Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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




Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a DJ who had a short but very interesting and tragic life. Article is GA and has recently received a peer review and copyedit. Freikorp (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Images appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • In this sentence (During four years in his early twenties he focused solely on drug use and deejaying.), there should be a comma after “twenties”.
  • In this sentence (In 2006 he accepted a $1 million), add a comma after “2006”.
  • In this phrase (After watching Herbie Hancock perform "Rockit" ), I would specify that “Rockit” was a song recorded by Herbie Hancock to avoid a potential misreading of this being a cover or something. I think that the following short descriptive phrase in front of “Rockit” (his 1983 single) would be beneficial.
  • Could you possibly clarify the following phrase (for his treatment of younger patients) by adding more context? How did he treat the younger patients?
  • The source only says "he was later indicted and dismissed for excessive abuse of young enrollees". I haven't been able to find anybody else making this allegation. I'd be happy to remove it if it's too vague. Freikorp (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Makes sense; thank you for the clarification. I think that it is fine as it stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the first mention of Alcoholics Anonymous, I would spell out the acronym and put it in parenthesis next to it to make the meaning clear.
  • In this phrase (help other addicts, sponsoring them and taking them to meetings), I would remove the comma and add “by” as I think that would make the sentence stronger.
  • In this phrase (impressed with Goldstein's performance there), I do not think the “there” is necessary.
  • I would add the year in which “Butterfly” was released.
  • In this phrase (in 2003 he weighed), add a comma after “2003”.
  • In the phrase (The crash killed both crew members and the other two passengers), did we know the identities of the other two passengers?
  • In this phrase (Following the crash, the show's producer Cheryl Sirulnick, said), I do not believe the comma after “Sirulnick” is necessary.
  • In this phrase (Shortly thereafter Goldstein leaves the building,), add a comma after “thereafter”.
  • Remove the link to “cocaine” in the “Death” section as it was already linked in a previous section.
  • In the “Filmography” table, I would change “2005–2007” to “2005, 2007” as he appeared in only one episode in 2005 and one in 2007. The original phrasing gives off the impression that he consistently appeared from 2005 to 2007.
  • In the same table, do you think that you should also clarify he was the host of Gone Too Far?
  • Do you think information on DJ AM”s collaboration with Samantha Ronson for Challah and Challah Back should be mentioned in the body of the article? Right now, she is only listed in associated acts, put in the discography, and a brief note on her appearance at his funeral.
  • I can't find any RS sources that comment on the album, let alone high quality ones. The albums were added to the article by someone else. I can't find any reference to them on discogs, allmusic or YouTube. If it wasn't for several non-RS sources (like this one [1]) commenting on them, I'd be liable to think they didn't exist. Freikorp (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • That is very odd indeed. I will leave this up to more experienced users to look into. I have no issues with the albums being included in the "Discography" section as evidence of their release is available (although, not through the best sources in the world). Ideally, it would great to have more information on this, but I understand the issues with it. It is fine then as it stands. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You mentioned that he scratched on an album for Madonna, though it is not included in the “Discography” section.
  • Good find. Someone else actually brought that up on the article's talk page several years ago. None of her albums from the relative time-frame list him in the credtis ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]), guess I forgot to remove the mention though. I'm removing it now. Freikorp (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. It is a shame that he never really worked with Madonna. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think that Downtown Calling should be mentioned in the body of the article? It is currently only brought up in the “Filmography” section.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for you comments Aoba47. I've made all the relevant changes, with the exception of three things that I have replied to above. Let me know if there are any further concerns. Freikorp (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. This was a very fascinating read, and to be completely honest, I have never heard of this person prior to taking this up for review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Gothic Revival cathedral in Cork city, Ireland. The site dates back to the 7th century and can be linked to one of the county's other major place of historical interest, Gougane Barra. Significant input and guidance from KJP1, Guliolopez, Kafka Liz, and Lingzhi who all made this a most rewarding project. Special thanks to Liz who took many photographs, and walked with me several times around and through the building, explaining architectural concepts and how to describe various features. A most helpful PR can be found here. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I shall certainly be supporting the promotion of this article to FA, but first I have a few small drafting points to raise.

  • Lead
    • "Its demolition and re-building was commissioned" – two nouns but a singular verb. In passing, there should be no hyphen in "rebuilding" according to the OED, Chambers and Collins.
    • "renowned Victorian architect" – a touch of the peacock about the adjective. (I personally think "infamous" would be more to the point, but that's neither here nor there, and I only say it to annoy KJP1 when he looks in.)
    • "Caped" – I'm not well up in architectural terms, and perhaps "caped" is right, but it occurred to me on reading it that perhaps "capped" was meant.
    • "Modeled" – I ran the text through Microsoft's spell-checker with "English (Ireland)" selected, and as in BrE (unlike AmE) this should be "modelled" (and indeed we have "modelling" later on).
  • Medieval and 18th century churches
    • "an old tower ten or twelve in circumference" – is there a word missing here?
    • "re-discovered" – as with "rebuilding", the three dictionaries I use don't hyphenate this word.
  • 19th-century build
    • "Burges partially alleviated ... Burges realised" – I might make the second "Burges" just "He" to help the flow of the prose.
    • "decoration of the West front" – not capitalised in mid-sentence elsewhere in the main text.
    • caption: "the Last Judgement is above him" – in view of the capitalisation here, I wonder if "resurrection" at the very end of the lead should also be capitalised?
    • "Burges took 10%" – I think the Manual of Style asks us to write "per cent" (BrE) or "percent" (AmE) rather than "%" in the body of the text.
  • Architecture
    • "re-used" – another hyphen the OED et al don't use.
    • "thus exhaustive to fund" – rather an unexpected adjective. Perhaps "expensive"?
    • "Cork Builder John Delaney" – should "Builder" be "builder"? And he was spelt "Delany" earlier in the article.
    • "around 844 sculpture" – "sculptures", I imagine.
    • "lead to the cathedral's unity of style" – "led"?
    • "and, at St Fin Barre's..." – you ought, I think, to be consistent within the article about whether you put a full stop after "St" or not. These days BrE usually doesn't and AmE does.
  • Sculpture
    • "the most ascetically dramatic" – I wonder if "ascetic" (rigorously self-disciplined; severely abstinent, austere) has got itself mixed with "aesthetic" (relating to the perception, appreciation, or criticism of that which is beautiful)?
  • Graveyard
    • "archbishop bishop" looks strange.
  • Interior
    • "...Bishop's throne" – but "...bishop's throne" in the next para.
  • Stained glass
    • "oversaw every stages" – singular "stage" wanted here, I think.
    • "As elsewhere in the cathedral..." – the sentence goes haywire and needs attention. Indeed, it seems pretty much to duplicate the previous sentence, and perhaps shouldn't be there at all.
    • "illustrations can be divided between the divine, wise and foolish" – this too is given twice.
  • Pipe organ
    • Saint Andrews's day" – "St Andrew's".
    • "avoid its interfere" – "interference"?
    • "expand the kit" – unless it is a technical expression in the vocabulary of organ builders "kit" seems a little too informal for encyclopaedic use, I think.

Those are my few quibbles, except for one concluding one: there may have been a techical glitch, but it looks from the article page as though the peer review has not been closed. Be that as it may, I look forward to revisiting and to supporting FA for this excellent article. – Tim riley talk 12:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fin_Barre's_Cathedral_1865.jpg: needs US PD tag, and if author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

I watched the article grow and look forward to reading it now again. I should probably comment the lead last, but know already that I'd like more consistency and chronology, for example, after having talked about the ancient site, what does "the previous building" mean. - Detail: when I read "It was once" I thought "twice" ;) - How about "It belonged formerly" or even give a year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Finbarr of Cork

  • How about talking about his death and shrine after he was born?

19th-century build

  • building?
  • The image of the entrance looks strange next to the quote, and the long caption about specific saints is not really what I want to read at that point, rather later. Links to the saints might help, but I suggest to move the image.


  • I find it a bit unusual to have the image of the angel under exterior, but have no solution. Perhaps a change to section layout? I'd like to read layout before individual sculpture. Seperate exterior and interior sculpture?

Plan ...

The end comes soon, I was curious to know more about the grand opening ;) - I love the many quotes that give a good feeling for the period. I'd wish some images could be larger! Thank you, all who helped! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog Spinball

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  15:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Not so much to say about this one. This article is nice and compact which reflects well on a lacklustre and rushed game. I've used the most out of the hard to find magazine sources (some of which I spent longer tracking down as opposed to writing itself), as well as more contemporary respective reviews. I think that this article is polished enough—and while you might know me for going over the top with reception sections—I managed to squeeze out all of the reliable reviewers I could find. A couple of scans which are available online aren't listed at WP:VG/S, so I omitted them (can't speak German either). It looks like that this is going to be a no-frills FAC while I have some more exciting stuff in the pipeline. JAGUAR  15:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I would imagine that the infobox image requires ALT text. I would also recommend adding ALT text for all of the images used in the article.
  • I keep forgetting to do this! Added alt text for both. JAGUAR  10:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason for the reference to the original EU release date for the Sega Genesis in the infobox? It just seems odd to have only one reference, and I would think that this would be covered in the body of the article.
  • I anticipated that someone would ask for the release dates to be sourced (personally I wouldn't bother sourcing them, but if someone asks I'll do it). While I was reading one of the old magazines yesterday I saw the official release date for Europe in there. I've added sources for all of the dates in the infobox with the exception of the Japanese one as unfortunately I can't find it. I don't think I could mention them in the prose... JAGUAR  10:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For this part (Unlike most other Sonic games), I would recommend linking “Sonic games” to the main article on the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise as I do not see a link to the main franchise page prior to this (unless I am missing it).
  • You're right. I've added a link. JAGUAR  10:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The final sentence of the lead’s first paragraph and the first sentence of the lead’s second paragraph both have a similar sentence construction (i.e. “is set in”). I would recommend revising this.
  • Tweaked. JAGUAR  10:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not entirely sure what is meant by “pinball-like environments”. Environments that resemble a pinball? Do you mean environments reminiscent of those used in pinball tables?
  • I've rephrased it to "pinball machine-like environments" to avoid confusing between an actual ball and the pinball machine. Hope this sounds better. JAGUAR  10:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (Various aspects of gameplay garnered a mixed reception from critics, with the game's control scheme receiving particular criticism), reference 32 needs to be put in front of reference 33.
  • Fixed. JAGUAR  10:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for looking at this! I should have hopefully addressed your concerns. Unfortunately I couldn't find a couple of release dates. I'll see if I can dig deeper in some of the obscure magazine scans but it's not something not worry about. The Master System port itself is so obscure I couldn't even find any reviews for it! JAGUAR  10:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments and for the explanation on the release dates. That makes sense to me. I support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments from TheJoebro64
  • Here's the Japanese release date.
  • Perfect! Thanks. Added. JAGUAR  20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The Russian version of this article has a lot of information that could possibly be added here, such as how the game was adapted in the comic series and an episode of Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog.
  • My Russian counterpart has an enviable skill for tracking down obscure sources. I remember the Russian version of Nights into Dreams helped me gather enough sources to turn it into an FA, and by coincidence the same author and I were bringing Nights: Journey of Dreams to FA at the same time. Anyway, on a more serious note the Russian Wikipedia does seem to have different standards than ours; they frequently cite unreliable sources. The Green Hill Zone is unreliable and I don't think I can attribute a source for the Sonic comic. I remember scanning the Russian article a few months ago and decided there wasn't anything else to add. To make up for this I've expanded the legacy section a bit by mentioning more of Alton Towers' rollercoaster. JAGUAR  20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. About the comic adaptation though, I've used cite journal to source this same thing on Sonic Colors and it works fine.
  • Was the iOS version a full port, or was it just emulated? As far as I know, most Sega mobile ports until 2013 were basically just crappy emulations.
  • It was just emulated. I've hopefully clarified this in the text. JAGUAR  20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Fotenote 42, TSSZ News, is a Sonic fansite and not a Wikipedia-approved RS.
  • I didn't know it was a fansite. I've replaced it with a much better Destructoid article. JAGUAR  20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree with italicising websites and organisations (arguably IGN's format should be treated the same as CBS or BBC), but I've italicised Eurogamer and GameSpot since they're more like publications. JAGUAR  20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Awesome work on this, Jaguar. Very close to supporting. JOEBRO64 19:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: thanks for looking through this—appreciate it! I should have hopefully clarified all of the above. I couldn't find anything else from the Russian article worth mentioning as I'm also not sure if I can source a comic directly. I've never done anything like that before and am uncertain if it'll pass FA standards. JAGUAR  20:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to lend my support now. I think this is certainly an interesting article about a mediocre pinball game. Also, it might be worth mentioning that the game was supposed to be in Sonic Classic Collection. JOEBRO64 20:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that's interesting. I've added it. JAGUAR  20:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Elcor, Minnesota

