • But mainly, images. You've a MOS:SANDWICHING issue in the Construction and use section, and I wonder if they could generally be tidied up a little? It's quite image heavy (don't think that's a problem in itself), so their (dis?)arrangement stands out all the more. I'd favour a more symmetric approach, and perhaps something can be done to tighten the prose around those landscape pictures; what do you think?
  • Also, for acreage and distances, convert them.
    —SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Having 'gate passage' as two separate words is pretty widely done, so I've changed that. I've added an extra conversion to the text. Hopefully that's all of them – the layout section is strewn with them. I've removed the image of pottery for now (though the licence might get sorted) which helps a bit. I put an image gallery at the end of the layout section to avoid having the images run into the next section. I've tried the same with the location section which seems to work ok. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Eric Corbett

I've yet to check through the article in any great detail, but one point sticks out for me. A small one, but nevertheless ...

  • The lead states without qualification that the castle site was used as a beacon during the Pilmigrage of Grace, but the Later history and investigation section is a little more circumspect, stating that "The site of the castle may have been used as a beacon in the 16th century, first during the Pilgrimage of Grace ...", my bold. Eric Corbett 19:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Good point, the lead should have been less definite on that point; I'll keep an eye out for similar inconsistencies. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The {{citation}} template you've used – which I like as well – automatically generates links between the citations and the sources, but you have to create those links in the text by using either {{Harvnb}} or {{sfnp}}. I prefer {{sfnp}}, to which I've converted most of your citations. But creating those links has exposed an otherwise difficult to spot error; is it "Harley & Newman" or "Hartley & Newman"?
That's a handy spot; I'll double check the spelling – probably tomorrow night. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I've been able to double check and it is Hartley rather than Harley, which the article now reflects. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Medieval_body_sherd_of_an_unglazed_Pennine_(or_Northern)_gritty_ware_(FindID_564839).jpg: the Photographer section on the image description states this is all rights reserved?
  • File:Plan_of_Buckton_Castle_by_George_Ormerod.JPG is missing a source and US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I've added the source to the Ormerod plan. I'm not sure what's up with the image from the Portable Antiquities Scheme; a lot of their images are under an open licence but as you say that one has 'all rights reserved' on it for some reason. I'll try to get to the bottom of it, but until it's sorted I've removed the image from the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Tim riley

This is an excellent and enjoyable article, and I look forward to supporting its promotion to FA. A few small drafting points first:

  • Location
    • "Cheshire has far fewer castles per square kilometre" – by coincidence I have just quoted Fowler on "per" at another FAC: "It is affected to use Latin when English will serve as well; so much a year is better than per annum and much better than per year", but I think your "per" here is justified because I can't think of as concise an alternative way of saying what you have to say.
    • "Most of the county's castles are close to the western border, and the eastern parts of Cheshire were amongst the poorest." – I don't follow this. The two halves of the sentence don't seem to relate to each other. It isn't clear to the lay person how the wealth or poverty of an area affects the number of castles built there.
    • Third paragraph: I don't know if others would disagree or agree with me, but an unattributed quotation such as the one you end the para with seems to me pointless unless you tell us in the text that this is what the such-and-such expert So-and-So says. Here, I think the sentence would have much more impact if you put the quote in context by attributing it inline to "the archaeologist [or historian, whichever is appropriate] Rachel Swallow".
  • History
    • "It is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county." – I think I know what this is supposed to convey, but it isn't what you have actually said. The cost and the palatinate relate to the likelihood, not to the earls. Just shifting the end of the sentence to the middle will do the trick: "It is likely, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county, that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester". Or "Partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county, it is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester".
    • "it and much of northern England come under Scottish control" – either "came" or "had come", I imagine?
    • "finished, however" – if you must have "however" here you need a stronger punctuation mark than a comma. I'd go a plain "but", which is both shorter and OK after a comma.
  • Later history and investigation
    • "an Iron Age hillfort, however a study" – another however with a comma.
    • "However, this was before" – this "however" seems to serve no purpose at all.
  • Layout
    • "There are six stone gatehouses in the region which were built in the 12th or 13th centuries" – it isn't immediately clear whether this is a restrictive (defining) clause or a non-restrictive (describing) one. In short, are there six stone gatehouses in the region, all of which were built in the 12th or 13th centuries or more than six, of which these six were built in the 12th or 13th centuries? If the former, I'd add a comma before the clause: "There are six stone gatehouses in the region, which were built…" If the latter a comma-less "that" is wanted: "There are six stone gatehouses in the region that were built…"
    • "Trenches in the castle's interior did not find the structures" – do trenches find things? Might "reveal" be bettter here?
    • "robbing activity" – a strange phrase. Does it differ from theft?
    • "There is a spoil heap-like feature" – hyphens can cause all sorts of tangles, and the one here can be avoided by juggling the words about: "There is a feature like a spoil-heap", or, perhaps better, "There is a feature resembling a spoil heap".

I hope these few minor comments are of use. – Tim riley talk 11:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks for the comments.
  • Location
  • I can't think of an alternative to 'per square kilometre' so I'll leave there where it is.
  • With this sentence I was trying to show that it's less common for there to be a castle in this part of the county, but tried to do too much at once. It it just says 'most of the castles are near the border with Wales' the reader will conclude that it's all about warfare which is true to an extent but there were economic factors as well which is what I tried to include. But that sentence just wasn't working as it seemed like two separate ideas. Hopefully by inverting the second half it now gels together.
  • I was mulling over the attribution the other day, and I think it does make sense to give some context to the quote so I've mentioned who said it.
  • History
  • I see what you mean. I think it's worth explaining why the bit about Cheshire being a palatine county is relevant, so I've tried "Partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county in which the earl had authority over who was permitted to build castles, it is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester."
  • Oops, I probably had 'had come' and then decided 'came' was preferable and didn't quite manage the change. Thanks for spotting that.
  • I've swapped 'however' for 'but'.
  • Later history and investigation
  • I've swapped 'however' again to avoid repetition as there's a sentence later in the paragraph which starts with 'however'.
  • However seems to be one of those words I've not quite got the hang of! I've removed it.

That's it for now, but I will of course come back to this and the comments by others later. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Layout
  • That's absolutely right, I hadn't spotted that it could be read two ways. I've amended as suggested.
  • Good point, 'reveal' makes more sense than 'find'.
  • It's a bit of jargon really (archaeologists often refer to walls which have been removed as 'robbed out'), but theft doesn't quite cover it so I've tweaked the sentence.
  • That's a much tidier way of putting it, so I've used your phrasing. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Factotem

  • Lead
  • Given that nothing remains, is it correct to refer to the castle in the present tense; "Buckton Castle is..." (lead), "Buckton Castle lies..." (Location), etc.? The tense gets mixed up a little in the Layout section; the first two paras start with "Buckton is...", the third with "Buckton Castle was...". Compare Buckton is a small highland enclosure castle with a 2.8-metre (9 ft 2 in) thick sandstone curtain wall. in the "Layout" section with It was surrounded by a 2.8-metre (9 ft) wide stone curtain wall in the lead.
  • I'm not sure you've used the convert template adjective parameter quite correctly. {{convert|2.8|m|ft|0|adj=mid|-wide}} will get you "2.8-metre-wide (9 ft)", which I believe is the correct way to represent the size of the curtain wall in that sentence. Similar issue with the convert template used in the "Layout" section.
  • "...and a ditch 10 metres (3 ft) wide by 6 metres (20 ft) deep" would eliminate the slightly inelegant "and...and".
  • Between 1996 and 2010 Buckton Castle was investigated by archaeologists as part of the Tameside Archaeology Survey, first the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit then the University of Salford's Centre for Applied Archaeology. The use of "investigated" seems wrong to me, and the second clause seems to miss a "by" or two. Maybe "Between 1996 and 2010 Buckton Castle was the subject of two archaeological excavations, first by the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit and then by the University of Salford's Centre for Applied Archaeology."?
  • Location
  • During the Middle Ages, Buckton Castle was at the eastern end of Cheshire. The county shared its western border with Wales. -> "During the Middle Ages, Buckton Castle was at the eastern end of Cheshire, a county which shared (shares?) its western border with Wales."? Starting that sentence with a statement of time made me wonder. I understand from the Tintwistle article that the area now lies in Derbyshire, so Both castle and valley were in the medieval manor of Tintwistle. might be better written "Both castle and valley were in the medieval manor of Tintwistle, now a parish in Derbyshire." I'm assuming here that Tintwistle is a parish and no longer a manor.
  • A manor was a division of land and administered by... I don't think that "and" should be in there.
  • Cheshire is a mostly lowland area, and Beeston is the only other castle as pronounced in the surrounding landscape -> "The county is mostly lowland, and Beeston is the only other castle in the area that rises as prominently above the surrounding landscape."?
  • History
  • The earliest castles in England typically used timber... -> "The earliest castles in England were typically constructed from timber...", and do you think this sentence would go better as the first sentence in this paragraph?
  • ...during which the ditch was created... "dug" instead of "created"?
  • My first thought was that "sherd" was a typo for "shard", so a link to sherds would be helpful.
  • The castle is first mentioned in 1360... This information is repeated in the "Later history" section, where I think it's better placed. And again, it indicates tense confusion - here you use the present tense, the second time the past tense.
  • It is likely that the castle was built by one of the earls of Chester, partly because of the cost and partly because Cheshire was a palatine county and the earl had authority over who was permitted to build castles. The last part of the sentence suggests an earl could grant castle-building authority to someone else, and therefore does not support the statement at the beginning of the sentence that the castle was likely built by an earl. Was it the case that the earl had an authority to build castles on his own initiative that nobles in non-palatine counties did not? If so, then maybe "...Cheshire was a palatine county, giving earls the authority to build castles" would be better, at least in eliminating another "and...and" construction?
  • The earls were involved in the civil war of King Stephen’s reign in the middle of the 12th century commonly known as the Anarchy and the revolt against Henry II in 1173–74, both of which may have prompted castle building. -> "The construction of the castle may have been prompted by the earls' involvement in the the Anarchy, a civil war during King Stephen’s reign in the middle of the 12th century, or the Revolt of 1173–74 against Henry II"?
  • Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester wanted control of the earldom of Carlisle but during the Anarchy it and much of northern England come under Scottish control. The construction of Buckton Castle may have been to safeguard Cheshire. It's not clear why Carlisle is relevant. Maybe "Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester, may have built Buckton Castle to safeguard Cheshire during the Anarchy, when much of northern England had come under Scottish control"? Even if not, "4th Earl of Chester" needs a comma after it.
  • The dearth of artefacts recovered from Buckton Castle, and the lack of finely finished stonework, might indicate that the site was never finished, however the re-cutting of the ditch suggests either an extended period of occupancy or abandonment followed by repairs to the fortifications. The dearth either indicates or it does not, surely? Not sure you need that "might" there. I would also start a separate sentence with "However, the re-cutting...".
  • Later history and investigation
  • In the 18th century, people began treasure hunting at Buckton Castle, and in 1767 there were reports that one such venture had discovered a gold necklace and a silver vessel, though these artefacts have since been lost. I'd be tempted to split this sentence, " Buckton Castle. In 1767..."
  • In the 20th century it was suggested that Buckton Castle may have been an Iron Age hillfort, however... Either break this sentence into two, starting the second with "However...", or keep as one but replace "however" with "though"?
  • Since 1924, the castle has been designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument[23] which is intended to protect important archaeological sites from change. -> "In 1924, the castle was designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, a program designed to protect important archaeological sites from change."?
  • ...examine a possible outer bailey. As a result, the possible outer bailey was revealed to be a 20th-century feature and was probably related to nearby mining activity. Repetition of "possible outer bailey". Maybe "The latter was revealed to be a 20th-century feature, probably related to nearby mining activity."?
  • On two occasions (1999 and 2002) illegal digging by unknown parties... -> "Illegal digging by unknown parties in 1999 and 2002..."
  • More than 60 volunteers were involved in the excavations between 2007 and 2010, including the Tameside Archaeological Society, the South Trafford Archaeological Group, and the South Manchester Archaeological Research Team as well as university students. The "as well as university students" reads as if something is missing. Is it possible to name the university and amend the sentence to "More than 60 volunteers were involved in the excavations between 2007 and 2010, including teams from the Tameside Archaeological Society, the South Trafford Archaeological Group, and the South Manchester Archaeological Research Team, supported by students from ??? university."?
  • Layout
  • Buckton Castle was entered through a gatehouse in the north-west. It is 9.3 metres (31 ft) wide and 7.5 metres (25 ft) deep. -> "Buckton Castle was entered from the north-west through a 9.3-metre-wide (31 ft) by 7.5-metre-deep (25 ft) gatehouse.
  • The east side was occupied by the gate passage and the west a chamber. by a chamber?
  • ...until the late 20th century the overgrowth disguised the fact that it was a stone structure. -> "...until the late 20th century, vegetation obscured the existence of a stone structure."?

Hope this helps. Factotem (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Factotem, thanks for taking the time to go through the article. I've replied to your comments below.
  • Lead
  • Nothing survives above ground, but there are the remains of a castle just beneath the surface so I think it makes sense to say 'Buckton Castle is'. Past tense is used when describing the ditch because the measurement refers to the original measurements rather than the current depth.
  • That's a good trick, I've used that in the article.
  • That would help with avoiding repetition so I've made the change.
  • 'Investigated' is pretty nebulous but used by the likes of [ Museum of London Archaeology. I chose it because it covers topographical survey as well as excavation. I've added 'by' as suggested, but wonder if you would be happy sticking with 'investigated'?
  • Location
  • Thanks for the suggestions, that short sentence had been bugging me a little. I used past tense because the site is now in Greater Manchester, but that's only since 1974 so I've not dwelt on it.
  • Agreed and removed.
  • That's clearer, so I've changed it.
  • History
  • I hadn't considered that. I had been arranging it chronologically and then explained why the paleoenvironmental evidence was relevant, but re-ordering it makes sense and means it starts a bit less abruptly.
  • Changed to 'ditch was dug'.
  • Of course, that really should be linked.
  • That's fair I don't think the first mention needs to be in that section especially since the same point opens the next section.
That's as far as I've got tonight, more anon. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I adjusted this sentence based on some feedback above and have added more detail so it's clearer why the earl's authority over castle building is relevant. Hopefully that clears it up, but let me know if it needs more work.
  • Re-ordering the sentence makes it clearer so I've shifted it around as suggested.
  • To be fair, Carlisle isn't directly relevant to the point that Buckton may have been built to protect Cheshire so I've removed that bit and explained that a lot of northern England was under Scottish control.
  • Maybe you could be right about that one, so I've removed the hedging. As noted above I'm not the best judge of when to use 'however' – I tend to overuse it, not just here! – so I'm going to err on the side of sticking with 'but' as the contrast is still clear.
  • Later history and investigation
  • Those sentences stand on their own so I've split them as suggested.
  • This sentence was changed after some feedback above.
  • Being a scheduled ancient monument isn't a programme as such, so I'll stick with the current wording.
  • That's much better, thanks for that.
  • Done.
  • I've tried some different wording to see if that works.
  • Layout
  • I've merged the two sentences but removed 'wide' and 'deep' because the latter sounded a bit odd, as if the foundations go down a long way.
  • Done.
@Factotem: Thanks again for going through the article, those changes helped iron out a few points which I hadn't picked up on myself. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm OK with the above, but:
  • I still find it odd that you write about the castle in the present tense when there is no castle visible, not even ruins. Those first three words set up an expectation of a structure, and it was discordant to see none in the lead image, and a bit of a surprise to later learn that there is nothing left above ground.
  • You've kept the phrase "used timber" in the "Construction and use" section. "The earliest castles were constructed from timber..." is, I think, more the level of concision that FAC tends to demand.
  • In the 4th para of that section, ...Cheshire has fewer per square kilometre... Might be worth explicitly stating that Chester has fewer castles per square kilometre, just to make it clear that you're not referring to the earls, which is where the sentence immediately preceding ended up on. Also, your edits have broken the end of the last sentence in that section (Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester wanted control of the earldom of Carlisle but d), and however it ends, "4th Earl of Chester" is parenthetical and still needs a comma after it.
  • There's another instance of ditches being created instead of dug in the first sentence of the "Layout" section. Factotem (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: In the end I've gone with the past tense for the lead to describe the castle; it's a steep walk uphill if you're expecting there to be walls. I've also swapped 'used timber' for 'constructed from timber', I think I just missed that one. And added in 'fewer castles' to make it clear what I'm walking about. And finally, I ditched 'created' and swapped it for 'dug'. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

An interesting site. In terms of FA standards, I think that the text needs a little bit of work; in places it feels stylistically like an archaeological report rather than an encyclopaedia article, and there's a little bit of repetition.

  • "first the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit" - "first by"? Feels like there's a word missing
  • "The castle was probably built in the 12th century, but fell out of use soon after." - I didn't think this matched up with the main text, which says "The dearth of artefacts recovered from Buckton Castle, and the lack of finely finished stonework, might indicate that the site was never finished, however the re-cutting of the ditch suggests either an extended period of occupancy or abandonment followed by repairs to the fortifications." - if it may have been occupied for an "extended period", it didn't necessarily fall of out use quickly, surely?
  • The location and history sections cut backwards and forwards somewhat; I found it odd to be talking about a garrison and a surrounding manor, for example, before we've established when the castle was built.
  • "in Tintwistle's case it was part of the larger lordship of Longdendale." seems to lack a citation
  • "Compared to Herefordshire and Shropshire, which were also on the Anglo-Welsh border, Cheshire has far fewer castles per square kilometre. Most of the county's castles are close to the western border, and the eastern parts of Cheshire were amongst the poorest. " - I wasn't sure what this was trying to tell the reader about Buckton Castle - is there any way to rephrase it to focus back on the subject of the article?
  • "Construction and use" - this section doesn't actually say clearly that the castle was probably built in the 12th century; it might be worth spelling it out, as per the lead.
  • "but during the Anarchy it and much of northern England come under Scottish control" - "came"?
  • "Pennine Gritty Ware" - any way of linking this, or covering off in a footnote what it is? (or, if it's just a kind of pottery, it might worth simplifying the language a bit)
  • "the re-cutting of the ditch" - is there dating for this? I note that the infobox suggests that the castle was completed by the "late 12th century".
  • "and finally deliberate demolition" - I thought this needed explaining a bit further. If we're saying that the castle was deliberately pulled down, it needs highlighting in the lead and in the history. At the moment, we say that it was demolished, but only say that "These conflicts would also have provided a context for the deliberate destruction of the castle" - why, how, etc.?
  • "This usage may have been reprised in 1803 when a beacon hut is recorded near Mossley" - is Mossley near the castle? We haven't mentioned it previously.
  • "and later in the 1580s when the country was under threat of invasion" - worth noting who would have been invading?
  • "and in 1767 there were reports that one such venture had discovered a gold necklace and a silver vessel, though these artefacts have since been lost." - the first half implies that the discoveries might not be entirely true (otherwise, why mention "reports"?); the second half seems more definite that they *were* found and are known to have been lost.
  • "In the 20th century it was suggested that Buckton Castle may have been an Iron Age hillfort, however a study of hillforts in Cheshire and Lancashire found that Buckton was topographically different from these sites and therefore unlikely to have been built in the Iron Age.[21] Excavation in the 1990s demonstrated that the site was medieval, with no sign of earlier activity" - this feels out of sequence, since you then have a major section on modern archaeology two para's later. Also unclear if the 1990s archaeology is the same as that mentioned later, or something different. "it was suggested" - by who?
  • "It had also been suggested that the castle was a ringwork – a type of fortification where earthworks formed an integral part of the defence." - ditto, who did the suggesting?
  • "Buckton is a small highland enclosure castle with a 2.8-metre (9 ft 2 in) thick sandstone curtain wall." - unsure from the lead if the wall is still there or not...? Ditto tense of other remains.
  • "Constructed in the mid to late 12th century, Buckton’s gatehouse is the earliest in North West England" - the dating here seems expressed differently to the dating before ("probably 12th century", "Completed: Late 12th century" Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article Hchc2009. The style is probably partly due to the source material and partly because I was in the middle of writing a thesis when wrote this draft. There is also more emphasis on the archaeology than most other articles partly because with relatively little known about the site, the investigations actually form a substantial part of the site's 'biography'. Also since the investigations were restricted to just a few years, it's a relatively straightforward story to tell. Hopefully it hasn't gone overboard.
  • 'by' added after feedback above.
  • I was operating on different timescales when I wrote that bit. In the lead 'fell out of use soon after' really means 'wasn't in continuous uses for a couple of centuries' whereas the main text lays out the slightly conflicting evidence. I've simplified it to 'The castle was probably built in the 12th century and was first mentioned in 1360, by which time it was lying derelict.'
  • I see what you mean. My preference is to treat the 'location' as (quite literally) setting and having it early on. I included information on the manor and stuff to give some context to the landscape. Would it be as simple as moving the section after 'history' do you think?
  • I'll root around for the reference and add something for the bit about Tintwistle. Just added the citations for Tintwistle being in the lordship of Longdendale. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll take a closer look at this. What I was trying to do with this part was show that Cheshire is a bit unusual compared to Herefordshire and Shropshire without going into the why which is mentioned later in the article. There's a similar issue with the economic aspect, which is explained later on. I'm struggling at the moment to weave this in without sounding repetitive in a short article, but if you think it's worth it I'll keep trying. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • ...ah. Thanks for spotting that, I've made the construction date more explicit in the body of the article.
  • Mercifully I've sorted this one.
  • We don't have an article sadly and while there's an image on Commons which could help make this bit interesting I've not heard back from the uploader about the licence issue. I was tempted to just say 'pottery' but with only four sherds it seemed a shame not to be specific. I'll have a think about including a footnote. Or perhaps I should see if there's enough to write an article about Pennine Gritty Ware.
  • I don't think so, but I'll double check. Unfortunately, no absolute dating evidence was recovered for the re-cutting of the ditch so we can only put it in a relative sequence. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I went light on the details of the slighting since it relates to the topic of my thesis. I'll have a think about how to deal with this and keep my additions to 3,000 words or less. The slighting is now mentioned in the lead, and I've tried to explain the reasons for slighting in the 'construction and use' section. 'These conflicts would also have provided a context for the deliberate destruction of the castle' really was going too light on detail.
  • I've explained that Mossley is a settlement very close to the castle. I've mentioned Carrbrook and Mossley only in passing because they're not important in the medieval landscape but can add more if you think it's useful context for the later history.
That's all for now. I'll try to return to this tomorrow or Wednesday but failing that it'll be next week as I've got my viva coming up on Friday. Some wally thought it would be a good idea to nominate something at FAC at the same time. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy old week but I'll get round to addressing the rest of your comments soon. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've explained that it was the Spanish who were likely to invade.
  • I've changed the wording to say that while most of the treasure hunting seems not to have uncovered anything of note the 1767 digging did find something.
  • I'm not keen on being vague like this, but it's one of those things which is difficult to attribute. Forde-Johnson discussed Buckton and how topologically it didn't look like a hillfort so dismissed it as such, and was speaking to a standing assumption that it was but I haven't found the initial who. Since the haziness around suggesting it was a ringwork has been resolved below, do you think it would be ok to leave the ambiguity here? I've also moved this part further down, as it didn't quite fit with the chronology and cleared up the year in which the site was established as medieval.
  • I've put that it was King and Alcock.
  • I've swapped to past tense (and have done so in the lead) and explained that the wall isn't still standing.
  • The 'completed' field of the infobox wasn't updated when I refreshed the rest of the article so I've opted for the broader '12th century'. Because dating evidence is so sparse and 'mid to late 12th century' to my mind could run from about 1135 to 1200 it's not a terribly helpful description so I've dropped it. The 'history' section further up should give a better idea of when it is likely the site was in use.
Richard Nevell (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Two-thirds of the citations are to a single source, Grimsditch et al 2012, but I expect this reflects its status as the best source on the subject. The sources are impeccably presented and are all of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Johnbod

Nice work - a couple of additional comments on the start:

  • "Buckton Castle is a medieval enclosure castle near Carrbrook, Stalybridge, England" - county/metro area here please
  • "Buckton is one of the earliest stone castles in North West England" - if none of the stone is now visible, maybe this should be clarified here? Presumably most the stone was removed, which is nowhere said, nor if some remains underground.
  • That's it. Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Johnbod. I've added that the site is in Greater Manchester and clarified that nothing survives above ground. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - now Support Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Great topic, but you may not be surprised to hear that I've never heard of the castle.

  • "It was first mentioned in 1360" Surely that's not true; what you mean is that it appears in the historical record in 1360, or something?
  • I'm not sold on the four short paragraphs for the lead; I'd think about consolidating into two longer paragraphs. Also, I feel "The site is overgrown with heather and peat, and there are no above-ground ruins." probably belongs earlier on; I think some readers might feel a little "cheated" to find out the castle they've been reading about doesn't quite match what they have in their mind's eye!
  • "in Tintwistle's case it was part of the larger lordship of Longdendale." Comma? Ref?
  • "archaeologist Rachel Swallow" As was drilled into me in a previous FAC of my own, false titles are often considered nonstandard/informal in British English.
  • I'm not sure I'm particularly sold on the two "stacked" images. The map is surely going to need to be clicked before it can be seriously perused; I'd drop it to a thumbnail (perhaps after a crop!)
  • "The castle is first mentioned in 1360" As above. I was struck by the lack of dates earlier in that same paragraph- can we be no more specific than "medieval"? Just how long are we talking between construction and slighting?
  • "earldom of Carlisle" Wikilink?
  • "William de Neville" Link? Don't be scared of redlinks if the subjects are notable.
  • "Tameside Council" Wikilink?
  • "antiquarian Thomas Percival" False title again

I like this article (I particularly enjoyed the "Later history and investigation") and commend you for the work you've put into it. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback J Milburn, sorry for the delay in replying – it took me this long to recover from the shock that you hadn't heard of this place. I'm glad you like the article, I hope it makes an interesting read and even pretty obscure sites can have an interesting history particularly into the modern period.
  • On reflection, it does sound a bit like no one so much as has a conversation about the castle before 1360. It's fairly common phrasing, but what it of course means is the earliest surviving record of the site is from 1360 which is what I've now put in the lead.
  • Yes, the lead didn't really need to be split into four like that. That's also a good point about mentioning earlier what people should expect, so I've moved it to the start of the third sentence.
  • Still need to sort this from one of the comments above, but I will get round to it. Now referenced and with a comma.
  • I think it's worth explaining to the reader why this person's opinion is relevant so have gone with 'According to Rachel Swallow, an archaeologist' which seems to work.
  • Yes; what I meant was that you should refer to her as "the archaeologist Rachel Swallow", rather than "archaeologist Rachel Swallow". Josh Milburn (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah I see, that's a much tidier way of doing it so I've popped that into the article and used the same approach when I mentioned Percival. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Out of the two images side-by-side, the map is essentially decorative. The article could do without it as there's a modern map further up, and the main reason I've included it is because people like old maps and there are only so many photos you can have of this castle and its landscape before it all starts to blur together. I've given it a slight crop, but you would still need to click on the image to bring out any detail and the castle isn't marked on the map. If you think it's worth getting rid of it, I can happily remove it.
  • I removed the bit about 1360 in the 'construction and use' section since it was sued to open the 'later history and investigation' section. We're sorely lacking firm dating evidence for the few phases at the castle, but I'll add a bit more in to say '12th century' and give some relative idea of when the slighting took place.
  • Factotem pointed out that it wasn't entirely clear how the earldom of Carlisle fitted into the picture, so rather than go off on a tangent I decided to remove that bit.
  • Redlink added for William de Neville.
  • I've also added a link to Tameside council.
  • Like with the one earlier, I've tried to deal with this by rearranging the sentence slightly. So now it reads 'In the 1770s, Thomas Percival, an antiquarian, recorded a well within the castle, close to the south curtain, and walls...'. There are quite a few commas there, so what do you reckon?
Thanks again and I'll put a note here when I've done a bit more as I wasn't able to resolve all your comments in one go. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Just to check status, Richard, it looks to me that you've completed actioning the comments of Tim riley and Hchc2009, and you're still working through Josh Milburn's -- is that correct? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I'd be interested in Josh's thoughts on the map in the 'location' section, but I think I've addressed the rest of the issues (albeit I didn't leave a note on here like I said I would). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I confess that it doesn't bother me now; I'm not sure if something's changed or I've just warmed to it! I like the image a lot, so I'm glad it's in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Harry

This seems well on its way but I'll offer a few comments:

  • The link on "volunteers" looks like a bit of an Easter egg
  • The castle, close to the Buckton Vale Quarry, is a Scheduled Ancient Monument: is its proximity to the quarry relevant to its scheduled status?
  • I believe we need an inline citation at the end of the paragraph beginning "Partly because of the cost"