Nominator(s): DrGregMN (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Elcor, Minnesota, one of many small mining communities that once existed on the Mesabi Iron Range of Northern Minnesota. Elcor was a mining location, built by the mining company to house the workers for it's mines. Many of these communities quickly came and went; Elcor was one of the few communities which had some staying power, existing for 59 years before it was abandoned. Unlike many other mining locations, the residents of Elcor had something special and unique: amenities other locations lacked, which included their own post office, mercantile, churches, law enforcement, a primary school and a railroad station. Because Elcor was an unicorporated community, it was extremely difficult to research a ghost town like this, and a lot of time and resources went into amassing information about the veracity of the community. No resource was left untouched in the preparation of this article and it provides the most comprehensive information about the community in one source. The article is modeled loosely on the FA Pithole, Pennsylvania and comments from both Peer Review and the GA Review procees seem to indicate it meets FAC criteria. The article both reads and flows well thanks to multiple revisions by the Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors. DrGregMN (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Don_H._Bacon.jpg: don't agree that a non-free image is justified here
  • File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Elcor,_MN.jpg, File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Nikkimaria. Captions fixed.
  • With regard to File:Don_H._Bacon.jpg, the image was provided by Cleveland-Cliffs for use by the authors in their copyrighted publication. I can't be sure the image is not free, since the photograph was taken before the subjects death in 1922. If this becomes an issue as the nomination progresses, it can be removed.
  • With regard to File:Copy_of_Elcor_Townsite_Plat.jpg, I cannot be sure when it was first published. This was a free leaf that was in the Minnesota Collection at the Reference Collection of Wilson Library at the University of Minnesota. The librarians could not track down the original source, but were able to rule out Sanborn Maps from the scale. We were able to provide a rough date from the information contained on the map. I can contact/visit the University of Minnesota again in an attempt to track down the source, but am not hopeful since the librarians were unable to do so the first time.
  • With regard to the File:Elcor,_Minnesota.jpg, this is from the Krause collection of donated photos to the Iron Range Historical Society. I do not believe they had a specific publication date, but a rough date is provided by the information contained in the photo. I will check with the Iron Range Historical Society to see if they can provide me with a more specific date of publication.
  • With regard to the File:Elcor_Minnesota_Smokestack.jpg, this was a donated photo from William Keller to the Iron Range Historical Society. This photo is edited from the original poloroid. The date stamp on the side of the original poloroid is Mar 67 (this information is a part of the file). DrGregMN (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments

Welcome to FAC. I haven't done a complete review, but can offer a few points for your consideration:

  • The very brief lead looks too short to meet the requirement of WP:LEAD that it "should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." (my emphasis)
I will work on the lead to more effectively summarize the article later this weekend.
  • I note at least three paragraphs in the article that are ending with uncited statements
There are only two by my count, the first paragraph in the Establishment section, and the last paragraph in the Abandonment section. The reader need only go to the geographic coordinates to see the mine is now centered over Elcor's former location, but how to cite geographic coordinates? Is it necessary since they appear twice in the Infobox? I was unaware that the Elements of Style required the last sentences of all paragraphs to be cited. Comments from both Peer Review and GA article review stated that the article might be "over-cited".
The three instances to which I refer are:
  • First paragraph of the Establishment section. This can be resolved simply by shifting refs 20 to 24 to the end of the paragraph – although I'm sure you don't need all of them. The comments about overciting probably refer to your tendency, here and elsewhere, to multi-cite simple facts. One reliable source is generally enough in these instances.
  • Last paragraph in the Abandonment section – but the sentence is redundant given the explanatory text that precedes it, so I'd simply drop it.
  • First paragraph of "Geography and climate" section, where only the first of the four sentences carries a citation. it! I forgot the copy editing had moved that section to the end of the article.
You'll find it's a well-established and now undeviating practice at FAC for paragraphs to end in citations. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Don H. Bacon's obsession with the letter M is largely trivia, and doesn't seem worthy of the amount of space you devote to it. The Bacon image, which I see has been queried above, adds little to the article and could, I believe, easily be dropped along with some of the adjoining text.
His penchant with "M" is important from the standpoint that some of the ships and streets of Elcor that he platted share the same names. The ships that are not directly relevant to the article could be deleted but the article would also lose some Wikilinks in the process.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Brianboulton! DrGregMN (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

SMS Wittelsbach

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Another in my series of German battleships, this one was the first ship authorized under Alfred von Tirpitz's direction. Obsolete by World War I, the ship nevertheless saw use in the Baltic during the war, patrolling for Russian warships and supporting the German Army. The article passed a MILHIST A-class review about a month ago. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Germany's_fighting_machine;_her_army,_her_navy,_her_air-ships,_and_why_she_arrayed_them_against_the_allied_powers_of_Europe_(1914)_(14593450659).jpg: are any more specific copyright tags available?
  • File:SMS_Wittelsbach_NH_45197.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Both fixed, thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... one of Frederick the Great's cavalry generals, usually credited with the training of cavalry and development of cavalry tactics. I've experimented with a different citation template for this, to aid in the review process auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Major_General_von_Seydlitz_pipe_Prussian_cavalry_Battle_of_Rossbach_Richard_Knötel.jpg: When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Indy beetle

Not all I have to say, but some observations for now:

  • "Seydlitz emerged as a redoubtable Rittmeister (cavalry captain) in the War of Austrian Succession (1740–1748), also known as the First and Second Silesian Wars." My understanding is that the War of Austrian Succession was a wider conflict that included the Silesian Wars, so I find the "also known as" a bit misleading. If you mean to say that Seydlitz earned his promotion after service in those two wars, I think you should drop the reference to the wider War of Austrian Succession and just say "emerged as a [captain] in the Silesian Wars." Wikilinked, naturally. compromised...:)
  • "He was still not healthy enough to participate in the annual campaigns". What is meant by the phrase "annual campaigns"? Perhaps it would be more clear if it read "front line operations" or similar. removed annual. Campaigning was done annually, and usually not during the winter....too cold for man and beast....So annual campaigns were conducted from March to November, sometimes December. Sieges might occur during the winter, but not usually.
  • You use the title "King" multiple times in the lede but its not directly established that by this you mean Frederick. Might help if you say "King Frederick" the first time or similar. fixed
  • "His future sovereign always addressed him in German." Might be worth mentioning Frederick by name here. done
  • "Major Hans Heinrich Adam Schütz, a notoriously violent man.[11][Note 4]" The footnote explaining Schütz's violent tenancies is WP:UNDUE for this article. left it in and clarified that Seydlitz disapproved of the man's tactics.
  • "A subordinate brought him two healthy Circassian girls" A wikilink to Circassian beauties might give us a better idea of the purpose of their introduction to Seydlitz. ooooh, I didn't see that link. Very good.
  • "after an attack of apoplexy, he completed a couple of stays at Carlsbad to take the waters." Wouldn't hurt to clarify that Carlsbad was a spa town or otherwise state that these were mineral waters he was "taking", as they say. wikilinked, etc.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Noting that I'm satisfied with your responses above, my final observations:

  • "Seydlitz's cavalry again saved the day." "Saved the day" is rather colloquial, perhaps "played a decisive role" or similar would be more suitable.
  • "brought to an end his formerly close friendship" might sound better as "brought an end to his formerly close friendship"
  • "The K2169 (a county roadway) passing through Reichertswerben is named von Seydlitz Strasse." Is there any secondary source that can support this?

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Refs 4, 6, 11, 16, 17, and 18 all show Harvard errors. I can't see immediately what the problems are, but they're most likely minor drafting errors within the source templates.
    • I've gone through and fixed those - it was a problem with how the link was formatted. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 24: needs publisher details
  • There is inconsistency in the display of publisher locations for books. Either all, or none, should have them.
  • Isbn formats should be regulated in 13-digit format. You can use this to convert 10-digit to 13.

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy

I came to nominate an article myself and couldn't help but be excited to see this up for FA.

  • There's a duplicate link for major in the second section
  • In this note, there's only one citation given - which biography makes the assertion and which one rejects it?
  • "...the victorious meeting at Katholisch-Hennersdorf..." - readers might be a bit thrown seeing a battle described as a "meeting". A link to meeting engagement would be appropriate, I'd think.
  • "...the peace on the 25 December 1748..." - I think the "the" is extraneous (or something is missing).
  • "By the start of the next war..." - piping Seven Years' War to "war" seems a little WP:EGGy to me. Ditto for Raid on Berlin to "raid" below.
  • Shift the link to heavy cavalry up to the first occurrence. Also for syphilis in the Later life section.
  • On the Semi-retirement section - it seems a little odd to split off 2 sentences into their own subsection.
  • On the subject of memorials, there's also German cruiser Seydlitz. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Segundo Romance

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

After getting both Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album) FA, I've been wanting to get this article FA as well for a long time but never had the motivation until. The article was promoted GA in 2014 and recently received a peer review and a copy-edit (courtesy of GOCE). This article follows a similar structure to the other two FA articles mentioned above. This is the second of the four bolero albums that Luis Miguel released and I'm very fond of as I am with the other two. Erick (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Segundoromance.jpg: use is justified, but we don't need quite SO much repetition in the FUR to say so! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for catching that, I have addressed it promptly. Erick (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • For this part (Segundo Reomance comprises cover versions of boleros (Latin ballads),), I would recommend linking “Latin” to “Latin music (genre)” for clarity.
  • In the same sentence, change “Reomance” to “Romance” as it is a spelling error.
  • The structure of the following part (Four singles were released: "El Día Que Me Quieras" and "La Media Vuelta", which reached the top of the Billboard Hot Latin Songs chart in the United States, and "Todo y Nada" and “Delirio”.) is a little off to me. I would put the chart placement for the first two singles in a separate sentence following this rather than putting everything in a single sentence. I would suggest revising this portion to read and flow better as a whole.
  • In the same sentence, link El Día Que Me Quieras (song)
  • I was a little confused by this sentence (Like its predecessor, the album helped continue the popularity of boleros.). Where did the album help to continue the genre’s popularity? World-wide? Clarification is necessary here.
  • In the infobox, you have Latin ballad and bolero as two separate genres, but in the lead, you include “Latin ballads” as a translation for boleros. This is a little confusing.
  • For this sentence (Miguel excluded one track, "Lo Mejor de Mí", composed by Rudy Pérez, because he felt it would be more proper to perform it as a ballad for his next album rather than a bolero.), change “rather than a bolero” to “rather than as a bolero”.
  • I am a little confused by the insertion of this part (slow ballads "endowed with romantic lyrics”). Is this a definition of boleros in general or a critics’ take on Miguel’s interpretation of boleros? If it is a definition, then I am not sure why it is not connected to the first instance of bolero in the body of the article. If it is from a critic’s review, then you will need to attribute it and make it more defined.
  • For the audio sample, you do not need to include the artist’s name in the title.
  • For this sentence (All three singles reached number one in Mexico.), could you provide a wiki link to the actual chart in Mexico?
  • I would recommend providing more structure to the “Critical reception” section. Right now, it appears more like a list of quotes from critics without any real direction.
  • I would imagine that a “Release history” section and chart is necessary for this article.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey Aoba47, couple of things. Since sources refer to this album as a bolero album, I've removed Latin ballads from the infobox and linked it instead on the lead. I took your advice about the general definition of boleros and moved it to the background section. I fixed the structure on the lead as well regarding the singles. For the popularity of boleros, I worded it to similarly to Romance (Luis Miguel album)#Influence and legacy as sources indicate Miguel helped the growing trended that he started with Romance. The reviews on this album are quite short (some of them having only one sentence or two(!)). So what I did was cut down the quotations and carefully avoided paraphrasing. The source for the Mexican songs chart is apparently UPI according to the link, an organization I am not familiar with. I honestly don't see the need for a release section since there wasn't a deluxe edition or anything like that for the album. Erick (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I understand your point on the release information, and I agree that it is best to keep the article the way it is on that front as there was not particularly special on the release as a whole. Please let me know if you have addressed everything else and I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I've removed mentions of the songs being #1 in Mexico as I have no way of knowing how reliable UPI is and the songs predate Monitor Latino. Anything else I might be missing? Erick (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

Looks good. I have a small number of questions and suggestions related mainly to prose and style issues.
  • The caption for the 22-second sample ends with "The opening of the track features a "romantic accordion" being played with AllMusic critic Jose F. Promis commenting that it sets the "tone for the rest of the set". I would replace the awkward "with plus -ing" construction. Suggestion: The track's opening, which features a "romantic accordion", sets the "tone for the rest of the set", according to AllMusic critic Jose F. Promis.
Critical reception
  • ¶1 "According to Promis, the album "which further established Miguel as a first-rate balladeer"." - This is not a complete sentence. Delete "which" and just use the rest of the quote?
  • ¶1 "...he praised Miguel's "scrumptious, sophisti-pop take of "Nosotros" and "Delirio"." - The Manual of Style advises against links inside a direct quotation. Perhaps you can paraphrase and move the sophisti-pop link outside the quote.
  • ¶1 If you keep the quote as is, it will still have a minor punctuation problem that can be solved by using single quotation marks around 'Nosotro' and 'Delirio' to avoid confusion with the outer set of quotation marks.
  • Some of the citation titles use title case, while others use sentence case. Citation 61 uses caps for the initial letter of every word. It's best to choose either sentence case or title case and use it consistently throughout. Nitpicky, I know.
  • Alt text looks OK.
  • Citation 60 returns a 404 error, and the archive-url goes to a page in Dutch that seems unreadable.
  • The dab checker finds no problems.
  • I unlinked one duplink. The checker found no others.
@Finetooth: Thanks for the feedback Finetooth. Looks like Ed Morales's book was removed from Google Books so I've just removed the url and accessdate and will use the page number for verification purposes. For the references with sentence cases, it is mainly due to how capitalization rules in Spanish is different from English regarding titles (only the first letter of the first word and proper nouns are capitalized). Of course, if you want me to use the English cap rules for those references, I don't mind. Other than that, I believe I have addressed everything that you brought up. Erick (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Magiciandude: I see what you mean about the Spanish caps. MOS:CONFORM recommends internal consistency but allows exceptions for any typographical changes that might alter the original meaning. I'd leave the Spanish caps as they are, but I'd make sure that all the English ones are in sentence case as in "Luis Miguel grows up and moves on with his latest albums" for citation 61. Does that make sense? Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
In looking at the citations again, I noticed some unhyphenated ISBNs in the reference section (citations 4, 18, 53, and 60). A converter lives here. It's a two-step process. Enter the unhyphenated 13-digit ISBN to convert it to a 10-digit ISBN, then enter the 10-digit ISBN to convert it to a 13-digit ISBN with hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Finetooth: I think I understand what you're saying, so I've amended all titles of English-language articles to use the proper capitalization and fixed the ISBNs. If it's not what you meant, please let me know so I can further amend it if necessary. Thanks! Erick (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Lilias Armstrong

Nominator(s): Umimmak (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a phonetician at University College London: Lilias Armstrong. She worked in the 1920s and 1930s and was a colleague of Daniel Jones. Her research focused on intonation and tone, and her work on Somali and Kikuyu is still held in high esteem. I was actually first made aware of Armstrong when I was referred to her work on Somali. I created this article as a stub in December 2014, and then decided in April I wanted to expand this article. I got this article to Good Article Status in June, and a peer evaluation believed it is ready for Featured Article Status. This is my first FA nomination, but I believe it meets all the criteria. Thank you for your consideration. Umimmak (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good but there are some monster paras, which should be split. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Split. There were a few places I had forgotten to double line break, thanks.Umimmak (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review - welcome to FAC!