I fixed a typo but but that's the extent of the criticisms I can make. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Harry, thanks for the support and fixing the typo.
  • It was a bit Easter eggy so I've changed the sentence to specifically use the phrase 'community archaeology'.
  • The scheduled area runs pretty much up to the edge of the quarry. It's not mentioned in the Historic England scheduled note, just visible on the map. I've explained in the body of the text that scheduling helped protect the site from the expanding quarry in the 1920s, but don't want to go into detail in the lead in case it sounds like the quarry is a threat today.
  • Good spot, I split the paragraph and forgot to copy the reference. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Lazarus (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a dystopian comic book series with heavy political and economic themes. It began in 2012 and is still being published. It will probably continue for another 5-7 years and a television adaptation is in the works. The article is up-to-date with recent plot developments and series announcements. I believe it is as thorough and complete as it can be at this time. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • If you are going to include information about the television show in the lead, then I would include information from the role-playing subsection as well.
  • I would include information from the “Political themes” subsection in the lead as well.
  • For this sentence (Image provided David Brothers to serve as the series' editor.), I think it should either be “An image” or “Images” depending on the context. Starting the sentence with just “Image” does not seem correct to me.
  • I have also been told to keep usage of non-free media to a minimal. In that respect, why do you think the promotional artwork in the “Production” subsection is absolutely needed to further illustrate a point to the reader beyond text? I do not readily see how it ties into critical commentary, and it appears to be there for more aesthetic reasons than informative ones. If you are going to use a non-free media, then it may be more helpful to include an image from the comic that is being discussed in the prose of the subsection.
  • I included the promotional image for two reasons. First, it is promotional artwork that shows how the design developed. More importantly, it was colored by an American colorist. The prose discusses Lark's interest in a European color style, and this image helps show the difference to readers unfamiliar with how the styles are different.
  • This needs to be clearer than in the article and the image caption. As an unfamiliar reader, I did not see the image as being used in this way in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  1. I expanded the caption.
  • Specify that The Fifth Element is a film and include the year in which it was released.
  • Something about the first paragraph in the “Production” subsection reads a little strange to me. It bounces around a lot between different ideas (i.e. influences from the Occupy movement and politics, creation of the character, and the planned ending for the story). I would try to make these ideas transition more organically either by reworking the paragraph or repositioning the information in other parts of the same subsection.
  • I have reworked the paragraph.
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would change this sentence (When Lark received the first script, he was disappointed.) to (Lark was disappointed by the first script) for more concise language.
  • I admit that I have not check either of the sources provided, but I do not really understand this part (and based the opening scene on the birth sequence in The Fifth Element.). I do not remember a birth scene in that film at all.
  • I've only seen snippets of the film, so I can't help much here. That phrase came from Lark in an interview.
  • I looked at the interview, and I assuming you pulled that sentence from this part (I'd gone through a couple of different drafts of that particular scene and I just happened to be watching TV late at night and The Fifth Element was on. And I thought about the scene where she was being birthed in that and I thought to myself that Forever is kind of being born again here, and it's going to be yucky and painful.). He references the scene as a "birth", but your paraphrase does not make sense as it is never referenced as a "birth" to the best of my knowledge in the context of the film or by critics afterwards. The movie frames it more as a "reconstruction" sequence. See this part from the "Plot" section of the Wikipedia article on the film for further reference (The Mondoshawans' spacecraft is destroyed, and the only "survivor" is a severed hand in a metal glove from the Fifth Element's sarcophagus that still contains some living cells. Scientists take it to a New York City laboratory and use it to reconstruct a powerful humanoid woman who takes the name Leeloo.). I still think that this section needs to be better phrased to more accurately reflect the film as it is rather misleading. Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I changed "birth" to "reconstruction" to match the film's article.
  • Specify that Necromancer is a novel and include the year in which it was released.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Lark questions Rucka about characterization and the direction of the story, resulting in rewrites and a better final product.). Who is saying this part “a better final product”? I was a little lost as without attribution, it reads more like the writer of the Wikipedia article is saying this.
  • I am not certain about the use of small paragraphs in the article, specifically “Lark will return when Lazarus resumes in April 2018 with issue #27.” in the “Publication” subsection as it destroys the flow of the article in my opinion.
  • Change the link for “2016 Presidential Election" to the article on the US presidential election and specify you mean the United States election in the prose.
  • This sentence (Collections of the X+66miniseries and the sourcebooks have been announced, but not yet released.) needs a citation.
  • I removed that part. I'll add the date of release to the table once they're published.
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Does the “Synopsis” subsection need to be completely sourced?
  • It can be. Some of it is taken from commentary about the series, and some of it is from the story itself. Right now, I've only sourced the commentary. I can cite the other plot elements to specific issues if you'd like.
  • I think that it is better to cite back to the specific issues if possible. I have never worked on a comic book article so I am unclear on how sourcing in summary/plot sections work. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • My preference varies depending on the comic. I cite plot elements in articles like Infinity Gauntlet, which had important developments take place in a tie-in or crossover issue. In a case like The Fade Out, which is entirely self-contained, I treat it as single entity and do not cite plot elements to individual issues. I'm flexible though, and have added them before when asked. It may take me a day or two to research them and make sure I'm citing the right issue at the right place.
  • I understand. I think it is fine as it currently stands, and I will leave this up for future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not certain about the usage of the battle image in the “Critical reception” section. The caption does not make it clear how it illustrates a point to the reader beyond its aesthetic value.
  • This excerpt is from the choreographed battle discussed in Production. It is also the only image on the page colored by Arcas, which is commented on a few times throughout.
  • Then, I do not understand its placement in the "Critical reception" section. If the choreography is discussed in the "Production" section, it should be there. Also, the caption for the image does not make it clear how the reader, particularly an uninformed reader like myself, should approach this image and understand it in the larger context of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the caption. I put that image in the reception section so it would be closer to the critic's comments on the coloring and so the images would be better spaced through the article. If you don't think that would be an issue, I'll relocate it. I was also thinking of adding images of Rucka and Lark to the article, but I think they'd fit best near the top as well.
  • Could you expand on this point (Since the series debut, the pace has been a frequent point of criticism.)? What is the common complaint about the pace? Too fast? Too slow?
  • I clarified that it is described as slow. Unfortunately, reviewers haven't elaborated on that in a meaningful way.
  • Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (Rucka specifically addressed fan-drawn parallels to Game of Thrones,), specify that Game of Thrones is a television show.
  • I would include information about the negative criticism in the lead. The article seems a little tilted towards the positive reception of this, and could be objective by including that in the lead and expanding on the critique of the pace.
  • Any more news on the development of the role-playing campaign. You say that it had been delayed until January 2018 so has there been any follow-up since then?
  • Amazon is showing a release date of May 2018 now, but I've been unable to locate any reliable confirmation of that.
  • Then, I would wait to add anything further. Just wanted to ask to clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes a reliable source?
  • I'll have to get back to you on this one. It's a news site with editorial oversight, but a content filter on my workstation prevents me from verifying that at the moment.
  • No worries. If it has editorial oversight, then it would seem fine by me. I was just curious about it. I will leave this up to a much more experienced editor who does the source review for this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Great work with this article. I will support this for promotion once my comments are complete. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate your help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I've addressed most of your points. Others I've responded to in red. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I am unhappy with 1-2 sentence paras (3rd para in lead). Not sure how it could be rearranged - maybe most of the out-of-universe and in-universe paras could be swapped and this then tacked onto the out-of-universe material in the lead.
  • Identifying who/what people are helps give context, hence something like. "American writer Greg Rucka and artist Michael Lark had previously collaborated..." - ditto putting Santi's nationality at his first mention.
  • ... by the Hock family, a Carlisle rival and rulers of Eastern North America.. - a misprint for "Carlyle",right?
  • Many critics compared and contrasted Lazarus with other genre works - are both verbs necessary here?
  • Bezner warned that the political elements of Lazarus will not be for everyone - past to present looks odd here, I'd go with "Bezner warned that the political elements of Lazarus would not be for everyone"

NB: I made these changes, let me know if they are ok. Overall I think it reads pretty well and seems comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Monterey Bay Aquarium

Nominator(s): Rhinopias (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Monterey Bay Aquarium is a public aquarium that has a fascinating history and a solid reputation in the US (and I would imagine overseas), but also participates in an interesting breadth of activities with which both visitors and non-visitors are likely unfamiliar. I hope you (yes... you can be a reviewer!) enjoy reviewing the article, and I look forward to your feedback. Rhinopias (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jackdude101

  1. It is—
    1. well-written: The prose is satisfactory overall. The only glaring issue was in the History and facilities section here: As of 2016, the aquarium has also developed numerous temporary exhibitions since the late‑1980s. The "As of 2016" phrase is redundant and should be removed.
    2. comprehensive: The article appears to address everything notable about the topic.
    3. well-researched: The article appears to be well-researched with 99 101 separate references cited.
    4. neutral: Neutrality is satisfactory.
    5. stable: The only organic edits to the article over the past four months have been from the nominator, so no issues here.
  2. Style guidelines
    1. a lead: Some elements in the last paragraph related to critical acclaim are not mentioned in the article body. This should be addressed.
    2. appropriate structure: Structure is appropriate.
    3. consistent citations: Citations are good overall. However, there should be a citation in the first line of the second paragraph of the Great white sharks sub-section. Ideally, the names of some of the groups that supported the program and the name of the one group that opposed the program should be mentioned, also.
  3. Media: The number of pictures in the article is just right and they are spread throughout the article appropriately.
  4. Length: Length is satisfactory.

SMS Braunschweig

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is another German battleship article - this one passed a Milhist A-class review in December after having been significantly expanded and overhauled. The ship served in two German navies over the span of some 21 years, including during World War I, where there was relatively little opportunity for action, owing to the relatively cautious strategies adopted by the Russian and German fleets. Braunschweig was one of a handful of battleships that Germany was permitted to retain under the Versailles Treaty, but the vessel remained in active service for just another 8 years, being decommissioned in early 1926. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Image review: All images are freely licensed in the U.S. No apparent issues with the quality or usage of them. Codyorb (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Support by PM

  • I reviewed this closely during December's Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to comment on then. It has not changed in any significant way since then, and I consider it meets the Featured Article criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Shorwell helmet

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Anglo-Saxon Shorwell helmet was built for fighting. It is strong, exhibits hardly any decoration, and is so plain that it was at first thought to be a broken pot and was purchased for only £3,800. Yet it is one of only six helmets known to exist from Anglo-Saxon England, a scarcity that—along with other rare objects found with the helmet, such as a pattern-welded sword and hanging bowl—suggests its owner was a high-status warrior. Found on the Isle of Wight in 2004, today it is in the collection of the British Museum.

The article on the helmet is short and complete. It covers all the relevant literature as it chronicles the helmet from its discovery, through its typology, to its significance. Recently returned from good article candidacy with a green circle and subsequently refined, it is ready for a gold star. Usernameunique (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "The recovery of only six Anglo-Saxon helmets among thousands of excavated graves suggests that their owners had some rarefied status": That's my rewording. I think you can say that the helmet conferred status, or that whoever wore the helmet probably had status. But we can't say the wearer definitely had status; for all we know, the helmet was stolen from someone.
  • I removed the link to the French page for Trivières. It's a good idea to have a stub created on the English Wikipedia, but not required for FAC (as long as the number of red links isn't excessive).
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your careful reading and edits, Dank. I'll turn Trivières into a stub shortly. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • What makes "Thegns of Mercia" a high quality reliable source?
  • Good catch. It was a bare URL when I started working on the article, and then I changed it into proper format but never removed it until you pointed it out.
  • On a point of presentation, I think it would make more sense to have "References" (citations) and "Bibliography" (sources) under a single level-2 heading, rather than as separate level-2 headings, but this may be just a personal preference.
  • I'd rather keep it as is, to maintain consistency with other related articles. Also, that change would make "associated objects" a level-3 heading, which presentation-wise would be a little clunky.

Subject to the above, sources and citations are in good order, and appear to be of the required standard of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

Seems pretty thorough, but I have some comments:

  • The "typology" section seems too low down. Shorn of some repetition, it could go in or after the "Description" section (which could be renamed), or even in the lead.
  • Reordered. What's the repetition you're seeing?
  • If supported by the sources, one might mention the possibility that any cuir bouilli or leather areas were decorated by stamping or moulding, which might have been very cheap to do. "Very few decorative elements adorned the Shorwell helmet" might be qualified, as we can't be sure this was originally the case - far from it, some might say.
  • I couldn't find much specific to helmets, but added some information relevant to scabbards, and qualified the points about decoration. The literature on the Frankish Trivières helmet that I looked at only mentioned the possible leather covering in passing, and there's not much literature to begin with, probably because with no Anglo-Saxon leather helmets having yet been found, nobody has written about how they could have been decorated. Evidence of contemporary scabbards does show decoration similar to that you describe, and I added a line mentioning it. We might not wish to stress the point, however; I think the takeaway here is that this helmet was probably made for someone who would need it in battle, unlike examples such as the Benty Grange helmet or the Sutton Hoo helmet, which, while they could have been worn (particularly the latter), may have been intended to evoke status rather than deflect swords.
  • Again, subject to sources, it seems that the often-repeated rarity of AS helmets is somewhat undercut by the difficulty excavators had in recognising those that did turn up before very modern methods arrived.
  • Added a slight qualification, although this possibility isn't much mentioned; ironically, the source that Brianboulton (rightfully) questioned is one of the only that makes this point ("It makes one wonder, though, how many more historically important fragmentary iron Anglo-Saxon military artefacts have been misinterpreted by archaeologists!"). Including fragments (some not necessarily from helmets) there are the remains of only 16 A-S and Viking helmets, however, against more than 142 A-S and Viking swords in the British Museum alone. The helmet number may be under-reported, but it's probably not under-reported by more than 90%.
  • I've fiddled with the garnet mount. Presumably the BM have a database page on this - a link would be good.
  • Added it (link). You'd think that they'd have a picture of a gold and garnet item, especially since we can look at some rusted iron, but sadly no.
  • Lead "... was discovered near a copy of a solidus featuring Anastasius I ...." - a bit too compressed. The average reader won't know that a solidus is a Roman gold coin, Anastasius I was a Byzantine emperor, and the coin was probably made in modern France (or close). Not all this is even in the account lower down. Also the coin was, per the BM, found by metal-detector, apparently some years after the 2004 find of the helmet, while the currect wording rather suggests they were found at the same point.
  • All good points. I'm a little nervous of making too great a deal of the coin—it doesn't necessarily help too much with date since as a copy, it could postdate Anastasius I—although never removed that text from the lead, which was added in this edit. Looking now at the treasure report for the coin (page 50 of the pdf), its suggested date, c. 500–580, is even less precise than for the helmet. The greater point is probably, as you suggest, that the coin is a likely continental import, in a grave with a continental-style helmet, bolstering the continental connection. I'm going to think about how to approach this, perhaps by addressing it in your suggested section on the contemporary politics.
  • Took the coin out of the lead, and added more information on it in to the body.
  • Given the very early date, you might give a bit of "political" context re the Isle of Wight at this period.

Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks Johnbod, those are all useful suggestions and give good things to think about. Some responses are above, although there are a few that I need to do a bit more research on. Just got the source for the Trivières helmet, so hopefully can address the points about leather decoration soon. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, I think I've worked through most of the issues, and have added three responses above (leather, scarcity, coin). Still need to research the Isle of Wight, but wanted to both make some progress and give you a chance to respond to any of the points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Support Ok, thanks, all sorted. I'm distrustful of a utilitarian vs display/parade helmet distinction though, as any helmet would have been expensive, and we know the AS, like the Iron Age Celts before them, liked to go into battle fully blinged-up. To my mind the AS mentality would have been that an expensive elite object like a helmet needed decoration, to impress the other side that they were dealing with an important person = a very good warrior. I doubt any AS person had two helmets, one for show and one for use, so they probably always had to fulfill both roles. But of course the evidence on all this is lacking. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Eric Corbett

  • I had the opportunity to take a good look at this article at its recent GA review, so I have no reservations about supporting its promotion. Eric Corbett 15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Great topic, and I really enjoyed reading about your other helmets.

  • I am OK with the single non-free lead image (especially given it's its "almost free" license), given the fact that it's not on display, but I'm a little nervous about the use of the diagram. What's to stop someone else creating their own diagram based on published descriptions? If nothing, I'm not sure it's irreplaceable.
  • You have a point, and Ideally I'd like to have a non-free diagram there, if for no other reason than to supersize it. That said, I suspect a new, free image would have to rely on the copyrighted one for some details, such as the slope of nose-to-nap and lateral bands, and the size of the infill plates. Perhaps it makes sense for someone to weigh in during the image review, also; one option would be to ask at the Illustration Workshop whether someone could create a replacement.
  • Two (what look like) quotes without citations in the lead make me a little twitchy.
  • Cited "fragmentary iron vessel". The other, "crested helmets", is really just a term of art in want of a blue link to make the term clearly delineated, at which point the quotation marks could be dispensed with.
  • "sub-triangular infill plate" A bit jargon-y
  • Eliminated the hyphen, since—to my surprise—it turns out "subtriangular" is actually a word with general meaning (OED: "Approaching the form of a triangle; somewhat triangular"). "infill plate" could perhaps be described differently, but, once one conceptualizes what an infill plate is (which, incidentally, is a good reason for a good diagram), it makes it a quick and easy term. ("subtriangular infill plate" is also used in Pioneer helmet and Coppergate helmet.)
  • "but they may also have been intended to serve as "stop-ribs" preventing edged" Comma after the quote, perhaps?
  • Done.
  • "The exact nature of the skin product, let alone purpose" Shouldn't that be its purpose?
  • Done. I think "of the skin product" is implied in a grammatically correct sense (e.g., if the clause followed directly after "nature," it would mean the same thing), but "its purpose" works well.
  • I suspect I know the answer, but do we have any pictures of the discovery site or other finds from the same place? They'd be great for the discovery section.
  • Just emailed one of the authors of the main article about the helmet. Will update accordingly, or reach out to others if I don't hear back.
  • "Burgh helmet" Worth linking?
  • "a bipartite cap rather than four infill plates" A bit jargony, again
  • Reworded to "Their construction includes a continuous lateral band in addition to the continuous nose-to-nape band, however, and a two-piece construction underneath rather than an infill plate for each of the four gaps, potentially an indication of regional variation."
  • You should probably include a location for the Ager source and "Valuations" (shouldn't that go before the authored pieces in the bibliography? I forget...). I wouldn't bother with journal publishers.
  • Done. Guessing a bit with location (London, where the headquarters of the department is), since it isn't explicitly in the report as far as I can tell. Journal publishers is personal preference, since it occasionally provides useful information (e.g., James 1986). Re order, if there isn't an author I order as if the title were the author, since that's how it ultimately shows up in the list; no idea if there's a general convention, however.
  • "Make all sure: The conservation and restoration of arms and armour" Caps? If I was being picky, I'd say you're inconsistent on whether you use Title Case or sentence case for chapter/article titles in the bibliography.
  • You're not wrong; there's consistency in that the convention is to follow the capitalization used in each book/article (e.g., see the cover of Make all sure; the title page is the same), but "consistently follows others' inconsistency" isn't a great argument. Happy to go through and just capitalize the lot of them if you think it makes sense.
  • I would aim for consistency; it's something that sometimes comes up in source reviews. Hardly something to lose sleep over, of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Really enjoyed this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your recognition, and useful feedback on another article, J Milburn. Responded to your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I do think this is a very good article, but I am going to hold off supporting for now as I muse over the image issue a little. I feel a bit silly given that the image is almost free... Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, J Milburn. Capitalized the titles as suggested. If push comes to shove we can just delete the image; I'll also send an email to someone who produces replicas of the helmet to see if they might license a photo, which would also make the construction a bit more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I do think it's worth a punt with the images; some high-quality freely licensed images can make all the difference for an article of this sort! My fingers are crossed for you. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
J Milburn, totally understand if you're waiting for the resolution of the comments below to offer your support, but just letting you know that the images are now all in order with verified licenses. (With thanks to Mz7, who processed the OTRS for the photo of the replica.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Support. I may come back to review the new developments made in discussion with MBO, but, for now, I'm happy to support. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

I'm enjoying seeing these articles on helmets in the collection of the British Museum. I have the following fairly minor comments and suggestions:

  • "The grave was discovered by members of a metal detecting club in 2004, and excavated by archaeologists that November" - Given that the month it was dug up is noted, I'd suggest also adding the month it was found
  • Added May 2004.
  • "suggest that helmets were not solely for the enjoyment of the absolute élite" - "enjoyment" seems an unusual way to describe what's noted to have been a utilitarian fighting helmet. I'd suggest replacing this with "use" or "protection"
  • Changed to use.
  • "Nonetheless, only six helmets have been found" - previously noted in the "Typology" section
  • Reworded.
  • I find this wording a bit confusing (eg, what's being reflected on?). The first half of the sentence repeats material covered earlier in this para and it's all a bit over complex. Could it changed to something direct like "The fact that only a very small number of helmets have been recovered from the thousands of Anglo-Saxon graves excavated in the UK indicates that they were never deposited in large numbers". Splitting it into two sentences might also work. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Nick-D, fair point. Reworded again; it's simpler now, and I think transitions better from the preceding sentence. --Usernameunique (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Those changes look good to me Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we know if the helmet has ever been placed on display? Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestions, Nick-D. I've adopted them all, as noted above. I don't know for certain whether it has ever been placed on display, but nothing I have reads suggests that is has. It's not even fully clear when the helmet was reconstructed—it was published in 2012, but theoretically it could have been put together anytime between 2006 and then. The BM probably takes this to be a fairly minor item that is significant for research, but not for display (after all, they already have the Sutton Hoo helmet). --Usernameunique (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Fair enough: given poor state of this item in the BM photos, it's unlikely that it would ever be put on display, except as part of some kind of (very) specialist exhibition. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments have now all been addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D, appreciate the comments and support. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes

Unless I've missed something we're waiting on resolution of Johnbod's comments, plus an image review -- you can post a request for the latter at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in, Ian Rose. Still working on one of the points Johnbod raised (just responded to the others), and am waiting on OTRS for a possible replacement image (File:Shorwell_helmet_replica.jpg) for the one J Milburn pointed out, at which point I'll request an image review. (By the way Josh, also added a licensed image of the coin.) --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I would fully support the article if the non-free diagram was replaced by a free photograph of the replica. You can tag the image with {{OTRS pending}} if you have sent email permission to OTRS. (If you don't yet have permission, it shouldn't be uploaded!) I love the coin image. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
J Milburn, I have permissible from the copyright holder via email to upload it; I'm just waiting for him to fill out the online OTRS form. I'll follow up on Monday if there hasn't been any movement by then. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Ian Rose, is there any way to expedite the OTRS review of File:Shorwell_helmet_replica.jpg? The copyright holder sent an email 11 days ago, but with the current backlog, it would take more than a month for it to be reviewed. Tried asking on the Commons noticeboard a few days ago, but no luck so far. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't help with that, but I think it would be fair to promote this regardless of whether the image is included or not, provided those images that are in the article are clear. Suggest it'd be better to concentrate on tying up the responses to Johnbod's comments and let the OTRS thing take its course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
There's Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard that might be useful to get some attention. I'd make the switch in the article now and allow the permission to snail it's its way through in time. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion J Milburn, posted on the WP noticeboard and put the new image in. Hope to have the rest finished in a day or two. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm supporting now. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Ian Rose, I believe all comments are now addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

In the lede:

  • Definitely worth inserting the word "England" into the lede! Globally, most people will have no idea where the Isle of Wight is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Would CE not be more appropriate than AD? Call it 'political correctness' if you like, but it seems to be the drift of things these days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • "the contemporaneous Northern "crested helmets"." - Worth defining "Northern" more clearly here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • "part of the grave goods" - "one of the grave goods" might work better. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • I really would not bother with citations in the lede if the information is already properly cited in the main body of the article. Having a random citation in the lede just looks a bit messy, in my opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This is in response to a suggestion made above by J Milburn re: citing of quotations. I don't mind much either way—could just fully cite the lead if that would be better.
  • I think that the first sentence of the second paragraph might be better placed in the top paragraph. It deals with the original context of the artefact, whereas the other sentences in this paragraph deal only with its retrieval and study. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Done, good point.

In later sections:

  • I wonder if "Description", "Typology", and "Function" might all work well as sub-sections of a single section. They are thematically linked in a way that "Discovery" and "Context" are not. I would also suggest that the material in the "Typology" section might be better located before that in the Description section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)*
  • "Isle of Wight Metal Detecting Club" - perhaps this should link to metal detectoring?
  • Added the link to the lead. I could also link "Isle of Wight [[Metal detector#Uses|Metal Detecting Club", but didn't for the time being as the descriptive link in the middle of a proper name seems a little odd.


  • I certainly think that this is located in the wrong place, plonked as it is right at the end of the article. My suggestion would be this: create two sections, one looking at the "Context and burial" in which can be discussed both the Isle of Wight in the Anglo-Saxon period and the grave itself, and then a second section looking at the discovery, excavation and conservation. This would involve a rearrangement from what we have at present but I think it would really improve the flow of the article quite markedly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This sentence—"Two works, supplemented by the finds of archaeologists,[47] are responsible for illuminating the 600 years before the Norman conquest at all: the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a collection of annals recording the history of the Anglo-Saxons, and the Ecclesiastical History of the English People, written by the English monk Bede.["—feels pretty irrelevant. I'd scrap it, to be honest. It's not talking about the Isle of Wight or about Anglo-Saxon cemeteries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that could go. Btw, does the article link to Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, the main article on this period? Can't see that it does. A clear link to this would be good. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've reworded this sentence to make clear that the two works are responsible for the genesis stories of the Isle of Wight. The following paragraph is largely a distillation of critical looks at the Chronicle and Bede's Ecclesiastical History, which is where those perhaps fanciful stories of Cerdic, Hengist and Horsa come from. Johnbod, added a link to the article. Speaking of which, do you have any feelings for the links in the "See also" section? Those have been there since 2013, and I'm tempted to remove the entire section.
AS warfare could be linked to "high-status Anglo-Saxon warrior" in the lead maybe. The others can go I'd say. Agree with keeping AD dates - if it's good enough for the BM.... Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for your careful reading and suggestions, Midnightblueowl. I've incorporated most of your suggestions as discussed above. With regards to AD/CE, you're probably right, but as most of the similar articles (e.g., Guilden Morden boar, Pioneer helmet, and Sutton Hoo helmet) currently use AD, I'm going to think on this for a moment and then probably make the switch all at once. Regarding structure, I've changed "Typology" and "Function" to subsections of "Description"; they deal with the analysis of the helmet, whereas "Description" tackles its most basic factual nature, and so I think should go first. I've also put "Context" as a subsection of "Discovery" (as they essentially describe "Where it was found" and "History of where it was found"). The two main goals with structure are to keep it simple and to maintain consistency with the other A-S helmet articles, and hopefully this does both while addressing your comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

A few more thoughts:

  • I'm worried about the over-reliance on Hodgkin in the "Context" section. The understanding of the Anglo-Saxon period has come a long way since the 1950s. I'm wondering if you could use a more modern source that deals explicitly with the early medieval Isle of Wight. His reliance on the narrative provided in Bede is a bit concerning. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if it is worth including a few sentences about warrior graves in the period. Sam Lucy's book on the subject of Anglo-Saxon burial would have some useful bits, and Hienrich Harke has written some relevant chapters and articles over the years. I think that things like that will just help to provide a more rounded and up-to-date context, as I have tried to do in prehistory-themed articles like Coldrum Long Barrow and Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas. It is time consuming, granted, but I think it greatly improves the end result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Midnightblueowl, I'll take a look at Lucy and Härke. I had difficulty finding a work specifically on the Isle of Wight when researching the section that uses Hodgkin, probably due to the scant record. Is there anything in that section that strikes you as incorrect, or is the problem more that Hodgkin is writing in 1952? While reading Hodgin I thought he was fairly critical of Bede; only the second and third sentences of the second "Context" paragraph include material derived from Bede, but there the specifics of Bede's assertions are taken lightly. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Usernameunique As far as I understand the state of current scholarship, Bede's narrative about the Anglo-Saxon migration (Hengest and Horsa et al) is now usually understood as a reflection of 7th/8th century myths rather than as an accurate description of what was actually going on in the 5th century. So it's that aspect of Hodgkin that concerns me; his text needs to be used judiciously. I'll also take a look through Lucy tonight (if I can) and see if there is anything that I can come up with that is of use here. (Sorry I'm giving you all this extra work at FAC, but I hope that it will help - and you have done a really fantastic job thus far!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense, Midnightblueowl. Which Lucy book are you thinking of? There are several in different non-circulating libraries around here, so I want to prioritize my time accordingly (though can probably find some of Härke's works online). And thanks for approaching this thoroughly! This is an area of weakness for me, so having someone knowledgeable take a critical look is appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Her book on The Anglo-Saxon Way of Death is probably the textbook on the subject of early Anglo-Saxon burial customs. If you're interested in the period (which I'm guessing you are from your editing habits!) then I'm definitely recommend giving it a read. I have a tatty old ex-library copy with me at the moment; I'll use it to add some sentences into the article; feel free to reword my contributions as you see fit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The information you added is great, Midnightblueowl, thanks for taking the time to do so. The only changes I've made are to order; I placed the paragraph about the other grave goods from Shorwell back in discovery, to keep the account of the excavation complete, and to avoid splitting sections between fact and analysis. Two other ideas would be to put the "Context" section second (ahead of "Discovery"), or to remove the "Context" header and make "Grave goods" and "The Isle of Wight" subsections of "Discovery."
With regards to Hengist and Horsa, I've qualified the language to "according to a legend that is perhaps grounded in rudimentary fact". Hodgkin's point seems to be that while the story of Hengist and Horsa is dubious, it may reflect an actual geopolitical shift from British rule to Kent-centric Germanic rule. (Hodgkin dispenses entirely with the more problematic accounts of Hengist and Horsa, such as that put forward by Nennius.) If you think that too much weight is still being given to fairy tales, one option would be to explicate the language further; another would be to just dispense with the tale entirely and replace it with a sentence suggesting said geopolitical shift. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've made a number of edits to this article, so it would probably be inappropriate for me to explicitly offer my "support" for it becoming a Featured Article, although I do believe that it meets the criteria and hope that it is recognised as such. Good work, Usernameunique. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Image review

OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I tried adding the license you suggested for the first image, but it generates the notice that "This file is in the public domain because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of no more than the life of the author plus 100 years", which seems incorrect. Re: the third image, the CC-BY license can be found here. Re: the second, is there any way to speed up the processing? I've asked on the Commons noticeboard and on the Wikipedia noticeboard, but no luck yet. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
That license text issue is simply an artifact, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I could be wrong, but I read it as saying that the photograph itself is in the public domain, not the underlying work. The license also generates a tag saying "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. The subject of this image is still protected by copyright" (emphasis added), which seems to be saying, incorrectly, that the 1,500 year old helmet design is the copyrighted entity here. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes. In that case you'll need to add something like on its own. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, done. Is there anything else needed with regards to images? --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps some confirmation on the license of #3 would be useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, the CC-BY license is found here. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Mark XIV bomb sight

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The Mk. XIV was one of the most numerous bombsights of WWII, equipping the majority of Bomber Command during the height of their campaign against Germany. Connected to the NBS, it survived in the post-war period into the 1960s. Nevertheless, it is practically unknown today, overshadowed by the much more famous Norden (advertising pays!).

The article went through a A-class some time ago and has remained pretty static since then. There were questions about one source (Black) that don't appear to have ever been resolved, so reviewers should look at that thread.