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. You may wish to do a general Manual of Style review before other editors comment
  • File:British_phonetician_Lilias_E._Armstrong.jpg: the given source appears to include a list of illustrations with author/copyright holder for each - who does it credit for this one?
  • The level of originality required for copyright protection in the UK is quite low, and I'm not sure all of the transcriptions fall below it. Do you have further details about their copyright status? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the captions. The list of illustrations provides a general note "The remaining photographs were supplied by Michelle Stanbury [i.e., Daniel Jones' daughter —Umimmak] or taken by ourselves", but it doesn't indicate who actually took the photograph.
As for copyright, I didn't think one could copyright images of individual words or simple geometric shapes.
But the text of Mill on the Floss was written in 1860 and Armstrong's transcription was published in 1921, so by any metric that should be good. Armstrong died more than 70 years ago so copyright has lapsed in the UK for the works which she solely authored. That leaves the Tunes and the Burmese, which come from works still in copyright due to the second author, but the images themselves don't have enough creative aspect involved for copyright.Umimmak (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

I don't know that I will be able to review this in detail, so for now please consider these "drive by" comments:

  • There are a lot of quotations in the citations. It is unusual to add quotes to citations unless there is a dispute about what the source said or some other compelling motive for including them. If there is not such a justification, you should probably trim these out of the citations.
  • I fixed a couple of MOS:LQ issues that I spotted; you might want to check for others.
  • I see a lot of people mentioned as co-workers, commenters, etc., without any explanation of who they are. Even when there are links, some brief context is usually preferred. For example, "British phonetician Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..." rather than just "Jack Windsor Lewis wrote ..."

That's it for now. If I get a chance to review the article more thoroughly, I may come back with more. --RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

As for the quotations in the citations, my reasoning was it would be good to preemptively include quotations for increased verifiability, particularly when the original source was not in standard English orthography or was from a source other editors might not have easy access to. I figured it would be easier to add the quotations while I still had access to the sources than risk someone requesting a quotation when I no longer had access. If this is something I need to do, I'll go and remove them, but I'll hold off on this for now because it would be a lot of effort and I can imagining other editors preferring them to be there, for the reasons mentioned above and also to ensure I'm not too closely paraphrasing. Other points noted and I'll edit accordingly, thanks. Edit: I did remove some of the quotations -- but only those which are in standard English orthography, online, non-paywalled, and not via Google Books as one can't trust a Google Books URL to be available for all editors. Umimmak (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC) Update: Additional paywalled quotations removed if they were in major online resources like JSTOR and in standard English orthography. Umimmak (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and found it to be well-written, well-cited, and an example of Wikipedia's best work. All my concerns were addressed already, so I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I appreciate that a great deal of trouble has been taken over the referencing of this article. There's a lot to check here, and as it's the nominator's first FAC, spotchecks for accuracy and close paraphrasing will need to be done. For the moment, however, I'm making a few general points based on my examination of the first 70 or so of the references.

  • In a large number of occasions the citation is followed by an extract of the source's text. This, I note, has been raised by an earlier reviewer. I'd like to reiterate the view that such overdetailing is entirely unnecessary; ref 5 should read, simply, "Armstrong 1923, p. vii", ref 6 "Collins & Mees 2006, p. 478", and so on. Using the standard short citation format will remove much clutter from the referencing section.
  • Another feature I noticed was a tendency to include what are apparently supplementary citations, preceded by formulations such as "See also...", "see e.g...." etc. If these "supplementaries" are inessential, I'd advise dropping them and simplifying the citations list. if they are thought essential, then they should be cited as references in the standard format.
  • When a source is in a language other than English, this should be stated by adding, e.g. "(in French)"
  • Ref 10: You preface this with "Sources disagree as to the name of the school or schools she taught at, how long she taught, and what her positions were". So they might, but the issue is relatively trivial, quite unworthy of the massive multi-referencing introduced around this topic. I'd ignore the slight differences of name & chronology in the sources ("East Cheam" is obviously a misprint for "East Ham") and use a couple of references that support the statements in the text – which can if necessary be made a little flexible to allow for any doubt.
  • I noticed that ref 4 appears to be based on original research, using the findmypast website. This site is not considered as reliable by FA criteria standards; it may be possible to find a reliable secondary source that will confirm this information.

That's what I've found so far. I'd like some response before going on with the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Quotations removed or commented out in cases where there might be a chance of someone using Template:Request quotation.
I can reword the "see alsos".
I can add these
I can rewrite that bit.
Reference 4 and its corresponding sentence in the body can be stricken.
Changes have been made.
Umimmak (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC) Updated 22:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm encouraged, will look in later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Mells War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Another war memorial. Another Lutyens. But this one's a little different. Lutyens did not just design memorials for major towns and cities like my previous few nominations but also for lots of tiny little places in the middle of nowhere, usually in connection with his pre-war work on country houses. Such was the case with Mells (population ~600 in 2011), where Lutyens' friendship with the owners of the manor resulted in multiple commissions. The story of this tiny village's war memorial is a microcosm of a nation's pain and grief following the slaughter of the First World War. The article has had an A-class review at Milhist and I feel it's up to scratch but I'd appreciate any and all comments. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I supported this article at its A class review, and also carried out an image review. I believe it meets Featured Article standards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Support similarly, I supported this article at its A class review, and any concerns I had were dealt with there. Nice work. Harrias talk 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Avoid "multiple ... multiple".
  • "In November 2015, as part of commemorations for the centenary of the First World War, Lutyens' war memorials were recognised as a "national collection".": By? After you add this, I'd suggest using the same language in the lead, in place of the unattributed quoted text.
  • 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) 17:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Who doesn't like multiple multiples? ;) I've made the addition to that sentence, and I get what you're saying about the lead but the feedback in previous FACs has been to cut that down in the lead and keep it about the individual memorial rather than the group. One day I'll get round to writing an overview, but I've got another half a dozen individual memorials to cover yet. Very much obliged, as ever, Dan! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, all I was looking for was the removal of the quote marks, or attribution. They're gone now, so I'm happy. You're welcome, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Support from Moisejp

Minor suggestion for your consideration:

  • "By 1916, 74 men": Possibly a bit awkward to have two numbers in a row separated by a comma. Consider spelling out "seventy-four" or adding "a total of" to act as a buffer? Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources are all of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Melanie Barnett

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about is a fictional character who appears in the American sitcom The Game, portrayed by actress Tia Mowry. Introduced in a backdoor pilot on Girlfriends as Joan Clayton's cousin, Melanie chooses to support her boyfriend Derwin Davis' career in the fictional National Football League (NFL) team the San Diego Sabres rather than attend the medical program at Johns Hopkins University. The series primarily focuses on Melanie and Derwin's rocky relationship, with Melanie's fears of infidelity serving as the core of a majority of the episodes' storylines. I found a surprisingly nice amount of coverage on the character, ranging from Melanie's character development to Mowry's casting, departure, and return. Critics responded negatively to Melanie, though the character received more positive attention from fans. Mowry's performance received primarily positive reviews from critics.

I created and expanded this article earlier in the year by myself. This is one of the projects that I am the most proud of on here. I have actually never seen this show and I was primarily inspired to make this article after seeing ChangedforBetter's work on the Denise Huxtable page. I hope that this nomination encourages more people to work on articles on fictional characters and put them through the FAC process and create and work on new articles for notable fictional characters who do not already have one on here. I believe that this article meets all of the criteria for a featured article. I look forward to everyone's feedback and suggestions. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ceranthor

  • which aired on The CW Television Network and BET - I usually expect a time frame after this; "from 2006 to 2015" should do the trick.
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • rather than attend the medical program - do you mean medical school? I've never heard of a "medical program" in the US
  • I have heard both terms used, but I have changed it to medical school. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Intelligence is one of her defining characteristics. Mowry left the series in 2012 on learning that her role would be reduced as a result of co-star Pooch Hall's decision - These two sentences have little to do with each other, and I'm afraid it's disjointed to read. Better organization of ideas would help; I think it would be best to move the intelligence bit to the second paragraph
  • I have removed the intelligence part as I do not believe it is important enough enough to be included in the lead. I think that should hopefully solve this, but let me know what you think. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Media commentators also panned the character's representation as a mother. - I know this is just the lead, but a brief explanation of why the character was criticized would help
  • Added a short part to hopefully better explain this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Derwin proposes marriage to her on live television, during the halftime of a Sabres game, and despite her concerns she accepts.[6] - this comes sort of abruptly; could you transition to this or provide more context prior to it?
  • Added some context. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • During this time, she has an abortion, leaving her highly unlikely to conceive children naturally. - Does the show elaborate if this infertility is due to a complication? If so could you clarify that?
  • To the best of my knowledge, it seems that the infertility came from complications from the abortion so I have added that in. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • and because she is considered an unfit parent is allowed limited contact with the child - considered unfit because?
  • I have added some more information. I had to include a reference to the primary source (an episode of the series) as I could not find a credible/reliable source to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Cynthia Addai-Robinson was originally cast to play Melanie,[4] before Tia Mowry was chosen to play the role instead - This sentence reads awkwardly, particularly the second half. Tweak it a bit
  • Revised. Not sure how I missed that one lol. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • professor Marquita Marie Gammage - of what institution?
  • Added. Thank you for catching this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a well-written and interesting article. It just needs a few more details fleshed out before it's totally ready. ceranthor 17:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments! I greatly appreciate that you took the time to review this. I would also like to thank you for your kind words. I enjoyed making this article, and I am glad you found it interesting. I believe that I have addressed all of your remarks, and I look forward to hearing your response. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose. I think this is a well-written and engaging article. ceranthor 21:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Panagiotis Zois

  • File:MelanieBarnettImage.jpg - Image is under a fair-use licence and has the appropriate rationale. Used only once in the infobox. Sidenote: You really do go all the way with image information.
  • File:Mara Brock Akil.jpg - Image originates from a YouTube video which uses the Creative Commons licence Attribution 3.0 Unported, which is acceptable in Wikipedia. Used in "Production" section which discusses Akil.
  • File:Lauren London.jpg - To be honest, this image worries me a little. While it also has the CC Attribution 3.0 licence, it lacks a source. As for the website, it's down. The description says that the author is a guy named Travis Hudgons; I did find his Flickr account and the same image of London but it's copyrighted and watermarked. Here's the link.