And in case anyone is curious, although today we normally write "bombsight", such was not the case in the RAF's contemporary documents, as is the case for the "computor". Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

  • The RAF was working on the Automatic Bomb Sight along these lines: should this be "an" rather than "the"? It hasn't been mentioned before.
  • Suggest adding "contemporary" before "Norden bombsight" in the body, as you do in the lead.
  • It seems extraordinary that one branch of the UK forces would deny another branch access to important technology such as the Norden bombsight. If the background can be made both concise and interesting, it would be nice to get it in a footnote.
I rewrote this to fix both of these, it should be much clearer now.
  • What does "suction-powered" mean?
And this.
  • Any information about the Mk. XVI? You mention the XV and XVII.
None whatsoever! I asked the RAF Museum and they had no idea either.
  • As the Naval Mosquito did not have a bomb aimer's position, the sight head was unstabilized and mounted in front of the pilot: why unstabilized?
None of the sources say, so I added a note to that effect. I strongly believe it was simply because there wasn't room for it all in front of the pilot, the stabilizer is half of the mechanism. That, and that at low altitude the effect of banking the aircraft would be a few yards difference in the aim line, instead of kilometers!
  • The sight head was mounted on top of a square platform, with screw adjustments that could be used to level the platform. A spirit level on the sight allowed it to be checked. The normally periodic and minor changes required to level the sighting head could be performed by removing the cover over the spirit level and then turning a small adjusting screw on the mount. Repetitive, unless these refer to different things, in which case that's not clear.
Indeed unclear, rewritten.
  • Can we get a link or an explanation of the difference between the systematic error and random error?
I added this with a note and an inline to a discussion. I guess it could be in the body, but take a look and see what you think of it now.

That's everything I can see. I made some minor copyedits; the prose is clean. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Support. The fixes look good; this is FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "Low Level Bombsight, Mark IIIs" (meant as a plural proper noun): Ugh.
Nice catch... reworded sentance for clarity.
  • "were in focused at infinity, allowing the user to focus their eyes on the target and not have to change focus to see the line": two many instances of "focus". "in focused"?
Indeed, fixed! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:462_Squadron_RAAF_Halifax_bombsight_AWM_P01523.007.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    Interesting question. Ronald Maxwell Hines was a member of No. 462 Squadron during the war. At some point he gave his collection of photographs to the Australian War Memorial. (We don't know when that was, although if we really, really wanted to know, I could drive round there and ask. They keep this information on file.) The handover date legally became the publication date, and the images became Commonwealth-owned photographs. Copyright expired world-wide 50 years after the images were taken during the war. We could use the {{PD-AustraliaGov}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Not sure about the direct external link in Note 2. Such notes are normally treated as part of the text and subject to the same restrictions regarding ext. links. An alternative would be to treat the link as a source and use a normal citation.
Do you mean the link to the image? It's not being used to cite the text, so I'm not sure what restrictions apply here?
  • There's a hyphen in the page range of ref 38 which should be an ndash.
  • "Harry Black" sources: the publisher in each case is given as the "RAF Bomber Command Association Newsletter". I guess, however, that since you give no details of this newsletter, e.g. dates, your source is this website, a privately prepared archive – see "about the archive". I'm not doubting the late Harry Black's credentials, but I think the source information should make the provenance clear.
My source is the web site. I contacted the current "owners" of the newsletter for further information but they were unbelievably unhelpful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Subject to these points, sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Meets FA standard in my opinion. Some minor suggestions:

  • "Windspeed" should be "wind speed"
  • "venturii" should be "venturi"
  • "center" should be "centre"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
All fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the city of dim sum, the epitome of "East meets West", and the place that brought us Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. I've put a lot of work into improving the quality of this article over the last several months, and I believe it's up to par with FA criteria. Much appreciated, -Horserice (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It's great to see this important article developed to a high standard and at FAC. I'll work through the article, but due to its size, it might take me a few goes. I have the following comments, but as as over-arching comments, I have concerns about the quality and sufficiency of some of the sourcing and the internal links should be reviewed to remove over-linking.

  • The second para of the lead should briefly note the region's pre-British history given the extent of the coverage of this in the article
@Nick-D: How would you fit that into the current content? Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding a bit to the start of the second para of the lead Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "and supported by its independent judiciary system" - I suspect that this now needs a qualifier
@Nick-D: Changed to "common law judiciary system" Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
My point is that the judiciary is no longer seen as being totally independent of the government. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Britain resumed control of the colony shortly after the surrender of Japan, on 30 August 1945" - to be pedantic, this was actually shortly before the formal surrender of Japan on 2 September.
 Done Fixed that detail. Horserice (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "The construction of the Shek Kip Mei Estate in 1953 marked the beginning of the public housing estate programme, which provided shelter for the less privileged and helped cope with the continuing influx of immigrants." - needs a reference
 Done Added government ref. Horserice (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "the government began a series of reforms to improve the quality of infrastructure and public services through the 1970s." - perhaps say why: as I understand it, this was to stop the building unrest which was threatening British rule
  • There's a bit of over-linking. Chinese Civil War, Governor of Hong Kong, etc
  • I'd suggest noting why the continued British rule over Hong Kong was unviable by the 1980s (as I understand it, the New Territories were vital for water supply and other reasons, and China was making barely-veiled threats of launching a military attack if the British didn't leave soon)
@Nick-D: Everything that I've read about this perception seems like a "he said, she said" thing. Yes, it seems like the British had the impression that the Chinese would have really attacked if they didn't come to terms in 1984, but I have not found a Chinese source to corroborate the possible military strike.
As for the water stuff, I will try to find more sourcing. Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
History books, journal articles, etc, cover the issue of why Britain handed all of Hong Kong back. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
As I (having peer reviewed this just before the FAC) seem to recall having read, the original negotiation was over returning the New Territories. Deng told Thatcher that, global opprobrium notwithstanding, he could still very easily order a military action over the river and just take most of it back that way. Thatcher went and looked at Boundary Street and realized that if China did reclaim the New Territories by force, the remaining portion of the territory would be extremely hard to defend, so she came back to Deng and offered him the whole thing.

So, if that's true, it doesn't look like there was a direct military threat. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Do we really need a full paragraph on the Kowloon Walled City? It involves jumping back at the narrative, and seems more detailed than the rest of the history section.
@Nick-D: It's an interesting anomaly of the Second Convention of Peking, so I felt it warranted more exposition in that section. It definitely was a major point of contention in negotiations between the two parties at the time, but I definitely can see the relative non-importance in the context of this article. How would you suggest trimming it down? Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
One or two sentences seems proportional Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done Horserice (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised that the material on the history of the city from the 1980s onwards is sourced almost exclusively to newspaper reports and the like. There are a number of history books on this subject which should provide broader coverage.
@Nick-D: There wasn't much there before on the 1980s, but agreed, could probably find additional book sourcing. Don't currently have access to that material, but will try to find something good when I can. Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "On 1 July 1997, sovereignty over Hong Kong was officially transferred from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China, marking the end of 156 years of British colonial rule. As Britain's last major and most populous remaining colony, the handover effectively represented the end of the British Empire. Exactly at midnight, all government organisations with royal patronage simultaneously dropped the Royal prefix from their titles and any regalia with references to the Crown were replaced with insignia bearing the Bauhinia." - the reference given supports little of this: it's about the personal experiences of a police officer.
 Done Replaced cite with conference proceeding on HK flags/insignia. Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The sole reference for the paragraph beginning with "Infrastructure post-handover has been rapidly developed" also doesn't support much of the content. It's also an opinion article, and so probably isn't a suitable reference for this kind of material.
  • The 'Legal system and judiciary' section should more clearly note how the Hong Kong legal system interacts with the main Chinese legal system, especially in light of recent events.
@Nick-D: There's more detail on some of the controversy surrounding that under 'Sociopolitical issues and human rights'. Is that not enough? Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Put it in the appropriate place. The article can be duplicative at times. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "and both governments collaborate on a number of economic and bilateral agreements" - this is referenced to two examples of agreements, and so doesn't support the statement that there are a number of such agreements. A broader source is needed.
  • Couldn't find a broader source, but I added more references to said agreements. Horserice (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Find a source that supports what the article is saying. I find it hard to believe that no one has ever written anything about the UK government and post-handover HK government striking a number of deals. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, did a bunch of digging and a sufficient article did not come up about this topic. If the agreements don't even come up as a topic of discussion in a parliamentary report, then I don't know where else to find something about it. Replaced this bit with stuff about BC cultural activity. Horserice (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The para starting with 'Hong Kong consists of three geographical regions' needs a reference
@Nick-D: I don't really know what would be a good reference for this. There's scattered mentions of this throughout government sites, like [13], [14], and [15]. Horserice (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "The government dropped this proposal after fierce opposition" - when did this occur?
@Nick-D: One of the sources indicates that? I can find more sourcing on it if necessary. Horserice (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done Updated with year and link to article about proposed bill. Horserice (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "During the colonial era, territorial defence was the responsibility of the British Forces Overseas Hong Kong, supplemented by local militia organized as the Royal Hong Kong Regiment" - the reference given for this (a transcript for a 1970 Legislative Council session) is inappropriate.
@Nick-D: May drop this sentence since it seems out of place with the rest of the content in that section. Horserice (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems pretty relevant to me (this aspect of the handover involved some significant changes, with Hong Kongers being barred from the defence of their city, leading to an even more colonial-style military force being stationed there), and would be easy to reference. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "In the Köppen–Geiger classification system, Hong Kong has a humid subtropical climate (Cwa), though it is situated 128 kilometres (80 mi) south of the Tropic of Cancer" - the source only covers the distance from the equator, and not the climate classification
  • There's a [not in citation given] tag dated to August 2017
 Done Updated. Horserice (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The Architecture section could be broadened to note that pretty much all of the urban area (even the new towns and townships on the south coast of Hong Kong which in most places would be low rise) are dominated by densely packed tall buildings of similar appearance, even though they may not qualify as skyscapers. This element of the urban form is striking (especially for suburbanites like myself!) and fairly unusual.
  • There's some inconsistency in how page numbers are presented in references - please settle on one style.
  • Okay, will do this in one pass after addressing all other issues. Horserice (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The 'Economy' section should discuss how China's development is putting Hong Kong's economic model under pressure and where its advantages lie - eg, as Chinese ports develop there's less need for transshipment and as the Chinese financial sector develops there's less need to go through Hong Kong. Conversely, Hong Kong's legal system still means that its an attractive place for companies doing business in China to locate their headquarters, as contracts can be enforced and corruption is rare.
  • " 26.6 million visitors contributed US$32.9 billion in international tourism receipts in 2016, making Hong Kong the 14th most popular destination for international tourists. It is also the most popular city for tourists, receiving over 70 per cent more visitors than its closest competitor, Macau" - reference lacks a page number
 Done Horserice (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "The city is further consistently ranked as one of the most expensive cities for expatriates" - one of the references dates to 2009
  • Since the sentence says "consistently ranked", wouldn't it be good to leave that older reference in? If the other ref is good enough, then I can remove it. Horserice (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Over 90% of daily journeys are made on public transport, the highest such percentage in the world" - the reference dates this figure to 2003, which seems rather elderly
 Done Updated reference. Horserice (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Launched in 1997 on the Mass Transit Railway, it is the second contactless smart card system in the world to be used and is a ubiquitous form of payment throughout the territory." - needs a reference
 Done Updated. Horserice (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Road traffic in the territory drives on the left, unlike that of mainland China. " - I'd suggest saying why
 Done Updated. Horserice (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The single reference for this para also doesn't cover most of its content
  • Are maps sufficient references for that? Or do I have to find some written source? Horserice (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Added map references. Horserice (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "and are now almost exclusively used; single-decker buses remain in use for routes with lower demand or roads with lower load capacity. Public light buses serve most parts of Hong Kong" - this is a bit confusing. The double deckers aren't really 'almost exclusively used': while they do seem to be the standard bus for the main routes (and can be found driving in places I would have thought impossible to fit them!), there are vast numbers of the light buses.
  • Rephrased it a bit to try to disambiguate that public light buses != single-decker buses. Horserice (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Mandatory education has contributed to an adult literacy rate of 95.7%" - this is very low by the standards of other places as rich as Hong Kong (where literacy is usually virtually universal). Can you say why? Presumably this is due to the rapid pace of Hong Kong's development and the large influxes of migrants.
 Done Horserice (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Programme for International Student Assessment ranked Hong Kong's education system as the second best in the world." - the reference dates to 2006, and PISA is regularly conducted so much more recent figures are available. This characterisation of its results also isn't really accurate: it would be more accurate to say something like Hong Kong 15 year olds achieved the second highest results on the assessment, or to briefly note the aspect of the system which was found to be good (for instance, a small gap between the highest and lowest scores, etc) - sorry to be pedantic, but I worked with PISA in a previous job.
 Done I just omitted this line. Didn't really know what I'd use the updated stats to illustrate. Horserice (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • "Life expectancy in Hong Kong is 81.3 years for males and 87.3 years for females as of 2016, making it the highest in the world" - the source says it's the seventh highest.
 Done Horserice (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm also unkeen on the description of Hong Kong's culture being largely referenced to recent newspaper stories. As I understand it, there's a large literature on this topic, including books and journal articles, so this may not fully reflect the views on the issue.
  • Reference 413 lacks a page number
  • "Hong Kong is a recognized global centre of trade" - this has been noted several times previously
  • The description of the film industry should note that it's now considered somewhat faded.
  • Most of the para starting with 'Magazine and newspaper publishers in Hong Kong' needs to be referenced
  • Overall, the article provides very solid coverage of the topic, and strikes a good balance when covering most topics. Given what a complex topic this is, it's impressive work. However, I'm concerned about the extent of issues with sourcing I noticed without focusing on this specifically (in regards to references not supporting material, and the over-use of news stories), and the amount of over-linking also needs to be addressed. I think it would be helpful if a specialist in referencing could look in on this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Applied for WP:JSTOR access to try to address sourcing concerns, but since there's a waitlist, I'm not sure there's much I could do about diversifying sources in the short term. Will try to use books over newspapers where possible, but it seems I won't have good access to that for some time. Horserice (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment on sources

  • Not a review at this stage. But the links in what at this point are refs 271 and 390 are both dead, and there may well be others – the external link checking tool is unreliable.
  • By my reckoning, around 60 books are cited, but it's a hard job finding them among the mass of citations. I would prefer to see the books listed separately, with short harvard citations; then it would be easier to assess the nature and extent of the in-depth sources, as opposed to the proliferation of newspaper and government sources.
    • I would also recommend this Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It will be a massively time-consuming job to do a worthwhile review of the 436 references, and it makes me question, not for the first time, the wisdom of preparing articles that greatly exceed the maximum dimensions recommended in WP:SIZE. Apart from questions of readability, there's the problem of reviewability – who has the time? Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • So what do you suggest we do about that? Horserice (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    On TV Tropes when we need to review an unreasonable amount of links, we review a random sample of N links. N beingeither 20 or the square root of the number of links, whichever is larger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • If there are several problems among the 436, sampling just 20 is most unlikely to catch them all. You'd be lucky to net one. Perhaps you should ask the coordinators what they would accept as constituting a fair sample check of the sources. If you were to do as I've suggested and list the books separately, that would help – they could be checked out quite easily. But the real answer to your problem is to keep articles within the length guidelines specified in MoS – too late for that now, I suppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I was working off the assumption that even at FAC level checking every single claim against the source is not a realistic undertaking and that a spot check does work on a representative sample. Myself I do perform an "every claim against its source" check at GAN and DYK but that only on shorter articles, passing up longer articles. Anyhow, @WP:FAC coordinators: . Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest a larger-than-typical sample here given the concerns I have with the sourcing, as noted above. Nick-D (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • A relatively small sample would be fine for checking claims against the sources. Aside from that, we need to check that the links are all working (I found two, see above, that aren't), that they go to the intended site, and that each reference is properly formatted. These checks can't really be done satisfactorily by ordinary sampling – I really think it's for the coordinators to decide what's acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I am not saying that we need to check every citation against its source. That would be impractical, and never happens at FAC; we might sometimes require a sample spotcheck. But, we do need to look at the nature of each of the sources to judge their reliability; we need to be sure that the external links are all working (at the moment there are still the two dead links that I pointed out above); we also need to check that the formats are correct and consistent throughout. Listing the 60-odd books separately would help. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Alright, I did a pass at listing a lot of the sources separately. I think that should help you out. Horserice (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • March_of_the_Volunteers_instrumental.ogg: the current tag seems to apply only to "photographs and cinematographic works, and all works whose copyright holder is a juristic person"
  • But the next part of that line says that it also applies to "all works whose copyright holder is a juristic person". Horserice (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sung_Wong_Toi_before_1943.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with QRCDuddell_1900.jpg, 1945_liberation_of_Hong_Kong_at_Cenotaph.jpg
  • Updated sources for Sung_Wong_Toi_before_1943.jpg and QRCDuddell_1900.jpg. Not sure if that's enough? Library source doesn't indicate more than just that they were published by the Museum of History. I also replaced the Cenotaph image. Horserice (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Ended up replacing all images except for Sung_Wong_Toi_before_1943.jpg, so I think this is mostly done. Horserice (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • HKSAR_passport_cover_(biometric).svg is missing a FUR
  • Daniel Case is working on retrieving a more appropriate image instead of the passports, so just noting that at least this picture will be a nonissue soon. Horserice (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
@Horserice and Nikkimaria: I have now added this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done Horserice (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • File:HKU1912.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  •  Done Ended up replacing with a more recent image listed as an original work. Horserice (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • City_of_Victoria.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Also replaced this image. Horserice (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

2007 AT&T 250

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a race in the 2007 NASCAR Busch Series, known today as the Xfinity Series for sponsorship reasons. The race was notable because of a driver change involving Joe Gibbs Racing's Aric Almirola and Denny Hamlin; the latter went on to win the race while the former was given credit for the victory per NASCAR rules. I believe the article is up to par with the other NASCAR FAs. As always, all feedback is welcomed and greatly appreciated. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by User:Royalbroil

I am very familiar with NASCAR as a WikiProject member. I live in Wisconsin and attended several NASCAR races at this track (but not this particular one). I am reviewing from that perspective. Royalbroil 04:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  • 1a. Well written
    • Yes
  • 1b. Comprehensive
    • Yes
  • 1c. well-researched
    • I checked all of the sources - they are all are very reliable IMHO.
    • "Four Wisconsin-born drivers entered the race hoping to continue the trend: Scott Wimmer, Todd Kluever, Kelly Bires, and Frank Kreyer." The article later has Kvapil who is also from Wisconsin. Was he entered or was he just supposed to practice in place of Edwards?
    • Kvapil was in the same situation as Almirola and Darnell; he was practicing in place of a Cup regular. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    • "Almirola qualified his No. 20 car on pole position with a time of 29.608 seconds." isn't cited with a RS.
  • 1d. Neutral
    • Well done
  • 1d. stable
    • definitely
  • 2a. style: lead
    • well done
  • 2b. structure
    • Well organized
  • 2c. consistent citations
    • yes
  • 3. Media
    • All have appropriate licenses. I had a hand in most of the images for this article (unbeknownst to me when I started reviewing this FA). I took one, cropped another, and located/uploaded another from flickr.
  • 4. Length
    • Appropriate
@Royalbroil: Thank you for your comments. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Thank you for addressing my concerns! Royalbroil 02:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from Argento Surfer

  • I think Busch league should link to Bush league to make the pun clear for readers unfamiliar with the term.
  • "With at time of 29.981 seconds" - something's off here
  • "Wimmer was the fastest in the opening" - if only elapsed time is given, then he's the quickest. Fast relates to speed. (2 instances in this paragraph)
  • The ET is shown to the third decimal. Is it worth mentioning the difference between Wimmer and 10th place in the prose to show the tightness of the field?
  • I don't think any of the other NASCAR GAs and FAs do this so I'd prefer not to for consistency's sake, though if you insist, I'll oblige. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Other than these minor things, the prose looks great. Argento Surfer (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Argento Surfer: I have amended the issues raised. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm satisfied. Happy to support. Argento Surfer (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

Nominator(s): ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm nominating Mowbray for Featured Article status; originally little more than a stub, I expanded it and gave it a thorough re-write, and it has most recently undergone an extremely thorough (if informal) peer review on the article talk page, as well as a thorough copyediting by some of the best brains in the business, as it were. This is my first attempt at the FAR process, so please don't be gentle!

John de Mowbray is one of those medieval characters of whom—while we know very little, if anything, of their personal or private lives—reveals a lot about themselves by their reaction to events and treatment (including mistreatment!) of political rivals. Mowbray has much that personifies the "overmighty subject" of the Wars of the Roses, private feuds and killings, imprisonment in the Tower of London, roadside trysts with his wife, and finally, in the last months of his, literally changing the course of history by being late. What he was late to, though, was the biggest and bloodiest battle in English history, with decisive results. All round, an interesting if not always pleasant man—but no less the product of his age than anyone else. That, however, is another question.

All comments and commentators are extremely welcome. Thank you. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment and image review

  • Advise against having both father/son and predecessor/successor in the lead template
  • Suggest scaling up the Towton map
  • File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Sir_John_Mowbray,_3rd_Duke_of_Norfolk,_KG.png should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design
  • File:Vigiles_de_Charles_VII,_fol._90v,_Siège_de_Calais_(1436).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: Thank you very much for kickstarting this. Right—I think I've addressed the image issues. Towton now 500px; pd-old and us-pd for the coat of arms (was originally published in 1901, author died in 1919, note left to that effect); also us-pd on the Calais siege. I edited the Commons page by the way—that's right?
    • Regarding your first point— could you clarify slightly? I'm not sure what the lead template is, and specifically what father/son, heir/successor means?! Sorry! Thanks again, ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • She means, she feels it's unnecessary duplication for the infobox to include his father and son, and his predecessor and successor, since they're one and the same. I disagree in this particular case; while in this instance they're identical because he succeeded his father on the latter's death rather than by means of attainder etc, and he only had one child, I think it's important the infobox make this clear. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I see; yes, actually I can see their point (ironically—re. your point below, of course I couldn't see that...because the box is collapsed! Somewhat QED eh). Right: I'm easy on this. What's the strategy? Perhaps wait for a consensus of more editors to emerge? ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
          • My personal opinion is to look at similar articles and be consistent with what they do—most people reading an article this niche will likely be surfing through a whole batch of Wars of the Roses articles, and consequently it's a service for everything to be where they expect to find it. Take this with a pinch of salt, as I'm fairly hardline "box unless there's a specific reason not to" when it comes to the Infobox Wars. ‑ Iridescent 12:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes, editing the Commons pages is correct. The one issue with what you've done is the scaling - per WP:IMGSIZE that should generally be done using |upright= rather than a fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you, Nikkimaria, this is all most interesting: I've changed to the |upright parameter. Is that so he imaget stays in proportion to the rest of the page regardless of screen resolution? I think 1.8 was a sufficient increase to easily see the details without overtaking the section; but please say if you don't agree. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
        • It's so the image stays in proportion to what you've set as your default image size. If you've never set one (or are not logged in), that will be 220px, so times 1.8 would give a display size of 396px - someone who'd set a smaller default would see a display smaller than that, and someone who'd set larger a larger display. The scaling you've used seems fine, at least with my settings. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
          • Understood, thanks a lot. I went by the mobile view, and it fits quite snuggly next to the whole paragraph. Cheers! ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


A brief support from me. To save going over everything again, I already nitpicked this one to pieces on the talkpage and everything was addressed. (I'd lose the collapsible infobox—it screws things up for anyone with poor motor skills or trying to print a hard copy of the article, and this page doesn't suffer from clutter to such a degree that the box needs to be minimized—but that's just me.) The usual disclaimed that I haven't performed any kind of source review. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  • OK: Thought it was getting in the way of the quote box beneath. Many thanks, also for the picking of nits out of him. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

Very comprehensive and readable, and reviewed elsewhere by better editors than I. The following are more to show I've read it than serious criticisms Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • the William de la Pole, Earl (later Duke) of Suffolk?
    • Lost the def. article.
  • felt increasingly excluded from government became increasingly belligerent.—over-increased
    • How about, "Richard, Duke of York, who by the 1450s was feeling excluded from government, became increasingly belligerent"?
  • a Paston letters reports —singular "letter", surely, even if linked to the Paston Letters?
    • Absolutely.
  • Please check whether all uses of "however" and leading "although" are necessary


Read, copy-edited and reviewed this closely in the last few weeks. What a strange man and wonderful article. Happy to Support. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)


First glance is a support from me. Anything that appears below is trivial - unless I strike this!

  • opening parag jumps around chronologically, which affects the reader's response to his 'treacherous' switch to York. Drop the first mention of the Wars of the Roses, move the wikilink and it'll all flow better methinks.
  • "short career" bit in Lead is at best PEACOCK and at worst POV. Either way, kill it with fire.

More maybe. Or maybe not. I am semi-retired y'know, grumble grumble. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much Dweller—starting from the bottom, would "who, despite having a relatively short political career, played a significant role in the early years of the Wars of the Roses" be better?
  • I've broken up that first para and moved the relevant elements to their respective chronological positions.
Any suggestions are always welcome, even if it does mean dragging you from the comfort of the "Sunshine Home for the Wiki-aged"  ;) Sorry! Thanks very much for your involvement, it's greatly apprecited as ever. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

I fear I too often overlook things during PR that I only spot at FAC, which is annoying, and I apologise. A few quick and rather random points for now; I'll give the text a properly close scrutiny a.s.a.p and report back here.

  • Date ranges
    • It looks to me as though in the first line of the lead you have an unspaced em dash rather than the prescribed spaced en-dash.
Indeed; I've been proactive and gone through the article inserting ' – ' where necessary. Don't think I missed m/any?
  • Quote boxes
    • You are inconsistent in whether to include the ornamental large quotation marks. The first has them, the second doesn't, the third and fourth do, and the fifth doesn't. I rather like them, though some editors whom I greatly respect can't be having with them at any price. But either way, I think you should be consistent.
Well spotted; I've inserted quotes where necessary—although that last one is quoting a poem. Not sure of that makes a difference?
  • False title
    • There is a clunky one in the second para of Cultural depictions.
(comment below)
  • Under the Yorkists
    • "(theoretically, at east)" – at best or at least?
Least, changed.
    • Always a matter of judgment, admittedly, but to my mind nobody reading this article is going to want a link to gentry, favourite, estate, court, royal favourite, factional (second link, at least) and gentry (again).
I bow to your better judgement; I have a bad habit of automatically linking and thus eventually overlinking. I obviously don't trust my own ability to explain things. (Actually, I probably would have kept Royal court.)
  • Battle of Towton
    • You write "rear-guard", but link to "rearguard". The dictionaries favour the latter.
Absolutely, cheers.

More anon. Tim riley talk 20:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

"Shakesperian scholar" discussion
On the false title, on this particular occasion I'd consider Shakespearian scholar W. W. Greg suggests… is actually preferable to The Shakespearian scholar W. W. Greg suggests…; to me, the latter suggests that he's the only one, or at least the pre-eminent one. Something like It has been suggested by W. W. Greg, one of the leading bibliographers and Shakespeare scholars of the 20th century… might work; this would also make it clear to the reader that Greg is someone worth listening to on this point and not a junior lecturer at a community college in the middle of nowhere, who happens to have a pet theory. ‑ Iridescent 20:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd be a bit cautious about this. I doubt if avoiding a journalese false title by the simple addition of a definite article would mislead anyone. "The actor Boris Karloff" or "the singer Peter Pears" for instance, would, I think, be unlikely to be taken as implying that either was the only or the preeminent actor/singer, and the same seems to me to apply to Mr Greg; and waxing eloquent about Greg's qualifications would itself call for citations to justify it. Tim riley talk 21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Would using Iridescent's proposed wording be acceptable, Tim riley, if I could find sourcing for the claims to be waxed lyrical over...? On the assumption that I could find them of course. Just a word to explain my own reasoning for titling him so; throughout the article I referred to "Historian X" (or some such form of words) as a means of verifying the credentials for those giving the opinion, and I thought—consitency again—that I should clarify (not only as Iridescent says that he is qualified to comment) that he is specifically not a historian unlike everyone else previously mentioned. I think it likely that without some sort of qualifier, the reader will (understandably if incorrectly) assume that he too is an historian. But, what say you? ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
It isn't for me to lay down the law about your drafting. Having given my comments I leave them to you to act on or not as you think best. More comments, as promised, in the next few days, I hope. Tim riley talk 16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't take my word for it on his qualifications; I've never heard of him and am taking my proposed wording verbatim from W. W. Greg, which if accurate implies that his opinions are particularly important when it comes to Shakespeare. The sourcing on his WP biography is dreadful, but his ODNB entry does appear to back this up, albeit reading like something written by the man himself or a family friend, rather than an impartial analysis. (In youth Greg was unusually handsome and in old age he remained an impressive figure. Redoubtable in print, he was sometimes so in person, if angered by pretence or arrogance or slipshod writing. But he was friendly and accessible to younger scholars, and always a punctual correspondent.) ‑ Iridescent 18:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Idea—would depersonalisation remove the fake title? Something like, "one scholar of Shakespeare's plays, W. W. Greg, has suggested that..."?
Yeah nice advert that  :) G11-worthy stuff from ODNB. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Tim riley: I've just tweaked the wording per my comment above—what say you to how it reads now? —SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, I can confirm that W. W. Greg is a Big Deal™ in Shakespeare studies (anybody familiar with the field will instantly recognize the name), and that "Shakespeare scholar" is, presumably due to the more than usually multi-disciplinary nature of it, a common way to refer to people like Greg. It's not an actual title anywhere so far as I'm aware, but it is commonly used where one in neighbouring fields might use historian, historiographer, lexicographer, paleographer, professor of Shakespeare studies, etc. That is, the original phrasing was correct, and the current phrasing suggests that Greg just read a lot of plays (he did a lot of work on bibliography, textual provenance, and Early Modern English theatre in general; as well as other playwrights than Shakespeare). Iridescent's slightly peacocky suggestion above might also work, since the plaudits are actually merited in Greg's case.
And Greg's ODNB entry is written by F. P. Wilson and Henry Woudhuysen, both themselves familiar names in the field. And if it reads kinda chummy it's presumably an artefact of Shakespeare studies in general being a bit like the cliché of old Oxbridge academia: I'm guessing Wilson originally wrote it and treated it essentially like a Festschrift, and Woudhuysen has only minimally updated it. --Xover (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, a "Support" from Xover there  ;) the "current phrasing" you refer to is as of my latest edit, I take it? Thanks very uch for talking the time to comment, Xover, greatly appreciated. —SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes, sorry for not being specific. previous and current in my comment are the edits either side of your edit.
BTW, Bromley 2011 doesn't attribute the identification of Mowbray with the "Duke of Norfolk" character in The Merry Devil of Edmonton to Greg. It only says Greg argued the play was set during the reign of Henry VI of England (rather than Henry VII of England), and then draws the conclusions about Mowbray itself. I don't currently have access to Fiehler 1949, which might make this attribution, but Bromley cites Greg in this journal article and David Kathman's article on Peter Fabell in the ODNB. If you have OUP access you might want to check these for a direct attribution of this identification to Greg.
And while you're futzing around with this section, it could stand a bit more context: what does it mean if Mowbray is that Duke of Norfolk? Bromley provides a good overview that can be briefly summarised (I'm thinking specifically on the contemporary associations of the title, and the poaching theme).
And you're very welcome, and I hope my comments may be of some use. Feel free to ping me if something Shakespeare-y pops up. I'm by no means an expert, but I have some superficial familiarity with the area and would be happy to help when I'm able. --Xover (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Nice one Xover, that's reallly useful. I've ODNB up so I'll look into your suggestions: this is a Good Thing, because I was slightly ashamed of the "Cultral depictions" section, which is a testimony to my ignorance of all things Shakespeare/ean. It looks a little throw-away at the moment, so what you've suggested should allow for a little expansion. Some good I mean to do, as the feller said  ;) cheers! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@Xover: It occured to me, do have any good sources regarding Norfolk in Shakespeare? It seems ironic that now, the paragraph about his possible characterization in an incomplete anonymous play is twice the size of the one about his definite, etc., appearance in Shakespeare-! Any suggestions gratefuly received. Cheers! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 18:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll have a look and see what I can find. But I wouldn't expect too much since Norfolk has all of three lines in 3 Henry VI: "Such hope have all the line of John of Gaunt!", "We’ll all assist you. He that flies shall die.", and "And I to Norfolk with my followers." Other characters refer to him only twice, as I recall, and only incidentally. If I find anything I'll drop it on the talk page, since I'm starting to feel I'm blundering around making a mess of Tim's section of comments here (sorry about that Tim!). --Xover (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
That's most courteous! But apologies are really not needed. Tim riley talk 12:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Having given the article one last read-through I'm now happy to support its promotion to FA. Two final points, neither of them terribly important. First "archenemy" should be hyphenated according to the OED (though if you counter with archbishop and archfiend I shall not fight to the death in defence of the OED's version). Secondly, as we round into the home straight I can't find any way of seeing this as a sequitur: "Mowbray did not live long enough to benefit from the Yorkist victory. On 2 November 1461, Howard was arrested by the new Yorkist regime. Mowbray died four days later on 6 November 1461." Mowbray was presumably not so attached to Howard that the latter's arrest caused the former to suffer an apoplexy?