So basically, the first two images are just fine, but I think the third one needs to go. Unless another image London exists that isn't copyrighted. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for the image review! I have removed the Lauren London image per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You're welcome :D. Not sure if it's necessary for me to state this for image reviews but it passes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

  • "which aired on The CW Television Network" - I think Television Network should either be part of the link or just go.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "on the sitcom Girlfriends as Joan Clayton's cousin" - who plays Clayton?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the fictional National Football League (NFL) team the San Diego Sabres" - a comma needed between team and the.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Critical response to the character Melanie was primarily negative, with critics" - critical ... critics
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "portrayal as being unable" - would replacing this with simply "inability" work here?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "She received nominations for two NAACP Image Awards and a Teen Choice Awards nomination for the role" - nominations ... nomination.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I count seven despite's in the article, which is a little repetitive.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Tasha and Kelly offer Melanie advice, such as using" - shouldn't advice be plural here?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The couple end their engagement after Melanie discovers that Derwin was having sex with a singer" - I don't think using continuous tense works here.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Due to this, she is considered an unfit parent" - by whom?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Down to the end of section Role. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments so far. I look forward to the rest of your review. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • She received nominations for two NAACP Image Awards and a Teen Choice Awards for the role. - singular here (TCA)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Akil had originally conceived the show's premise out of her respect for football, - Mara's surname is Brock Akil, not just Akil.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Akil referred to their characters, Melanie and Derwin - ^^
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • During this process, she lost ten pounds and chose to straighten her hair for auditions -> During this process, she lost 10 pounds (4.5 kg) and straightened her hair for auditions.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To prepare for the role, she consulted frequently with - consulted not consulted with. They are both correct, but I think the usage of the former is more common.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • When discussing her reasons for auditioning, she said: "I can take on challenging roles and that's where I want to go". - this quote can be paraphrased.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • VIBE Vixen's Jennifer Hickman referred to Melanie as "bookwormy" - this one is rather tricky (since the term is not very common) but we are not supposed to wiki-link inside a quotation, per WP:LINKSTYLE, fourth bullet point.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Random source comment: there seems to be something missing or extra in ref 33: "Taylor, Derrick Bryson (June 21, 2012). "Is Lauren London Replacing Tia Mowry on 'The Game?'". Essencedead-url=no. Retrieved August 9, 2016."
  • Media outlets viewed Keira and London as a replacement for Melanie and Mowry. - respectively? – FrB.TG (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Mowry decided to leave the show when Melanie's role was slated to become "less important" in comparison to previous seasons. - less important can be paraphrased. Also "decided to leave" -> "left"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Greg Braxton of The Los Angeles Times -> Greg Braxton of the Los Angeles Times. (Also, take the out of the link).
  • Revised. I have taken out the link, but it seems a little odd not to include it as it was the first use of the newspaper in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For the series finale, Mowry and Hall reprised their roles as Melanie and Derwin - their characters' names should be mentioned at the earliest instance of "Mowry and Hall".
  • I am not entirely sure what you mean by this comment. Could you please elaborate? Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • even though -> though (they both have the same meaning; this does not require action, just a suggestion).
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Melanie Barnett has been widely criticized by television critics. - again criticized .. critics. Also consider removing widely.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • She contrasted Melanie with white characters on television, writing - either comma or "that" after writing
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Despite this negative feedback, Mowry received positive feedback from fans - I would remove the despite part. Critics and fans usually have different opinions. There is nothing unnormal about it. I also believe that FAC is not a big fan of the words despite, however etc.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Even though she was critical of the overall show, The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan called Mowry "charming and capable". - I was a little confused with the sentence. For a second, I thought Mowry was critical of the show. Would be better as "The Chicago Tribune's Maureen Ryan was critical of the overall show, she called Mowry..." Also, regarding The Chicago Tribune, see my point above about Los Angles Times. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. :*Revised. I have taken out the link, but it seems a little odd not to include it as it was the first use of the newspaper in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. I found it well-written, although it would be great if another pair of eyes could look into it. These are my edits. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support and your edits have helped a lot. Hopefully, more reviewers will be able to help with this in the future, but I greatly appreciate your help and feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources seem to be in good order, of appropriate reliability.

  • Ref 28 requires a page ref.
  • Unfortunately, the version that I used on GoogleBooks here does not have the page numbers for some reason. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • As a general point, it isn't necessary, with well-known journals such as the NYT, Washington Post or San Francisco Chronicle, to include the publishing firm's name as well as the title. This can add a lot of clutter to the reference, e.g. "The New York Times. The New York Times Company". Not worth amending here, but perhaps bear im mind next time. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Revised. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thank you for the source review. I believe that I have addressed both of your points. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar

  • "Melanie and Derwin were replaced by draft pick Bryce "The Blueprint" Westbrook and child star Keira Whitaker, portrayed by Jay Ellis and Lauren London, respectively. Media outlets viewed Keira and London as a replacement for Melanie and Mowry" - it's already been established that Ellis and London were replacements, why did critics state the obvious or is there another meaning to it? Also, shouldn't "viewed Keira and London as a replacement" be viewed Ellis and London (the actress' last name)?
  • I have revised this. I have changed the first sentence to reflect that the new characters were introduced following Melanie and Derwin's exist. Critics thought the new characters were replacements for the old ones, while the producer and actors from the show argued otherwise. As for the "Keira and London" part, I am comparing the character and the actor to "Melanie and Mowry" so bringing in the actor playing Bryce "The Blueprint" Westbrook (i.e. Ellis) would not make sense in this context. Hope that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jaime Lee wrote that viewers had connected with the fictional couple relating to their struggles. Jennifer Hickman felt that Melanie's romance and struggles with Derwin would be appealing to viewers" - Jamie Lee and Jennifer Hickman from where? What magazines/publications? I noticed that they're in the fans' feedback paragraph.
  • Thank you for catching this. I am not sure how I missed that. I have add the publication for Jamie Lee, while Jennifer Hickman was introduced in a previous section. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I had no idea that this was Tia Mowry from Sister, Sister! I used to love watching that when I was a child. I've come late to this review and have already seen a large and established set of comments above, which explains why I couldn't spot many issues. Overall this is well written, comprehensive and enjoyable to read. I satisfied that this meets the FA criteria so I'll go ahead and support this now. JAGUAR  11:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support and for your comments. I greatly appreciate your help as you have helped to improve the article as a whole. Aoba47 (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Operation Inmate

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

This article covers a two day long series of air attacks and naval bombardments conducted by the British Pacific Fleet against isolated Japanese-held islands in June 1945. Somewhat oddly to modern eyes, the main purpose of the operation was to provide the Allied airmen and sailors with combat experience before they conducted more demanding operations against Japan itself. The Allied force achieved this goal, and incurred relatively light casualties by standards at the time, though the Japanese later reported that the attacks had caused only minor damage. Overall, the article provides an interesting insight into the tactics used during naval operations in the final months of World War II and the circumstances endured by cut-off Japanese garrisons in the Pacific.

I developed the article from a stub about a year ago. It was assessed as GA class in November, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in February this year. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited, and I believe that it draws on all of the significant sources available on this minor military operation to provide a rounded view of the experiences of the Allied and Japanese forces. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:HMS_Implacable_arriving_at_Sydney_on_8_May_1945.JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    Australian copyright expired after 50 years if the image was taken before 1 May 1955. This was taken in 1945, so the copyright expired in 1995. It is also in the public domain in the United States because it was in the it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (1 January 1996). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    The US tag currently in use has publication requirements beyond "PD in home country", though. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    G'day Nick-D, I suggest, given this is held by the AWM, PD-AustraliaGov applies. You do not need a US PD licence for PD-AustraliaGov. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    I've just made that change. Thanks for the image review Nikki, and your assistance Hawkeye and Peacemaker. Nick-D (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article at GAN and again for Milhist A-Class. I've gone through the changes since then, including Dan's copyedit, and believe that it meets the Featured Article criteria. I've also conducted a source review and they are all reliable. Spotchecked fn 12 and 34, both ok. Suggest moving the References section to 20em to eliminate whitespace. Well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:53, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I've just made that change. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

SupportComments from Hawkeye7

  • "The British Pacific Fleet " Introduce the abbreviated BPF here
  • "The British aircraft carrier HMS Implacable " Do we need "British"? And should we say "fleet carrier"?
    • Not in this context (as it seems clear), and yes - fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Admiral Bernard Rawlings – the commander of the fleet's combat force" Rawlings was only a vice-admiral at the time.
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " the 29th of the month" -> 29 May per MOS:BADDATE
    • Tweaked to avoid this Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "a US Navy submarine took up position near the atoll " That was USS Pompon?
    • Could you please provide a source which confirms that? The sub's DANFS's entry says that her patrol commenced on 18 June 1945 [10] - though DANFS is often wrong, and Clay Blair doesn't mention it in his Silent Victory. None of the sources I've found name the sub. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional sources comment: 13-digit isbns are preferred in booklists. You can convert the 10-digit versions to 13 by means of this Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, I've just made that change Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson has made quite a name for herself from beginning acting from the age of seven to becoming one of Hollywood's biggest stars. She is also quite often in the lists of sexiest women in the world, which contributes significantly to her public image. I saw some of her films not long ago and liked her in them.

Note: There are some sources, which might not appear as high quality, but they are either quotes from the actress or legitimate interviews, and do not have anything controversial so I think they should be okay for use here. I also feel the article might have many quotes, but I believe they are important and add to the article and her personality. Should someone object to it, I will do my best to address their concerns. Thanks to anyone and everyone for taking the time. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from regarding the sources, but there is documentation regarding fabricated quotes and interviews for at least one of them, haven't checked others. Strongly suggest you reconsider that approach, and only include what can be reliably sourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed the Daily Mail source, the other one is IndieLondon, not sure how you feel about it. Will go through the sources again tomorrow. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

All images appear to be properly licensed, but only Scarlett Johansson.jpg currently has alt text. Moisejp (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, added.
It does not. Pls look again and you'll find the alt text.
  • My apologies. When I was skimming I mistook where the end of the caption ended. Great, images all look good! Moisejp (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Moise

Hi FrB.TG. Comments on what I've read so far:


  • "She voiced an intelligent computer operating system in the 2013 comedy-drama Her and played an alien in the 2013 science fiction film Under the Skin and a woman with psychokinetic abilities in the 2014 science fiction action Lucy." Sentence feels a little long and has two instances of "and" (even though the second one doesn't introduce a new clause so is still grammatically correct). Maybe try to break the sentence up somehow, or change the second "and" to "as well as", or at the very least put a comma after Her.
  • Third and fourth paragraphs have two sentences in a row starting with "She". Feels a bit repetitive, especially in the third paragraph. Maybe if you broke up the sentence I quoted above into two sentences, it would solve both issues in the third paragraph.

Films with Woody Allen:

  • "When Allen offered Johansson the part, she accepted it on a condition that he change her role's nationality." Would be nice to know more about this.
  • Thanks for adding the precision about what nationalities they were. I was hoping to also know the reason why she preferred playing an American (maybe she wasn't comfortable with a British accent?) and was going to add it myself, but when I looked in the source I did't find anything about Johansson requesting the change. Is it possible the information is in a different source? Moisejp (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is what the "Why I love London" source says, "Scarlett Johansson replaced Kate Winslet shortly before shooting began, a switch that required the character to change nationality. 'It was not a problem,' Allen says. 'It took about an hour.'"
  • Yes, it does say that there was a "required" change in nationality, but not that Johansson wasn't willing to take the part if the nationality wasn't changed. One could imagine from what is written in the source that perhaps it was Allen that felt the nationality change was better. It feels like a bit of a jump to me. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This source (GamesRadar) [[11]] contains the line "So I had to recast and it turned out I could cast an American so I went down the list and saw Scarlett’s name" which may suggest a different sequence of events for Scarlett's character becoming American. Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Reworded to be more faithful to the source. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll finish reviewing the rest soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Moisejp. I have rearranged the lead a bit. Hopefully it reads better now. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe:

  • "The film gained mainly favorable reviews, and Anne Billson praised Johansson for bringing depth to a rather uninteresting character that it made one wish to watch her story than Damon's." The end of the sentence (from "that it made..." onwards) doesn't seem to quite fit grammatically. Moisejp (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It's too much detail anyway. Removed that part. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I got distracted by a couple of other reviews, but will continue this one very soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Music career:

  • "The album was named the "23rd best album of 2008" by NME and peaked at number on the Billboard Top Heatseekers chart and number 126 on Billboard 200." The Heatseekers position is missing from the sentence, and I looked in ref #175 to try to add it, but I could only find the Top 200 information in it. Moisejp (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Transition to adult roles:

  • "Webber found the actress too modern, but thought it was a positive attribute and that hiding the intelligent girl in her for the part would work." I find this sentence quite confusing. Johansson was "too" modern but this was a good thing—that's already contradictory. And it's not clear to me what "hiding the intelligent girl in her for the part would work" means. Is it possible to clarify this sentence? Moisejp (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Johansson is supposed to play a 17th century character in the film. When Webber met with Johansson he thought she was too modern to play the character, but he was instead fascinated with her modernness. In the source's words, When he first met Johansson, who was 17 at the time, she was en route to a New York Knicks game -- a far cry from the 17th century. But her very modernness fascinated Webber. "I realized that what would work was to take this intelligent, zippy girl and repress all that. Is there a better way to summarize it? (Although I am beginning to wonder if it should at all be mentioned in the article). – FrB.TG (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, FrB.TG, I don't have any immediate ideas. It's tricky. I hope it doesn't sound like a cop-out, but with so many good details throughout the article—especially if you're unsure whether this detail belongs—it could be worthwhile to remove. Moisejp (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Woody Allen:

  • "She also appeared in Brian De Palma's The Black Dahlia, a film noir shot in Los Angeles and Bulgaria. Johansson later said she was a fan of De Palma and had wanted to work with him on the film, but thought that she was "physically wrong" for the part.[69] CNN noted, "[Johansson] takes to the pulpy period atmosphere as if it were oxygen," and Anne Billson of The Daily Telegraph found her miscast in her part." Johansson says she miscast in a way, Billson says also she was miscast. It could be a good idea to join these two in the prose. Moisejp (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


  • "In November 2011, Johansson was supposed to make her directorial debut in an adaption of Truman Capote's novel, Summer Crossing, with the screenplay by playwright Tristine Skyler." Did she end up making it or not, and if she didn't, why not? Moisejp (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The last time I read about it was in a 2015 article, which says that it is still in the making. I guess it is one of those films that never come to fruition. Should I shift it to Upcoming projects or just remove and perhaps add it back when the principal photography for the film begins?
  • If you can write it in a way that leaves it open-ended but still true to the actual sources you have, then putting it in Upcoming projects could work. Otherwise you could consider removing it. Moisejp (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Johansson was intimidated by the role's complexity, and considered her recording sessions for the role challenging but liberating. "You're liberated from your body." " Can you find a synonym for "liberating" to avoid repetition? Moisejp (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
If it was the user John, he would have asked to remove the quote, since the intimidated part summarizes the quote.