    • That was a laugh-out-loud moment! I see, it does rather imply cause and effect doesn't it (incidentally, I agree about "Arch- and have adjusted accordingly, thank you). As you say, they might have been close, but not that close  :) the reason I meantioned it was because it tied in with not getting the support of the new govt. But since that was in the previous section, I've moved Howard's arrest there. Although, thinking about it, if you questioned its entire relevance, I'm beginning to wonder myself...
      Thank you very much for the support though Tim riley! —SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Glancing below, I see you ask BB about how to convert 10-digit ISBNs: this link is all you need: riley talk 12:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Just a few small presentational points:

  • The 13-digit ISBN formats ought to be standardised. The form normally employed is 978-x-xxxxx-xxx-x. There are also a few 10-digit versions which ought to be converted.
    • Done all the 13s; any means of converting the 10s? and converted all the 10s Many thanks to Tim riley for the help with that
  • Page range formats: Ref 16 differs from your standard (see e.g. 58, 86, 92 etc}
    • @Brianboulton: I think I've rumbled it—you meant 100-10 rather than 100-110, for example? Ah ha! I've changed to three-digit ranges throughout the refs in the body too. If so, ignore this---> Err: sorry about this—but I've gone and added a few more sources which of course has screwed up the numbering—would you be able to re-identify the one you meant please? I'm afraid I can't see it (cf., blind spot, of course)
  • Boardman 1996 and 1998: Are the respective publishers "Alan Sutton" and "Sutton" one and the same?
    • Indeed, certainly the same firm, but I think they must have changed their imprint in that two-year gap, as those are the actual publishers given in the front?
  • Goodman: is it possible to specify location more precisely than "US"?
    • Ah!—New York, acc. Worldcat; but, honestly, the actual bok is that vague. Bizarre.
  • Grummitt: som eextra words appear to have crept in.
    • What ones? The "short histor of..."? Changed to just "Short history"—it's the name of the series. Or is it something else I've missed?

The sources themselves appear to be of excellent quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this forensic touch, Brianboulton—I have got a couple of queries I'm afraid, and it's not that I'm not going to address your remaining points, ust need a touch of (re-)clarifyication first  :) Cheers, ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 15:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Prose comments

I've started a careful readthrough, and found the following issues in the lead:

  • "Mowbray command the defence of England's possessions..."
    • -ed, of course.
  • "and in 1438 he again led a force to Calais". Again? When was the first time?
    • "He also fought in Calais in 1436, and from1437 to 1438 he served a year's term as warden of the east march on the Anglo-Scottish border. That year he then returned to the fighting in Calais again"—any good?
  • "often taking the law into his own hands—and often breaking it". Surely, taking the law into your own hands is breaking it?
    • Well; in the fifteenth century they weren't necessarilly synonymous; a magnate could quite easily take the law into his own hands without necessarilly breaking the King's peace (crushing rebellions, etc., spring to mind: pardons after the fact were a fact of politics, as, indeed, were applying for pardons in advance!), so I thought it ought to be emphasised that this was not such and occasion. However: "often violently taking the law into his own hands" if you think better?
  • "Such tactics were also employed by his enemies..." It's not clear what you mean by "such tactics"; the preceding sentence reads: "He was bound over for massive sums and imprisoned twice in the Tower of London".
    • Becomes "Violent tactics were also employed by his enemies"?
  • "but often Mowbray was was..."
  • "Mowbray was instrumental in helping Edward win the Battle of Towton by his late arrival with reinforcements in April 1461." I'd be inclined to reconstruct this, by bringing the date to the start of the sentence, and adding a comma: "In April 1461 Mowbray was instrumental in helping Edward win the Battle of Towton, by his late arrival with reinforcements".

Some of these glitches appear to have entered the article after this FAC began. It may be useful to check the rest of the prose, to see if other minor errors have inadvertently been introduced. Meantime I'm reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Another slice of prose review:

Background and youth
  • I think it's contrary to MoS to include birth–death year ranges for blue-linked individuals. I can't lay my hands on the specific guideline but perhaps someone else can.
    • Believe you Brianboulton, and removed from his mother and father accordingly.
  • The phrase "being placed upon him" seems redundant as you say "personal" restrictions.
    • I removed "personal" so as to keep who had imposed them ("council-imposed restrictions being placed upon him").
  • "but not the rest of his inheritance" – somwhat vague: wahat was this "rest"?
    • Changed to "inherited the office of Earl Marshal, but not yet his father's lands or titles."
  • Suggest remove non-encyclopaedic interpolation "in fact".
    • Done.
  • Pipe link encumbered
    • Done.
  • link dowager
    • Done.
  • "Constance died in 1437, but his mother survived until 1483" – "his" needs defining. Also, in the previous section you give the mother's death year as 1484.
    • Specified "but Mowbray's mother survived"; also adjusted the earlier erroneous mention of her death in 1484 (it was the prevoius year, just after RIII's coronation.
Claim to the earldom of Arundel
  • Inappropriate section heading. The claim is not referred to after the first short paragraph.
    • Mmmm fair point; changed to "Claim to the earldom of Arundel, royal service and local rivalries." Is this still too bulky? Can't really think of an all inclusive short phrase that covers things as diverse as the section covers...?
Crime and disorder in East Anglia
  • I think "ancestors" would be a better term than "predecessors".
    • Agree.
  • "was thus unable to ever establish" is clumsy. "was thus never able to establish"
    • Thank you; stolen.
  • "East Anglia was forced upon him..." Slightly confusing phrase. I think it means he had no choice for his power base other than East Anglia, but I'm not sure. It needs to be more clearly stated.
    • Right: How bout "The choice of making East Anglia the locus of his landed authority was somewhat forced upon him by the fact that this was where the bulk of his estates were."
    • OK, but I'd replace "by the fact that" with "since" or "because". Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
-OK, "since."
  • "Their feud was often violent, and encouraged their retainers to fight". I'd word this slightly differently: "Their feud was often violent, and their retainers were encouraged to fight". Also you have "retainers ... retainers" in the line.
    • "Their feud was often violent, and this encouraged clashes between their respective followers. In 1435, some Mowbray retainers..."
  • "In 1435, some Mowbray retainers (led by Robert Wingfield, Mowbray's steward of Framlingham Castle) murdered one of de la Pole 's (James Andrew)". Again, somewhat clumsy and over-bracketed. Perhaps "In 1435, Robert Wingfield, Mowbray's steward of Framlingham, led a group of Mowbray retainers who murdered James Andrew, one of de la Pole's men" – or some such.
    • Thanks for that; used your phrasing, also turned the next sentence about the aldermen into a separate sentence to shorten it overall.
  • Robert Wingfield should be linked on first, not second mention.
    • Thus linked.
  • What's a "Paston letter"? Ah, I see it linked at a later mention. That link needs to be transferred to first mention, here.
    • Done.
  • Who is "Helen Castor"?
    • A very nice lady  :) but also one whom I didn't realise we already had an article on. Linked.
  • "Mowbray’s situation did improvement..." Assuming you mean "improve", how is this improvement evident in what follows - a catalogue of imprisonments, fights, bindings-over for vast sums, lost arbitrations and law cases, and assaults and murder of his followers? Improvement is hard to find!
    • Heh  :) Indeed, I think I missed out a pretty fundamental word there. How's "Mowbray’s personal and political situation did not improve over the following decade"—?
  • What was the reason for Wingfield's defection?
    • Clarify, "Wingfield deserted Mowbray over the latter's continuing attacks on him over Hoo"
  • "In June 1446 one of his father’s retainers..." First mention of a person in a paragraph should be by name not pronoun.
    • Done.
  • "5" should be "five"
    • Done; what about "8.0 km" though?
  • "Scrope had petitioned King Henry that Mowbray's proceedings were "inaccurate and inherently malicious," who ordered the cessation of proceedings against Scrope's men". Grammatically dodgy, needs recasting.
    • Perhaps, "Scrope had petitioned King Henry that Mowbray's proceedings were "inaccurate and inherently malicious," and as a result, the King ordered that proceedings against Scrope's men cease"?
  • "requested a commission of" → "requested that a commission of"
    • Yes.
  • The Earl of Oxford should be linked at first mention.
    • Swapped around. Name & title linked first time, title alone unlinked the second.
  • "The Duke himself fell from power in 1450" – The Duke of Suffolk, presumably.
    • Clarified and sourced.
  • "that defeated him against de la Pole" → " that had defeated him against de la Pole"?
    • Of course—thanks.

I'll try and finish it next pass. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Continuing: I'm finding a worrying number of prose points which I think should have been spotted by the several supporting editors who claim to have copy-edited or read through the article. They should have gone to Specsavers. Some of these issues might be considered as matters of style, but some are downright errors. I've got as as far as the end of the "Wars of the Roses" section, and that's all I can do today.

Later career and political crisis'

The first paragraph is cluttered with names (Mowbray is mentioned over and over again) and you might try a little rephrasing to reduce this. For example, the sentence "York canvassed Mowbray for support against Somerset, as Mowbray was one of the few nobles willing to outrightly criticise the court" could be "York canvassed Mowbray for support, as one of the few nobles willing to outrightly criticise the court". I also think "openly" is a little more elegant than "outrightly".

    • OK (I was trying to avoid my perennial problem of too many "he"s), I think I've reduced them, also taken that suggestion on board.
  • "where John Paston was ordered to meet him" – who ordered Paston? Should it be "having ordered John Paston to meet him there"?
    • Xactly.
  • "for the duration": for the duration of what?
    • The parliament—clarified.
  • "Their alliance could have also been abandoned by York, perhaps embarrassed by Mowbray's violent behaviour in East Anglia. York was, after all, presenting himself as the candidate of law and order." Slightly confused wording: I suggest "York may have abandoned the alliance because of his objection to Mowbray's violent behaviour in East Anglia, as York was, after all, presenting himself as the candidate of law and order."
    • Thank you; used.
  • The parenthetical insertion ("the loss of two so noble Duchies as Normandy and Guyenne") disturbs the flow somewhat. I'd say " attacking his failure to prevent the loss of the duchies of Normandy and Guyenne in France".
    • Well, it's quoting a contemporary description (hence why their loss was so keenly felt), but I've kept a small bit of the quote and made it part of the sentence rather than bracketed—how's that?
  • "Somerset's" → "Somerset"
    • Done.
  • Who is "Ralph Griffiths"
    • Historian, and linked to our article too.
The Wars of the Roses
  • "Civil war erupted in May 1455, when York and his allies ambushed the King at the first Battle of St Albans." This wasn't a case of civil war "erupting", but a planned attack. We need to know, briefly, why York laid the ambush.
    • Provided some background: less of an eruption than a slow descent into.
  • "Mowbray either arrived after the skirmish or was in the area while the battle took place". Well, yes, that's rather like saying he was either there or he wasn't. Besides which, was it a "skirmish" or a battle? The OED definition of skirmish suggests it was a battle.
    • Well, no: some people were absolutely not there (the Earl of Westmorland, for example, never left Penrith!)—What I was trying to say here is that Mowbray is known to have been in the area, but it is uncertain whether he was close enough to actually take part, or did he hang back?
      Anyway, Brianboulton, I thikn I've clarified that per your criticism—better?
      Also, I removed mention of "ambush" as being misleading (although to clarify, historians really label it a battle for convenience; compared to the—for example—Battle of Towton it was certainly no such thing. Michael Hicks has described it as less of a battle and more a quick series of assassinations (Somerset & Northumberland), after which the battle such as it was immediately stopped.)[citation needed] Anyway: got rid of it.
  • There's a lot of uncertainty here: "may have", "more than likely that", "probably", "may have gone", "It is also possible" – it's like trying to catch snowflakes. Could we have a few "Sources suggest that" or similar constructions to vary the tone?
    • Rephrased.
  • "civil war again broke out between September and October" That sounds as though the two months were fighting each other. Maybe replace "between" with "in"?
    • Classic  :D adjusted, thanks.
  • "York and their supporters" → "York and his supporters"? Either way, comma required after "supporters"
    • Okay—I'd already mentioned Salisbury as being with York, so assumed the 3rd pers. plural applied.
  • "for Coventry" → "at Coventry"
    • Done.
  • "He was received a number of royal commissions" – delete "was"
    • Deleted.
  • Pipe-link Lancastrian
    • Linked. Odd it hasn't come up before actually.
  • Beginning a paragraph with "Yet" is somewhat non-neutral, so I'd delete it.
    • I've tweaked the whole section quite heavilly, incl. moving chunks from one para to another.
  • Who is "Rutland"?
    • York's second son: clarified & linked.
  • "Norfolk remained in London" – that's Mowbray, I assume, but changing the nme mid-sentence doesn't help readers
    • Bizarre; it's the only time in the entire thing that I don't call him Mowbray! Changed, thanks.
  • I found the last paragraph, beginning "The precise cause of Mowbray's change of loyalties..." muddled and hard to follow. No context is given for the Battle of Northampton, and what follows is a very confusing account. This paragraph needs to be rewritten for clarity.
    • Yes, I agree: this was (hopefully) re-written as part of that section juggling I mentioned just up^^^there —a litle clearer?

Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I realise you're probably a bit pressed for time so if you could just let us know at your earliest how things look now, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Ian, I have no wish to hold up the promotion of this article, which in general is in excellent shape. I have, however, been concerned by the rather large number of small prose errors or malformations that I've discovered, long after many editors have registered their supports saying that they've copyedited etc., which is a fault of the reviewers as much as of the nominator. I have the final sections still to read through, but I am quite happy to do this after promotion, should you feel inclined to do that, rather than your having to wait on me. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't mind waiting at all personally, as I would rather the ship was launched with all its paddles in the water. But, most importantly—I think—have I addressed your previous concerns satisfactorily? Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 20:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Tbh, I think half the time pings don't seem to work nowadays: there were a few recently where I only know I was pinged because I saw the email alert—seems hit and miss, bizarre. I'm not sure of the etiquette here, but is there anything you think I should be looking at / getting on with? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 10:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ian Rose: Does this get archived then? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 08:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The review has not yet been open a month, so given the depth of the article I don't think the duration is excessive. Per my recent edit/summary on the article page, I had a look at the text changes over the last couple of weeks and could see some obvious typos and a few places I felt other improvements were called for, and edited accordingly. Given the calibre of the reviewers who've looked at this, I think it'd be worth someone just going over the prose as it stands and polishing where possible. I'm no expert on this subject but as the heavy lifting re. sourcing and comprehensiveness appears to have been done I'd be happy to recuse as coord and do it myself if no-one has any objections. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Sorry, before we get to a final polish, I know that Ealdgyth was involved with editing the article prior to FAC but hasn't stopped by here -- would you like the opportunity to comment on the current state of the article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Thank you Ian Rose, anything you see ft to do is OK by me; unfortunately I did not receive feedback on my alterations so minor qualifications were probably inevitable. Incidentally, I wasn't trying to rush the thing—I just assumed that would fail at that point. I'm kind of glad now I didn't provoke you into doing so! ;) Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Re-ping Ealdgyth, fancy this? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
It'd be Wednesday before I could possibly comment... I'm swamped in non-Wiki world. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Well; things certainly seem to have quietened down—what's the SP? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 13:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I hadn't got back to this sooner -- Hchc2009, did you want to take a look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

In this article, we are reaching deep into the dark corners of the periodic table. I hope I've made the journey informative and interesting enough!--R8R (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by DePiep

  • Section Reports now says: "... (JINR) in Dubna, Moscow Oblast, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union, in 1968." To me, "Russian SFSR" does not seem to add information. Remove? - DePiep (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather not. The Soviet Union was technically not just a sovereign country but a union of sovereign countries. Throughout all of its history, Russia (i.e., the Russian SFSR we're talking about) was one of those. So I consider that an important part of an introduction of a Soviet city/town.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Sure it is correct, but could there be confusion after "Moscow Oblast"? Or was the SFSR relevant for JINR (I'd guess it is a state-level enterprise). -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The thing is that I am trying to keep my writing style uniform. Moscow Oblast is probably clear; but what if it were, say, Gomel Oblast, Kherson Oblast, or Ulyanovsk Oblast? That's why I consistently use this "town, region, SSR, Soviet Union" four-level introduction format for Soviet places.--R8R (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The article now says: "the JINR" and "Berkeley". I'm not sure myself, but should this not be congruent in grammar (remove "the" in places)? On a minor note, it also writes "Berkeley team, Berkeley scientists" but not similarly for JINR; this may be good for readability though. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know the grammar behind this myself but I checked and it appears you are correct. I'll fix this tomorrow. Your latter note is also worthwhile; I'll see what I can do about this.--R8R (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Also involved: "Dubna" is sometimes used meaning JINR. Could be in the check then. As I said, not need to downgrade good readibility for all this. - DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Also true, yes. I had that in mind when writing the previous reply. I'll look at it as well.--R8R (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Please give it a look now. Anything to be fixed yet?--R8R (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "In the years thereafter, American scientists undoubtedly have synthesized the following elements up to mendelevium, element 101, in 1955." - "have synthesized" is in present perfect tense, I think it maybe should say "had synthesized" Chris857 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
That was my recent edit [16]. Please do improve it, Chris857. -DePiep (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't we stick to past simple since we have a particular date when the event occurred?--R8R (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, already the change from "coming" into "thereafter" may be enough, but I'm not sure.- DePiep (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll change it as I see fit; feel free to alter it thereafter.--R8R (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
feel free to take a look--R8R (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The lede says: "Limited investigation ... has demonstrated that dubnium behaves as a typical group 5 element and [as] the heavier homologue to tantalum;". Can we agree that adding the "as" grammatically helps? Without it, I understood it to say that tantalum is not a group 5 element. Also possible (to illustrate my point): add "especially". -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    • The point is, "a typical group 5 element and as the heavier homologue to tantalum" is sort of one statement rather than two. You can't really separate either from the other; when you say either "dubnium is a group 5 element" or "dubnium is eka-tantalum," the other is implied. That's why it reads to me naturally the way it currently is, though this is not something to fight over, I think. Give what I just said a good thought and if you still disagree, we'll work it out.--R8R (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In Dubnium#Isotopes, no {{Infobox dubnium isotopes}} then? -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    • @DePiep: Sorry I've been keeping you waiting. When I look at the article from my laptop, there is simply not enough room for an isobox. That's why I have not even considered it until now.--R8R (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • No comments left. - DePiep (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

  • 242mfAm— I have some background in chemistry, but I have no idea what the "mf" means. Perhaps a note?
    • Dropping by to say that it means a fission isomer; I'll look for a detailed explanation with a source. Double sharp (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
      • That's absolutely correct. I'll write it down soon.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Added a note. Since it is nothing more than nomenclature, I assume that no reference is needed (which is great given that I haven't seen anyone explain this rare notation, even though it is used only this way).--R8R (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • latter one— ="latter"
    • Of course.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • possibility of it being 260105 was not excluded—suggest possibility of 260105 was not excluded
    • That indeed sounds better, done.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • s orbitals (and p1/2 ones…—nothing linked here to help us with atomic orbitals, and "ones" is, again, redundant
    • I've added a wikilink to Atomic orbital. As for redundant "ones," I'd normally love to phrase it, "s (and p1/2) orbitals," but the parenthesized note goes on and I wouldn't want to break a phrase with such a long note in the middle.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Please check whether all uses of "however" and placeholder "one/ones" are necessary
    • I was able to remove most occasions of "howewer," bringing the count from 12 down to 3. As for "one," this is more difficult to me; I tried my best but still couldn't figure out how to do it in those few cases we have and if we should at all.--R8R (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing else to add, all looks good, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources and refs in good order apart from a couple of minor issues:

  • Inconsistency in providing retrieval dates. See, e.g. refs 7, 16, 23, 30, 33 possibly others.
    • Changed to a consistent mdy date format.--R8R (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In a couple of cases (18, 22) the titles given in the refs differ somewhat from what's in the source – in the case of 22 the source article isn't mentioned at all in the ref. These could create uncertainties as to whether the links are going to the right articles.
    • Fixed ref 18, added the missing article title for ref 22.--R8R (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

All links seem to be working, and the sources themselves are of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Support from John

For now, oppose on prose. The passive voice is way overused. There are other problems too. I will try to post a fuller review. --John (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I will try to go over prose for now and then seek help from other editors. I think we should be able to handle this quite quickly.--R8R (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, I am still eagerly awaiting your review, so please don't let the comment just above stop you from posting it.--R8R (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@John: May I ask you to go forward and bring in the promised review? In the meantime, prose has considerably improved thanks to Galobtter, so you may find some great improvements in that respect.--R8R (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking. I see the improvements, I had a go at further improvement, but I think I'd like one more pass before supporting. --John (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and as you know I'm not a fan of overdoing pronunciation guides. /ˈdʌbniəm/ (DUB-nee-əm) /ˈduːbniəm/ (DOOB-nee-əm) seems excessive. If it is important to record each of its pronunciations twice, they should at least be referenced. --John (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
That I can do. I've added the required references.--R8R (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's looking better, prose-wise. I still think some bits could be better written. I was just looking at the Naming controversy section; it;s really confusing. --John (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
    • This could be the case. But in what ways so?--R8R (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • It's late at night and I have had a few beers. I apologise for the lackadaisical pace of my review. I'll try to give it some proper attention in the next days. --John (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Great to know, I'll be eagerly waiting.--R8R (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's take this paragraph for starters:

In 1994, IUPAC published a recommendation on naming the disputed elements following the previous reports. For element 105, they proposed the name joliotium (Jl), after the French physicist Frédéric Joliot-Curie, a significant contributor to the development of nuclear physics and chemistry; this name was originally proposed by the Soviet team for element 102, which by then had long been called nobelium.[20] (The name nielsbohrium for element 107 was transformed to bohrium to conform with the practice set by all then-named elements.)[20] This recommendation paper was generally met with criticism from the American scientists: their recommendations were scrambled (the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were used for elements 106 and 108, respectively); both elements 104 and 105 were given names suggested by JINR despite earlier recognition of LBL as of an equal co-discoverer; and especially because the name seaborgium for element 106 was rejected for honoring a living person, a rule that had only just been approved.[21]

There must be some major improvements of organisation here; I know it's a complicated story, but if it needs to be told in detail here, it needs to be done in such a way that it explains clearly. I know the story going into reading it, and to me the current version makes the story less clear, not more. --John (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I would still love you to elaborate on this thought a little more. I actually don't see what exactly you stumble here on. What IUPAC suggested in 1994 was indeed only a set of recommendations which they assembled based on established priorities and suggestions by the competing teams, and those recommendations were criticized by the American scientists for a number of points they disagreed with. Is it not clear from the paragraph somehow? Is it something else that's unclear?--R8R (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The first question that arises for me is, do we need this level of detail on the wider naming disputes, on this article? --John (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I see where this is coming from. I was originally a little uneasy with such extensiveness of this section myself. However, I just haven't found a good way of saying less. If I tried something like, "In 1994, IUPAC suggested a set of names; for element 105, they chose joilotium. However, the Americans didn't like it so a new solution had to be found," it just left too many questions like "why that name?" and "why did the Americans not like it?" and after you fill in those blanks, there are more questions. What we have now is a wholesome story, which you can read without having your thoughts interrupted by various questions you get but don't see answers to from the text. So I'm going to say, yes, we do.--R8R (talk) 10:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I also find myself uneasy with the length of the section, but I likewise don't think there's a better way to deal with it. Consider: the American proposal for E105 was hahnium and the Soviet one was nielsbohrium. Unlike for all the other disputed cases, neither became the name of the element. So now the question is raised: if it's named dubnium now, honouring the Soviet team, then what happened to nielsbohrium? Well, it became E107 following discussions with the German team that discovered it. Okay, so where did these compromises come from? They came from IUPAC in 1994 and 1997. Why aren't the 1994 names the ones we use now? Because the American Chemical Society refused to use them in the face of protests from American scientists. But then we need to explain why they protested, and why they protested the next compromise as well, and while the scrambling of their E104 and E105 names and their replacement with the Soviet proposals had something to do with it, another major part was the loss of seaborgium for E106 (and then how it was ransomed later for all the other American proposals). I don't see anything in this paragraph that can be cut without losing part of the story. If anything I'd want to know more: why was E105 chosen for the compromise instead of E104? Some of it might be the political impossibility of naming an element after Kurchatov (the father of the Soviet atomic bomb), but it could have been dubnium as well (and in fact was in 1994). I think another possible explanation is that E104 was the American scientists' biggest quarrel with the TWG report, due to the lack of an isotope of E104 with the half-life claimed by the Soviets: at least with E105 the Americans acknowledged that the Soviets had produced the element as well, though (they insisted) only later. But I am most uncertain that we can find a source for this unless it happens to be in The Transuranium People. Double sharp (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@John: I would really really appreciate more input from you here. I frankly cannot see what is so wrong with prose. Well, of course you may argue that I wrote most of it and thus am somewhat used to the writing anyway and that I'm not even a native speaker to begin with so I don't really count, and I'd say that's fair. But now the article has been copyedited and two native speakers have spoken in support specifically given the new prose quality. I genuinely do want to see what you dislike about the prose at the moment---I've gotten past the point where I just collect stickers and rather enjoy the writing itself (even given my mediocre literary skills)---so I could fix it or, more realistically, get someone to fix it. For that, however, I do need to see some exact complaints that can be addressed. The review has been open for over a month now, so I'd say it's the high time for that.--R8R (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry about the glacial pace of progress here. I've suffered some family problems, see my talk for details. R8R, I love your writing even more than I love your modesty; I dread to think how I would do writing a professional-quality article in German, which would be my closest comparison. But there are still some problems. I appreciate the improvements in the prose but this particular section still isn't up to snuff. When JINR published their first report claiming synthesis of element 105, they did not propose a name for the new element, which was customary following a discovery of a new element. It starts off clunkily and just goes off from there. And I take your points that it's a complex and interesting story that needs to be told. But, here's the thing: while it's good for our non-science educated readers to realise that there are controversies and arguments among scientists over silly trivial stuff like what name to give an element, we fanatics are always liable to overestimate the interest the details of such a controversy are likely to be to non-fanatics. I will try to clean it up a bit, but honestly I am still leaning towards cutting this section extensively. However it is done This recommendation paper was generally met with criticism from the American scientists: their suggestions were scrambled (the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were used for elements 106 and 108, respectively); both elements 104 and 105 were given names suggested by JINR despite earlier recognition of LBL as of an equal co-discoverer; and especially because the name seaborgium for element 106 was rejected for honoring a living person, a rule that had only just been approved. is never going to be FA prose. --John (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I have cut that sentence up to clarify things: now it reads This recommendation paper was criticised by the American scientists, for various reasons. Firstly, their suggestions were scrambled: the names rutherfordium and hahnium, originally suggested by Berkeley for elements 104 and 105, were respectively reassigned to elements 106 and 108. Secondly, elements 104 and 105 were given names suggested by JINR, despite earlier recognition of LBL as an equal co-discoverer for both of them. Thirdly and most importantly, IUPAC rejected the name seaborgium for element 106, having just approved a rule that an element cannot be named to honor a living person, even though the 1993 report had given the LBL team the sole credit for its discovery. Actually, come to think of it, I think this slightly understates the level of criticism the 1994 recommendations faced, because the American Chemical Society went so far as to