Music career: (I know some of these sections are appearing twice, but my first read-through of the article was a little scattered, and now I'm trying to go through each section more deliberately.)

  • "Reviews of the album were mixed, or average." I'm not sure the exact distinction being made between "mixed" and "average". Do you need both words? Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Johansson was issued a cease and desist order from the lead singer of the Los Angeles-based rock band the Singles, demanding her to stop using their name." Do you have information about how that situation ended, and whether Johansson's band end up changing their name?
No, unfortunately not. Newspapers or tabloids haven't really added further about it.
  • Just confirming, but should "Universal fanfare" be "Universal Fanfare"? Moisejp (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think those are all my comments. I have also made several copy-edits. Moisejp (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for both the comments and the copyedits. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

All right, this article is good to go in my books. If you can just do something about the info on her directorial debut, as discussed above, that would be awesome. Moisejp (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That's great. I have removed the directorial part for now, and will consider adding it back when/if the principal photography begins. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • For this sentence (Johansson shifted to adult roles with her performances in Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) and Lost in Translation (2003), for which she won a BAFTA Award for Best Actress.), would it be better to remove the two (2003) parenthesis and move the year to the following “Johansson shifted to adult roles in 2003 with her performances…”? Just providing a suggestion to avoid the repetitions of 2003 in the same sentence.
  • I am not certain about the “Also in 2010” transition in the lead’s third paragraph. Maybe revise it to something like “Also in the same year” or “In the same year”.
  • Would there be a way to reword this sentence (The highest-grossing actress of 2016, she is also, as of May 2017, the highest-grossing actress of all time in North America.) without repeating “highest-grossing” twice? Just seems repetitive here.
  • This is more of a clarification question but is there a reason why ('introducing' credit on this film) has single quotation marks (i.e. ‘.’) as opposed to double quotation marks (i.e. “.”).
  • In the phrase (Made on a paltry budget of $4 million), I am not sure if the word “paltry” is necessary. I would let the numbers speak for themselves.
  • Could you possibly revise the following sentence (Aspiring to appear on Broadway since her childhood, Johansson made her debut on Broadway in a 2010 revival of the drama A View from the Bridge, written by Arthur Miller.) to avoid the repetition of the word “Broadway”?
  • Entertainment Weekly was linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • I think that this “and speak in English accent” should be revised to this (and speak in an English accent).
  • For this part (while taking note of her first fully nude role. For the role,) I would avoid the repetition of the word “role” in such close proximity.
  • In this part (her lips, green eyes, and voice are among her trademarks), who considers these her trademarks? I am just curious about the attribution for this.
  • In this phrase (Often sexually compared to that of Marilyn Monroe,), is the “sexually” part needed in “sexually compared”? Something about it sounds a little off to me. I understand the intended meaning, but I am still not quite so sure about it.
  • I am not sure about the immediate value of the second paragraph of “Public image” section. It seems rather repetitive to just list her placement on lists of the “sexiest celebrity”. It is important information to include as she is known as a sex symbol, but I am curious if this could be cut down further.
I know it is somewhat repetitive to list down those lists, and I have seen some strong opposition from a certain user, but I think they are important, as they are, like, the awards she receive for her films. Regardless, I have trimmed it a little.
  • Thank you for addressing this. I would not compare her appearances on these lists to her awards from fils as they are completely separate things. I am still not entirely convinced of the value of the paragraph, but I understand your point, and will leave this up to future, more experienced reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Would the second paragraph of the “Philanthropy” subsection be better suited for the final paragraph in the “Endorsements” subsection. It seems a little odd to have information in one subsection about how she resigned from company due to conflicting endorsements and then place the full reasonings behind it in a later subsection.
Simply removed that part from Endorsement as I think it belongs more in Philanthropy.
  • In this sentence (Her endeavors included appearances in Iowa during January 2008, where her efforts were targeted at younger voters; an appearance at Cornell College; and a speaking engagement at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota on Super Tuesday, 2008.), all instances of the semicolon should be a comma.
  • For this part (for The Black Eyed Peas frontman's song), I do not know why it is necessary to bring up The Black Eyed Peas if they were not a part of the song or video? I think the descriptive phrase “singer” or “rapper” would suffice here.
  • Do you think it is notable/relevant enough to include her appearance on SNL as Ivanka Trump in the skit “Complicit” as that got some media attention after it aired.
I think it's enough to mention her 2017 appearance. Mentioning also that would be somewhat overkill.
  • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Aoba. Some really great points. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, good luck with your nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
For the "her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks" aspect, I would think that WP:In-text attribution would not be appropriate if there are multiple or various sources stating this. In-text attribution could make it seem like it's just according to that one person or media outlet. But I see that this has been resolved by adding "the media" in front of "considers her lips, green eyes, and voice among her trademarks." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

This is pretty formidable, with 290-odd citations, so I'm doing it in stages. First column:

Well, she has been active since 1994, has starred in dozens of films, released two albums and done other works, so it would naturally be a little large.
  • Ref 7: The publisher should be rendered as E!News, with the wikilink
  • Ref 19: What makes this a high quality, reliable source? It's self-published, and reads rather like a fan piece. Also, the book is unpaginated, so "pp. 5" doesn't make sense as a reference point.
  • Ref 26: The Redford quote is clearly on p. 12, so why the open page range?
  • Ref 36: Again, the page reference should be precise, not to an open-ended range
  • Ref 70: The link seems to go to an entirely different website, unrelated to Johansson

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I have addressed your concerns and look forward to the rest. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Second column:

  • Ref 98: Source has a differently-worded headline
  • Ref 100: Authorname is in wrong format – should be surname first
  • Ref 111: Link goes to an entirely different headline – is this the intended source?
  • Ref 119: The E! issue – see note re ref 7, above
  • Ref 164: Authorname in wrong format.

3rd col to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

All adjusted, thanks. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Third column:

  • Ref 186: Why is this source reliable ("Pitchfork")? Also, authorname format error
  • Ref 190: I'm sure that "" isn't part of the title
  • Ref 199: who is the publisher here? "On The Red Carpet" doesn't seem to be an organisation – it looks to me as though "ABC Eyewitness News" is the probable publisher
  • Ref 228: Authorname format
  • Ref 236: The word is "Ever", not "Eve"
  • Ref 239: Why is this source reliable ("PopSugar")? For some reason the site stops me from scrolling to the foot to check on its credentials.
I think I have seen it being used in another FA (can't remember which), but I have replaced it.
  • Ref 240: Authorname format
  • Ref 244: Why is this source reliable ("Aid still Required")?
Johansson supports the organization, and the source is used to cite that. Can't think of a better source than the one from the organization itself.

And that's it, done. It would be helpful, if you delete or replace a source, if you would add a brief note. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for such a thorough review of sources. I have left replies under the comments where necessary. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I expect to have the usual stack of nitpicks, and begin construction with the following:

  • I think I've suggested to you in previous articles that there be more facts about what the subject is best known for in the lede paragraph, given what the reader is likely to see if they google. I do so again.
  • "she was married twice," As she lives, I might say "she has been married twice".
  • "comes from an Ashkenazi Jewish family (from Poland and Belarus)." I think "Ashkenazic" is more commonly used when an adjective. Also, I might say the family is "of Polish and Belarusian descent" if the connection is not recent (say post World War II), in which case you don't need the parens.
I also prefer it that way (and is now changed back to that), but there was a user that thought otherwise.
  • "She was devastated when a talent agent signed up her brother instead of her. Determined, she eventually decided to become an actress anyway." I would cut "up" as unneeded and "eventually" (a 7-year-old hasn't experienced "eventually")
  • "and made her first stage appearance in the Off Broadway play Sophistry opposite Ethan Hawke,[19] in which she had only two lines.[18]" I take "opposite" to mean leading actor (or actress) opposite the leading actress (or actor), if you know what I mean. Two lines is not a leading part, and given the age difference ... I might substitute "with" for "opposite".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have addressed these, and look forward to more. – FrB.TG (talk) 11:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a very very large shark that went extinct a really really long time ago. It also got to GA a really very long time ago in 2008, and now I'm here to see it through FA   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Pbsouthwood

Image licenses:

  • File:Megalodon shark jaws museum of natural history 068.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Stenoshark.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon tooth with great white sharks teeth-3-2.jpg - looks OK
  • File:White shark.jpg - looks OK
  • File:FMIB 45542 Cetorhinus maximus.jpeg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon scale.svg - looks OK
  • File:Carcharodon megalodon.jpg - looks OK
  • Source link doesn't appear to have original publication - when/where was this first published?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Megalodon.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon teeth.jpg - looks OK (dead link to source)
  • File:Megalodon jaws on display at the National Baltimore Aquarium.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Megalodon skeleton.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Giant white shark coprolite (Miocene; coastal waters of South Carolina, USA).jpg - looks OK
  • File:Meg bitten cetacean vertebra.jpg - not found at source url, page may have changed. OTRS ticket on file, assuming OK
  • File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg - source archived, I don't know how to check licensing for this one.
  • File:Physeteroidea - Livyatan melvillei.JPG - looks OK
  • File:VMNH megalodon.jpg - looks OK. source checked, OTRS ticket on file.
  • File:Megalodon teeth.png - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
  • File:Orca pod southern residents.jpg - looks OK, checked source and license corresponds with commons tag.
  • File:Megbook.jpg - looks OK, but I am not expert on fair use.

File:Megbook.jpg and File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg should be checked by someone more expert. I am satisfied with the others. These two are probably OK too but I am not sure. Nikkimaria, perhaps you would be kind enough to check them. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The map appears to be pretty much identical to the source site, which is problematic given this statement. The book cover currently has no fair-use rationale for this page and can't be used here without one. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the book image, but I'm not too sure what to do with the map. It says you can use a modified version of the map, and the one on here is covered in dots, so that seems to check out. It says it can only be used as a resource, just not point-blank copy/pasted onto a page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem is, File:Earthmap1000x500compac.jpg appears to be an unmodified version. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I switched it out with File:Land shallow topo 2048.jpg   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK to me · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • All images have alt text. I think some could be improved. I will get back to this for details or make the suggested changes myself if you are happy with that. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I have made some alt text copyedits, and plan to do more. Feel free to revert if you disagree with them.
    Done with alt-text. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • External links look OK on Checklinks. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect check looks OK on Rdcheck. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Infobox gives four synonyms as C. spp. Are they all Carcharocles spp? Phylogeny section appears to suggest that other synonyms exist.
Synonyms of Carcharocles sure, but not synonyms of megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair comment. If the accepted procedure is to list only species synonyms in the infobox, no problem. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I see that this has been changed. Looks OK to me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • First paragraph suggested that Megalodon:The Monster Shark Lives is a documentary. I changed it. No action required · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • competing figures still exist as to when it evolved - What are Competing figures?
disagreement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the expression, is it standard or common usage in paleontology? I think it may be a bit obscure for the average reader. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the visible V-shaped neck on the teeth?
the neck of the tooth is where the root meets the crown   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • in 1960, the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four sharks Are these four sharks those which are now assigned to Carcharocles? If so it would be clearer to mention it.
I switched it to "those four sharks" because I figure it'd be confusing saying "the genus Procarcharodon was erected and included the four Carcharocles sharks"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
External appearance
  • This section seems excessively tentative. It suggests that the shark resembled at least four rather different extant species. It may be that there are different opinions as to which shark it most closely resembles, in which case this should be specifically mentioned, if possible mentioning the specific attributes that are hypothesized to match each of the species.
there’re three different ideas as to what it really looked like, so they’re split into three different paragraphs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Then perhaps the section should lead with a mention that opinions differ, and possibly mention who holds which opinion.
I just opened the paragraphs with "one idea is..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That is better. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • However, since sand tiger sharks are displacement swimmers, and use drag to propel themselves; they are required to move around three or four times their own weight in water on each tail stroke. On the face of it, this does not make sense. Explain or link "displacement swimmer", explain how drag can propel anything, as it seems a contradiction in terms.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph is still incomprehensible to me, and is not linked to anything that explains it. I am not a specialist on animal swimming, but I am educated in basic hydrodynamics and have probably a better than average layman's knowledge of marine biology, so if I don't get it, I suspect that the majority of readers also won't get it. In this context does "own weight in water" mean an amount of water weighing as much as the shark independent of immersion medium, or an amount of water weighing as much as the apparent weight of the shark when immersed in water? I expect the latter, but then some indication of the apparent weight is needed, as for a neutrally buoyant shark this would be zero. If the former, that is a huge mass of water, and the reason escapes me. Axial swimming is not explained in the article and does not appear to be explained anywhere else on Wikipedia. A footnote may be useful. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"axial swimmers that flex their body for propulsion"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
"own weight in water" means in the most literal sense possible "own weight in water"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The source specifies own mass, which is unambiguous. Weight in water is ambiguous as it can mean apparent weight. Own weight of water is less ambiguous.
I read the source. It also fails to explain the meaning of axial swimming and the requirement to displace a large mass of water by drag adequately. I also did a little research into fish locomotion, and found a resource which explains the differences between body forms optimised for acceleration, maneuverability and sustained high speed. I think Kent is trying to say that the sand tiger is optimised for acceleration and possibly maneuverability, but is an inefficient form for sustained high cruising speeds, which tends to be represented by less flexible bodies and high aspect ratio caudal fins, and preferably near neutral buoyancy to minimise induced drag. I am going to look for a suitable wikilink, but may have to resort to a redlink. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
It is clearer to me. If you are satisfied that that is the intended meaning of the source I am happy with it. OK for me. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is a "pig-eyed appearance" intended to mean in this context?
the source said “pig-eyed” which means popping out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  12:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I accept that the source said "pig-eyed". I checked, and it is there, but I could not access adjacent text to see what meaning they intended. Nevertheless, I do not get a clear understanding from the expression as used in the article, and question its usefulness as a description on that account. I found definitions for pig-eyed in Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, which both say "small, deep-set eyes", quite the opposite of "popping out". I think we can reasonably assume that the authors meant small, deep-set eyes, and as the meaning is clearly not obvious, suggest that the article is changed to clarify. There is no entry in Wiktionary. Either reword or a footnote would do.
I just appendaged an explainer on the end   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Megalodon is represented in the fossil record by teeth, vertebral centra, and coprolite. Only one coprolite? If so, "a coprolite". If more than one, use plural form.
Teeth and bite forces
  • What are post-cranial generated forces? Link would be sufficient.
I just removed “post-cranial”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Range and habitat
  • Fossil remains show a trend for specimens to be larger on average in the southern hemisphere than in the northern, with mean lengths of 11.6 and 9.6 meters (38 and 31 ft), respectively; and in the Pacific more so than the Atlantic 10.9 and 9.5 meters (36 and 31 ft) respectively. The section in italics is not clear. Do the 10.9 and 9.5 meters refer to mean lengths in the Pacific and Atlantic (both hemispheres) repectively, or to mean lengths in the southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere in one of these oceans?
11.6 and 9.6 metres mean length for the southern and northern hemispheres respectively; and 10.9 and 9.5 metres for the Pacific and Atlantic oceans respectively. The semicolon is there to separate the two   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
To what does "more so" refer? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Exactly what it sounds like? I use that every day to mean "a quantity more than..." (and on occasion "more like..." depending on the context, but you get the idea)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an explanation of the meaning, and is what I would expect it to mean. What I asked was what concept in the sentence "more so" refers to. Is it "a trend for specimens to be larger in the southern hemisphere than the northern", or just "a trend for specimens to be larger"? In effect I am asking whether the trend for larger in SH vs NH is exaggerated in the Pacific in relation to the Atlantic, or whether the trend for larger mean lengths in the Pacific than the Atlantic is greater than the hemispheric variation. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed it myself after referring to source. No further action required if you are OK with the change. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Prey relationships
  • Being an opportunist, it would have gone after small and fish and other sharks given the opportunity. First paragraph of the section states probably an apex predator, so maybe "Also being an opportunist...". In same sentence, "small and fish" makes no sense, but not sure what is intended. "Smaller fish"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
OK · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Checked: sample of 10 refs chosen from accessible websites. Some when checking specific content, some arbitrarily selected for no special reason. These checks are for validity only, i.e. the content is supported by the source. No comment on formatting.

  • Roesch, B. S. (1998) - OK
  • Does Megalodon still live - OK
  • Alten, S. (2011) - OK
  • Weinstock, J. A. (2014), Partly checked, some pages not accessible, no problem detected.
  • Prothero, D. R. (2015), 1 use checked as OK
  • Bendix-Almgreen, Svend Erik (1983) - OK
  • Fitzgerald, Erich (2004) - OK
  • Ferretti, Francesco; Boris Worm; Gregory L. Britten; Michael R. Heithaus; Heike K. Lotze1 (2010) - OK
  • Renz, Mark (2002), partly checked, pages not fully accessible, samples checked were good. no problem detected.
  • Siverson, Mikael; Johan Lindgren; Michael G. Newbrey; Peter Cederström; Todd D. Cook (2013) - OK

Additional checks when researching for clarification.

  • Pimiento, C.; Balk, M. A. (2015) - OK
General criteria
  • well-written: Could use some more copyediting. I will do what I can, but don't claim to be very good at it.
    • comprehensibility to the layperson reasonable for the topic. Some clarification needed as detailed above.
  • comprehensive: Looks good to me.
  • well-researched: Appears adequately cited, and those refs I have checked look good.
  • neutral: As far as I can tell. No reasons found to suspect otherwise.
  • stable: Looks fine. A lot of constructive work over the last few months and no recent edit wars.
  • lead: Seems generally appropriate.
  • structure: Also seems appropriate.
  • citations: Not checked (yet). Looks OK on a sample check. (see above) I don't do ref formatting reviews, but have not noticed any obvious problems.
  • media. See above: reasonable variety of images, appropriate for purpose, licensing issues appear to be fixed.
  • length. Seems OK.

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal

  • Mega shark series is a dab link, so that needs to be fixed.
that was one purpose,it just lists all the movies in the series   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Using a dab like that is a bad idea (it's just going to draw people trying to fix it), so I resolved by creating a Mega Shark (film series) article. --RL0919 (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In prey relations, the text is being sandwiched between the two images, so if that could be fixed, it would be great.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

More by evening! Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm gonna be gone over the weekend to a place where wifi is a foreign concept, so I'll answer any more comments on Monday (or Tuesday)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
wifi at last   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, completely forgot about it!

  • Link naturalist.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
it also says the subject should be facing the text, so like the Megalodon painting shows the Megalodon facing the left so the picture should be on the right side so that it faces the text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, possibly over 200 centra. Only the great white approached it." Can these two sentences be merged somehow? (maybe "Scrutiny of the partially preserved vertebral megalodon specimen from Belgium revealed that it had a higher vertebral count than specimens of any known shark, with the great white shark's equaling it, with possibly over 200 centra.)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This is all I have to nitpick on. It is a really very well-written, solid article!Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Support - A very solid article, and well deserves a shiny star to it! Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll take a look at this soon. Some initial thoughts below. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems the image layout could still be improved. In the Taxonomy section, the white shark or tooth image could maybe be moved down, so they don't cluster above, both next to the cladogram.
I moved the great white image down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Under "Teeth and bite force", the Baltimore jaw image seems a bit redundant and crammed-in, could be moved somewhere else.
any ideas where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It is slightly repetitive, so I'd just remove it or put it in the fiction section as decoration or something, but it's also a shame to remove it, so maybe just leave it as is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'm leaving it as is then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The vertebra under "Prey relationships" could be right aligned so it doesn't cluster with the skull photo.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In fiction" Still seems a way too specific and inadequate title for something that includes info about wrong dating of teeth. This has nothing to do with fiction, and instead of making a new section, it would be better to just make the title more inclusive.
I changed it to "Fiction and sightings"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
How about "Fiction and misconceptions"? There have been no plausible sightings. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe fiction and cryptozoology? It may also be an idea to make the title even more generic, if we want to include for example non-fictional media appearances or such. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
"Modern era"? "Appearances"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's on the even vaguer end... "Modern era" could mean anything (all research is also modern?), and "sightings" is too uncritical, as it implies it has actually been seen. "Fiction and cryptozoology" is probably the most fitting after all, but if you want to be more inclusive, "cultural significance" could work. FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The external links and videos should be cleaned up; some of the links don't work, and some are just redundant junk.
changed to "In fiction and cryptozoology"
I removed all the deadlinks and weird ones   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Alternative combinations (of genus and species names, such as Carcharodon megalodon) should also be listed in the taxobox synonyms. It is also better to spell out the genus names in the presently listed synonyms, otherwise we won't know what genus each invalid species was assigned to. All synonyms should also redirect here.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, there's a problem with listing genera separately from species here, though; Carcharocles contains species other than megalodon, so synonyms of that genus cannot be synonyms of the species C. megalodon itself. So what I meant is you should list full binomials as synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Perfect! FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why this restoration isn't used?[12] It doesn't seem like a white shark-like appearance has been ruled out, but it's explicitly mentioned as a possibility under description.
I checked the source and it doesn't actually have a picture of megalodon in it (or at least not one labelled "megalodon"), and it doesn't really have the same style as all the other pictures on the sight which makes me question it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
NobuTamura/Arthur Weasley is a pretty prolific paleoartist on Wikipedia (or at least was), he has done many images in different styles, from pencil to 3D, so there is no question it's his own. Much of his underwater work has the same style, see for example these:[13][14][15] FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I can find all those pictures on the website specified in the source, but I can’t find Megalodon on the website specified in the source. Also the article’s borderlining on picture overload and there’s already a pretty realistic Megalodon reconstruction   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The image is right here on the site:[16] I agree there is an image overload, but that's mainly because we have way too many repetitive images of teeth (3) and jaws (5). There is only a single restoration of the animal, far from the description/anatomy section where such are usually placed, yet there is still room there (even if you keep the basking shark). It's up to you, but I think the balance could certainly be improved, and it's kind of inappropriate that the reader has to get that far down the article to get an idea how the animal looked like. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The image is licensed NC. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Not on Commons[17], where the artist has uploaded it (and almost all the images on that blog) himself. In fact, he uploaded images for Wikipedia use long before he started his own website, and frequently asked for critique at the dinosaur art review page, so there is no copyright issue here (dual licenses are also fine). FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a photo of a coprolite, is there any published information about this? Could be interesting.
added to the Anatomy section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the past, the two major interpretations were Carcharodon megalodon (under the family Lamnidae) or Carcharocles megalodon (under the family Otodontidae)." This is very vaguely worded. Interpretation of what? What kind of interpretation? And what is "in the past"? You could say there has been a historical debate about its generic classification, and that one possibility is now in favour, but the current wording is just too weak.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
"Some argue" is listed as "weasel words", you could say "some researchers argue". FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The "etymology" section seems to be to specifically named compared with the content. Perhaps change to "naming", as it is not simply concerned with the meaning of the names.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Swiss naturalist Louis Agassiz gave the shark its" I would rather say "this shark", when I read it first i thought you meant sharks in general as a taxon.
should I do that for every time is says "the shark" in the article?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What did Agassiz base the name on?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The "fossils" section seems like a hodgepodge of text that belongs in other sections. Some of it is about evolution, some is descriptive, some is about extinction date. I think this should be spread out to more appropriate sections. Especially the last two paragraphs, which are entirely about morphology, surely belongs under description/anatomy, which is very short anyway.
I moved them to their appropriate sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Relationship between megalodon and the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)" This caption seems misleading, since the cladogram shows the relation with many sharks, not just with the white shark. So it should rather be "including the white shark".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " In this model, the great white shark", and "In this model, the great white shark is", very repetitive.
I did that to avoid confusion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You should be consistent in whether you give scientific names after common names or not. Now you mention modern shark species without and some with.
where is the scientific name before the common name?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention various geological ages without links or dates, but this will mean nothing to many reaqders, so you should add both.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and predate the transitional Pliocene fossils." What transitional fossils? You have not introduced what these are.
  • "Later on in the 1980s" Too informal wording.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "to classify the shark C. auriculatus into". Sounds weird, maybe say "was established to contain C. auriculatus" or some such.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Before this, however, in 1960," Insert sentence overload, you could easily cut "however".
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the phylogeny section, you are inconsistent in whether you mention authors and dates for theories or not.
added 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 
  • Many chronospecies are mentioned in that section, perhaps mention the word if the sources do.
it's mentioned in the paragraph about chronospecies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "concluded that it is a paraphyly." The term needs to explain, and the sentence is also wrongly worded. A taxon can be paraphyletic, it cannot be a paraphyly, which denotes the concept itself.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The end of the Phylogeny indicates the species belongs in Otodus, but this is inconsistent with the rest of the article. What is the actual, current consensus, and when has it been established, and by who?
depends who you ask. Some say Carcharodon megalodon, some say Carcharocles megalodon, some say Otodus megalodon, and some say Megaselachus megalodon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention various subgenera, like Otodus (Megaselachus) megalodon, so this term could be mentioned.
I just wikilinked it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 7: publisher location missing
Which one's that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 12: There are 21 citations to a page range 1–159. How is someone to check any of these, short of scouring the whole book?
when the page number isn’t specified in the refs, I just put {{rp}} directly after each mention of the ref to specify page numbers   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 17: Same problem – this time 31 citations without page references, in a book with at least 517 pages.
Same’s above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 23 and 40: what makes a high quality reliable source
it’s written by palaeontologists   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 29: as per 12 and 17 – 7 citations, no p. refs, book 389 pp.
chapter name is specified in this ref so the page numbers don’t have to be   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 37: what makes a high quality reliable source?
it’s written by Joseph Bertucci, brother of Vito Bertucci, and the discussion on the Bertucci reconstruction is what it’s citing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 57: lacks publisher details
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Added the website and publisher (from here) – Rhinopias (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 71: there's a stray > sign, also publisher location missing, and no page refs
I just specified the chapter   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed, added, but for page refs: it seems as if this is referencing the entire work (unlike ref #70)? Unless the chapter "Megalodon: The Fisherman's Nightmare" should be cited to support the text more explicitly. – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 75: publisher location missing and no page ref
Assuming it's been pushed over to ref no. 78, it has a location and the chapter's specified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Added – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 76: publisher location missing
Assuming it's now ref no. 79, it's already specified   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Added – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 80: New York Times should be italicised
It is?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Changed to newspaper parameter – Rhinopias (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look of appropriate quality and reliabiliuty. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ll try to fix the rest later, life got really busy really quickly   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Well that happened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Boat Races 2017

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well it took nearly six months to get this passed at GAN so this can’t be much worse... another comprehensive Boat Races article based on existing predecessors who have been promoted to FA over the past couple of years. As ever will work my little cotton socks off to address any and all comments here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the course map. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    Cool, to what? You know there are like 180+ of these all based on the same image size and several have gone through FAC before? Any other image issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    All images are appropriately licensed. Looks like of the other FAs on the races, most don't use |upright=, so that'd make the difference. If you do want to keep the upright you can scale to 1 to match the ones that don't use it, or pick something up to 1.3 for larger. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    Okeydokes, dropped "upright". Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

A rather new topic for me, please excuse possible silly questions, and don't expect me to have read other articles in the series ;) Lead

  • The lead image is too small.
    Yes, it's sub-optimal, but it's that or nothing. I prefer something. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    made it a bit bigger, Alakzi told me how --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There are many boat races in the world. If the article name doesn't tell us Oxford/Cambridge, the lead needs to clarify that soon, certainly before sponsorship.
    There's only one called The Boat Race and that's linked in the opening sentence of the lead, and explained as such. Alt name is mentioned there because it would be awkward to add it later. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I know FAs where an Alt name is given later, see Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4. Better than getting clumsy, even a translation has been postponed, see Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I'm following a consistent approach to such sporting events, because often as not, it's borderline the common name for such an event, and it's in parentheses so I don't think it should change. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the men's, women's and both reserves' races" - I understand that saying "races" three times would be awkward, but so is this. Do you expect us to know the term "men's reserve race"?
    Yes, I do, that's what it's called, although I seem to recall there's an issue outside BritEng with the term "reserve", it may be that we could find a wikilink to make it easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    Yes please. I understand the explanation in the body, but this super-short version is not good for someone unfamiliar with the topic. Could you link to below, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
    I have linked reserve. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Goldie" sounds singular, even Club (which I don't know until hovering over the link) would be singular.
    The joy of British English, where we allow English plurals. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


  • The second para presents rather mixed bits of background, history of women's races, sponsorship, prize money, - could that be organised / fleshed out?
    It says all it needs to say as far as I can see, it's been like that for a few previous FAs (see 2015 and 2016), and covers what is necessary without giving undue weight to anything in particular. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Are umpires and broadcasters "background"?
    Yes, because they are all decided upon months and months in advance of the race, so (and as I have for the preceding 180-odd similar such articles) that would be the "background" to the race as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now, thank you for the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for the interest Gerda, responses inline above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
More responses inline, others taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

Support I reviewed this at GA, and believe that it meets Featured Article Standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7, I appreciate you getting to the GAN after all this time, and I appreciate your support here! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I'll be supporting the promotion of this first-rate article, but first a few minor drafting points.

  • Except at the start of sentences we usually have a lower case "t" in "the Boat Race", but there are two places, one in the opening para of the lead and the other in the second para of the Background section, where the article has been elevated in mid-sentence to initial capital status.
    Yeah, that means I probably need to edit the previous 181 race articles...! Thus fixed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    Consistency is the refuge of the unimaginative, as Oscar is alleged to have said. To Hell with the other articles (unless you actually feel like tweaking): it is this one with which we are concerned here. Tim riley talk 18:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Unless a merciful oblivion has set in, you will not have forgotten my regular bleats about false titles: "former Oxford rower Matthew Pinsent" is another case of tabloiditis. Also shown on the charge-sheet are "former Goldie coach Rob Baker", "former Light Blue cox Peter Rudge", "former Oxford cox Acer Nethercott" and "long-term coach Daniel Topolski". It drives ageing Wikipedian Tim Riley up the wall.
    I've addressed each of those issues, and taken advantage to reduce a little prose redundancy while I was at it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The event was threatened with the discovery – this gave me momentary pause. Nothing actually wrong with it, but it might help to avoid breaking flow if you made it something like "jeopardised by".
    Rephrased entirely, but avoided "jeopardised" because I have a personal aversion to any word which contains J, E and O in order. Frankly, an abhorrence. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The article really conjures up the event. I'm not generally all that much interested in the Boat Race, but reading this, I got quite caught up. I look forward to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 18:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Tim riley, thanks for your review and your kind words. Hopefully I've addressed your concerns, but if not, of course give me a shout. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed you have. Incidentally, as a Mozart fan I am hoping that this article full of Isis und Osiris will fall to the High Priest Sarastro to promote, but I digress. Very pleased to Support. Tim riley talk 18:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Like Gerda, I know little about boat races but found this account to be interesting and clear. I have a small number of suggestions that should not threaten your cotton socks.
  • The map showing the course of the race includes "Harrods Depositary". Should that be Depository with an "o" rather than an "a"? See listed buildings. I really like the map, by the way.
  • Yes, it almost certainly should! In the 182-odd articles (all of which are at least GA), that's the first time this has been noticed, so good spot. I'll leave a note for Pointillist who created it, to see if they'd be kind enough to update it, although their edit history indicates they are no longer regularly around. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "For the fifth year, the men's race was sponsored by BNY Mellon while the women's race has BNY Mellon's subsidiary Newton Investment Management as sponsors." - Better if flipped to active voice and trimmed by a few words? Suggestion: "For the fifth year, BNY Mellon sponsored the men's race, while Newton Investment Management, a Mellon subsidiary, sponsored the women's race."
  • Gladly, I've never liked that. Thus reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "OUWBC's chief coach was the Canadian former international cox Ali Williams, her first year in the role having been the University of Alberta's head coach." – The "having been" segment is kind of dangling in space, and I'd rather see the four Williams modifiers placed elsewhere. Suggestion: "Ali Williams, the former Canadian international cox, was OUWBC's chief coach, a new role for her; she had been head coach at the University of Alberta." Or something like that.
  • ¶2 "The second race was much closer, with the result being declared in favour of OUBC 'by a seat'." – Replace the "with plus -ing" construction and flip to active voice? Suggestion: "OUBC won the much closer second race 'by a seat' ."
  • ¶2 "Numerous pushes from Leander were responded to by Oxford and the latter passed the finish line with 'a lead of several lengths'." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "Oxford responded to numerous pushes by Leander and crossed the finish line with 'a lead of several lengths'."
  • Alt text would be nice.
  • Some of the citations use title case, while others use sentence case. It's probably best to choose one or the other and stick with it. Nitpicky, I know.
  • Done I think. A lot of stuff like "Blue Boat", "President" etc remains capitalised as they're specific terms in this context, hope that's okay? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Citation 45 is out of sync. It employs the "citation" family, while the others use the "cite" family.
  • The link checkers find no problems with dabs or dead URLs.
  • No remaining duplinks. I found and removed three. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Finetooth thanks for the review, I've addressed and responded to each of your comments inline above. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
All good. Thanks for the rapid response. Switching to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources look of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That's great Brianboulton, thanks for taking the time to check. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

Nominator(s): Seiya (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an important event in history. It was sent to copy editing and peer reviews, all of which are closed and archived. It has been modified and improved according to suggestions and hopefully it is now time to justify its nominations. I hope you will consider the article and address any eventual problems so that they can be corrected and improved. Seiya (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Maps, charts, and the symbol image should all be scaled up
  • File:Lavrenty_Beria.jpg needs more information to verify the given licensing tag
  • File:Crimean_nations_18-21_centuries_EST.svg needs a source for the data presented
  • File:Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars_symbol_71.jpg: who created this symbol? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who created the symbol, the image has no source at the Wikimedia Commons.--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
What size should the maps and charts be? 300px?--Seiya (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
They should generally be scaled, not set to a fixed px size. See WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done – The images have been scaled up. --Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources seem to be of appropriate quality and reliability. As this is evidently the nominator's first FAC I have carried out spotchecks on the online sources:

  • Ref 13 (Banerji). The sentence cited to this source reads "The Crimean Council even organized mass massacres of Russian in Crimea, which killed tens of thousands". I can't find any similar informatioin in the source. (Incidentally, "mass" massacre is tautologous - a massacre means killing on a large scale.)
  • Done – Corrected.--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 28, 36, 46, 55, 63, 64 (Pohl 2000). I have a problem here. The Pohl 2000 source is unpaginated, yet all of these citations provide page references. Ref 36 cites page 1, so I checked the beginning of the source article to see whether any of the multiple details cited to p.1 in your text: "...a total of 8,995 former soldiers of the Red Army of Crimean Tatar descent were registered in special settlements. Among these veterans, there were 534 officers, 1,392 commanders, and 7,079 soldiers. There were also 742 members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and 1,225 members of Komsomol" appear in the source. The figures are all there, but well beyond what might be considered "p.1". You need to reconsider the pagings of all these references. Also, your wording "1,392 commanders" should read "1,392 sergeants".
Yes, I have found a PDF version of the report, with pages on it. Hope this helps [18].--Seiya (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done –
  • I checked a number of other sources and found that they supported what's in the article, with no evidence of close paraphrasing.
  • There are several formatting issues:
  • citations to page ranges should show "pp." not "p."
  • Done –
  • A number of citations (nos 13, 19, 76, 78, 81 and others) include an apersand sign. What is it's purpose? The sign indicates the word "and".
  • Done –
  • Ref 58 has an mdash in its page range
  • Done –
  • In the list of books, consistency is required over whether publisher locations are included. Should be all or none.
  • Done –
  • isbn formats should be consistent. The 13-digit format should be used; you can convert 10-digit to 13-digit using this
Which isbn formats are not consistent?--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done – Never mind, I converted them all to 13-digit isbn numbers.--Seiya (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The isbn for Polian is subdivided while the others are not. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done –
  • The Al-jezeera source is lacking a retrieval date
  • Done –
  • Italicization of sources: again you need to be consistent. Generally, we italicize if the source of origin is printed, e.g. a newspaper or journal. This you have done in the case of KyivPost but not with Time or NYT
  • Done –
  • Some of your online sources lack publisher details, and in some cases the publisher is being treated as the author.
You need to clarify. Which ones?--Seiya (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pohl 2000 shows no publisher. You should add "Self-published" in the publisher field. BBC News is the publisher, not the author, of the "Crimean Tatars recall mass exile" report; the website address is not the publisher Likewise, "International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam", "Radio Free Europe", "Reuters", "Ukrainian Congress Committee of America" and "UN News Centre" are all publishers. You are not required to provide an author for each source, but you are required to state the publisher. Thus, the proper format for the BBC News source above is: "Crimean Tatars recall mass exile". BBC News. 18 May 2004. Retrieved 4 August 2017. ". The others should be reformatted accordingly.Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done –

Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

  • "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar Qırımtatar sürgünligi; Russian Депортация крымских татар; Ukrainian Депортація кримських татар) refers to the ethnic cleansing of at least 191,044 Tatars from Crimea on 18 May 1944 carried out by Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet security and secret police, under the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin." Quite a lengthy opening sentence. How about cutting it in two? Thus, "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars (Crimean Tatar Qırımtatar sürgünligi; Russian Депортация крымских татар; Ukrainian Депортація кримських татар) refers to the ethnic cleansing of at least 191,044 Tatars from Crimea on 18 May 1944. It was carried out by Lavrentiy Beria, chief of the Soviet security and secret police, under the orders of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin."? Much cleaner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps worth mentioning at that very early point that Crimea was in the Soviet Union; perhaps "Tatars from Crimea, in the southern Soviet Union", on 18 May 1944" or something like that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, should we be giving the specific date "18 May" here? Surely the deportations took a longer period of time; would it not be best to simply state "May"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If we link "Communists", then it is probably best to link Red Army too. Then remove the later link to Red Army that appears nearer the end of the first paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "to modern-day Uzbekistan" - why not just to "to Uzbeskistan", and then link to "Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic"? Also, perhaps make it clear that Uzbekistan was part of the Soviet Union at the time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The present two-paragraph structure to the lede is perhaps a little dense for many readers. Have you considered splitting it into a three or four paragraph structure? That way we ease the reader in a little more gently, rather than bombarding them with lengthy chunks of prose from the get-go. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "would die in later years" - "died in later years"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Stalin's regime" - minor point, but "government" or "administration" might be more neutral here. The term "regime" tends to have slightly negative connotations in the English language, and while I can fully appreciate why many people might think that perfectly acceptable when discussing Stalin's USSR, it's probably best that we try to keep our wording as neutral as possible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "it was forbidden to even mention that nation in the files of the USSR" - cut the "even", it comes across as being a tad sensationalist or melodramatic. Maybe we could also reword "that nation in the files of the USSR", which is a little clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "condemned Stalin's crimes" - Not particularly neutral wording. Perhaps "Stalin's actions" or "Stalin's policies"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "given permission to return to their homeland" - "permitted to return to Crimea". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "issued a declaration on 14 November 1989" - "declared on 14 November 1989". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "deportations of people during the Stalin era had been a criminal act" - scrap "of people"; it is extraneous and self-evident in this context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There's some further instances of sensationalistic and slightly melodramatic language in the second paragraph of the lede. "Even though the local authorities did not help the Tatars to return"... "The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, never paid reparations to the Crimean Tatars". It feels a little like the prose deliberately seeks to portray the Russian and Crimean governments in a bad light and that gives me concerns about neutrality. Thankfully, a tidy up of the wording should deal with the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Rather than "Even though the local authorities did not help the Tatars to return and did not compensate them for their lost land, by 2004 the Crimean Tatars had experienced a fragile revival, comprising 12% of the Crimean population. The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, never paid reparations to the Crimean Tatars, nor did it compensate then for their lost property. Also, it never filed any charges or legal proceedings against the perpetrators of this forcible resettlement." we could go for something like: "By 2004, sufficient numbers of Tatars had returned to Crimea that they comprised 12% of the peninsula's population. Local authorities did not assist their return or compensate them for lost land. The Russian Federation, the successor state of the USSR, did not provide reparations, compensate those deported for lost property, or file legal proceedings against the perpetrators of the forced resettlement." This wording gives the reader the same information as before but (I hope) avoids any loaded or emotional language. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The deportation of the Crimean Tatars was a crucial event in the history of that nation" - "that nation" being Crimea or the Crimean Tatars themselves? I think it needs to be made a bit clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "A rally in Taras Shevchenko Park in Kiev, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the deportation of the Crimean Tatars in 2014" - this reads a little as if it is referring to the deportation having taken place in 2014. Perhaps move "in 2014" to just after "in Kiev"; that should solve the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done---Seiya (talk) 19:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "for centuries, from 1441 to 1783" - scrap "for centuries"; it is superfluous given that the dates are provided directly after. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "who were used for slave trade" - "used in the slave trade" would perhaps be a better wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "thus extremely averse to the new Russian rule. Thus, the " - "thus... Thus" is a bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Three sentences in a row end with "Ottoman Empire". Bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Eventually, the Crimean Tatars became a minority in their homeland" - using the term "homeland" might not be terribly neutral given the emotional resonance it carries. Perhaps "Eventually, the Crimean Tatars became a minority in Crimea". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "in 1783, they had comprised 98% of the population,[5] but by 1897, they comprised only 34.1% of the population" - the prose here is a little repetitive. How about "in 1783, they comprised 98% of the population,[5] but by 1897, this was down to 34.1%." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "At the same time, Moscow was carrying out the Russification of that area, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic nations. This Russification continued even during the Soviet era" - Avoid using the name of a capital city as a synonym for a government. While certainly used in some prose sources, it is not terribly specific and should be avoided at Wikipedia. Avoid the term "nation", which can be quite loaded and has a lot of baggage stemming from the Soviet period, with the more neutral "ethnic group". Also, terms like "even" again reflect a level of sensationalism within the prose. How about "While Crimean Tatars were emigrating, the Russian government encouraged Russification of the peninsula, populating it with Russians, Ukrainians, and other Slavic ethnic groups; this Russification continued during the Soviet era". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1941 the Nazis invaded Eastern Europe" - better to say "In 1941, Nazi Germany invaded Eastern Europe" as most of the troops in the Wermacht were not actual members of the Nazi Party itself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • All done.--Seiya (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


Cant read the sources. Needs a c/e, the language slips into informality at places, which leads me to worry about those sources. The lead image is a dreadful choice. Needs work. Reading through. Ceoil (talk)

Raymond Leane

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Raymond Leane was a highly decorated Australian Army officer who rose from the rank of captain to lead a brigade during World War I, and was dubbed "the foremost fighting leader" in the Australian Imperial Force. After the war he was quickly appointed as the Commissioner of the South Australia Police, a role he carried out with distinction for 24 years, overseeing significant developments in the force, for which he was knighted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:The_fighting_Leanes_of_Prospect_1915_P02136-001.jpg: source states this is a studio portrait from the UK - not sure AustraliaGov would apply
  • File:SLSA_B9700_Anzac_Day_March_1937.jpg: as a newspaper photograph, the copyright wouldn't automatically have belonged to the government, unless there was some agreement to that effect? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article at GA. I believe that it meets the FA standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources seem of appropriate quality/reliability and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

During the war, two of his four brothers who served were killed, and six of his nephews also served, two of whom were killed. - I think it sounds better more repetitive actually, thus: "During the war, two of his four brothers who served, and two of six of his nephews who served, were killed." or something like it. It just flows a bit oddly as is.
In its capture, the 11th Battalion had lost 36 killed and 73 wounded.[ - this strikes me as odd grammatically.
The article has both "while" and "whilst" in it - suggest choosing one (I like the former...)
and carried him (in his arms) to a spot where he dug a grave (himself) before erecting a cross above it - I'd argue that the words in parentheses are redundant...
In November 1928, two of Leane's sons, Lionel and Geoffrey, had joined the mounted police - why "had joined" (pluperfect) tense here?

:::it is out of chronological order, as the narrative has already gone into 1930, so I used "had" to denote that it had already happened.

Oh ok, it lust looks off as the 1930 is the previous paragraph, but ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise looking on track for a shiny star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cas Liber, all addressed I believe. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk), Mailee66 (talk), Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the last ruling monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii who died on November 11, 1917. Aim towards possible TFA for November 11, 2017. Mark Miller (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: I think we originally planned to have this as DYK (resulting from the GA) on November 11, 2017. Per DYK rules, it can only be DYK if not otherwise appearing/having appeared on the main page. TFA doesn't have those restrictions, so we could have it appear as TFA at a later date. My personal experience is that not only is FAC a little backlogged, but TFA nominations also take time to get through. But let's see what @KAVEBEAR: thinks.— Maile (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm concern this is moving too fast and the article still needs some additional work. I can help when I can. I'm on break for the entire week. But pass or not these reviews will help improve the article. As for DYK, we should go ahead with it expecting we won't get it to FA and through TFA nomination by then. Worse scenario we can postpone TFA to January 17. Maile66 can you nominate the article for DYK now? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea. If this does not pass by the November date it can always be a good TFA for the January 17 anniversary of the overthrow.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
DYK Liliuokalani was nominated yesterday. @KAVEBEAR and Mark Miller: please feel free to offer ALT hooks there. — Maile (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Some initial comments on the first things that caught my eye:

  • Several reference notes (3, 26, 132) contain links to what looks like a non-RS blog to provide translated content from historical Hawaiian newspapers, such as Ka Nupepa Kuokoa and Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika. The blog itself warns that the translations are "works in progress". Is there no better source for this material? It appears that Ulukau: The Hawaiian Electronic Library has images of these papers available online, albeit those are in Hawaiian.
Ulukau books online are in both English and Hawaiian, (although, I don't know about the specific ones you mention) - whichever the reader clicks as their preference (the selector button is in the upper right hand corner. Click "Kikokikoana Hawaii" to get the Hawaiian language version, or "English text" to get the English language version). The Kunkendall books, for instance, if you click the links you're getting the English version. Except for the issue of the location of source on the books, which can be easily fixed, I think maybe @KAVEBEAR: or @Mark Miller: might have the answer to your other questions. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
At least for the relevant issue from Ref 3, I found images of the paper here, but no translated text. If it comes to a choice, I think a reliable source in the original language would be preferable to a non-reliable translation. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree per policy and guidelines that is actually acceptable. It isn't that it must be an English language source but that if no other reliable English source is available, non English sources can be used.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. All changed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Book citations are inconsistent as to whether a location is given.
done — Maile (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you please comment on the reliability of the Rogne 2002 source? The publisher specializes in devotional literature, and the Amazon description of the book says it presents inspirational "characters", including Biblical patriarchs. This seems to suggest material selected for inspirational value rather than for historical accuracy. Most of the remaining sources seem to be books from academic publishers or reliably sourced historical newspapers, but I will circle back to confirm after I've had a chance to review more thoroughly. --RL0919 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The specific source, Rogne 2003 needs to be looked at to see exactly how strong the source is. Off hand I would say not to discount what appears to be inspirational material on Hawaii's Christian community, Hiram Bingham is considered both inspirational and historic. It would certainly depend on the context, author and publisher to determine the RS strength. It is late here so, If I don't respond directly, I will shortly--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The source cannot be compared to Bingham which is an accepted historical source of the period. The page being cited also is written in the first person voice from Father Damien's perspective (yet it is not an autobiography). I removed it since all of the information in that sentence can be found in the book by Law which was published by UH Press and has been peer reviewed. If anybody disagree we can discuss on talk or the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ----KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional comments after a more thorough review:

  • Ref 142: A local church newsletter may be within the letter of WP:RS, but seems weak for an FA. Is there specific detail in the text that isn't supported by adjoining Ref 141, which has much stronger sources?
  • Removed Ref 142. It was just an additional source that gave more detail about the clock that is not found in the article here.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A similar question applies for Ref 177, which has as its second source a local canoe club. Is there information needed from that source that isn't in the ESPN article?
This appears under the Legacy section. The canoe club tells the reader why the race carries Liliuokalani's name and why it's held on Labor Day weekend - to honor the Queen by holding it the weekend of her birthday. The ESPN article omits those details.— Maile (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 153 and 157 seem to be handled inconsistently with other newspaper and magazine sources – these two use Harvard refs to a bibliography entry, while other such stories are fully cited in the notes. The Harv-ref/bibliography approach is used consistently for books and journals.
  • Reformated.
  • Refs 159 and 166 say "Queen Lili'uokalani Trust" in italics, while Ref 171 calls the same organization "Lili'uokalani Trust" with no italics. Should be consistent in both name and format.
  • Standardized the naming for the Trust. The problem is that the trust seems to have rebranded itself in recent year just looking at their annual reports as simply Lili'uokalani Trust while they were referred to as the Queen Lili'uokalani Trust just a few years before. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 163 is missing the publication and access date details.
  • Chronicling America is credited with a 'via' parameter in Ref 164, but is used extensively in other citations without a 'via'. This should be consistent.
  • Maile66 what do you think? I have a tendency to not add the via and you do so it is just a difference in our referencing style that is creating this. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed the "via" for consistency, since it seems to be the only one of its kind. — Maile (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 174 links to a marketing company, not to the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame. The page you should probably use is This could also replace the archive link in Ref 173.
  • What? You can link Ref 173 and 174 to but does not list Charles E. King or the Nani La Eha separately. I changed the link as recommended.
  • Looking at this more closely, I was confused by the web site design. The site opens subpages for the honorees without changing the URL. You can right-click to open the subpage with its own URL, which goes to the marketing company, who are apparently hosting subpages under their own domain rather than the Hall of Fame's domain. So they've not blocked deep linking, but they have ensured that anyone following the deep link will be cut off from the main site. Given the way they've done this, I guess the original URL for what was Ref 174 (the page for Charles E. King) is OK. Sorry for the trip down the garden path. --RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame initially had a dedicated page for each honoree, with a direct link that didn't require jumping through hoops to access. A couple of years ago, they re-designed the website, which resulted in (IMO) a less user-friendly and less informative website. And they still change it around on occasion. So, it's the old Wikipedia bug-a-boo about the URLs changing that necessitates that bot that checks for dead links. — Maile (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It looks like what is now Ref 172 is now without any URL. I'm OK with whichever of the links you prefer (now that the confusion over the site design has been cleared up), but it does need a link since it is a web citation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 178 presents the library as if it were an author; more typically the library would be listed as publisher and no author would be given since the page is unsigned.
  • Changed to: University of Hawaii at Manoa Board of Regents (October 19, 2001). "Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Regents for October 19, 2001". Retrieved September 30, 2017.  Is that okay?
  • If all the relevant information is in the quote from the minutes, then I'd suggest you link to the minutes directly at, and update the publisher to "University of Hawaii". --RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 183, 185 and 188 all cite the "Hawaiian Almanac and Annual" for various years without any other publication information. How are readers supposed to know what this is, much less whether it is reliable?
  • @RL0919: These are... But my question is do we actually want to list 19 more sources into the bloated Bibliography?
  • If you really need to cite them all, then better a larger bibliography than to leave readers in the dark. But there might be alternatives. One option would be to find an alternative source that provides the information more compactly. Or perhaps an explanatory note could be crafted that explains more about where the information was sourced, but without listing the full details (much of which is repetitive) separately for each annual edition. --RL0919 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There are no sources I know of that provide this compactly. Let me know if you have any specific alternatives for the ones (The Court, Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, year–year) I have already.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Assuming the nomination continues (pending resolution of the image dispute issue below), I'll try to come up with an explanatory note and post it here for your consideration. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1875). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1875". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1875. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 12–13. hdl:10524/664. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1876). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1876". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1876. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 62–64. hdl:10524/665. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1877). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1877". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1877. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 56–59. hdl:10524/658. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1878). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1878". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1878. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 5, 34–38. hdl:10524/667. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1879). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1879". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1879. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 33–38. hdl:10524/669. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1880). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1880". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1880. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 33–38. hdl:10524/656. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1881). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1881". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1881. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 65–70. hdl:10524/23168. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1882). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1882". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1882. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 77–83. hdl:10524/23169. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1883). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1883". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1883. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 74–80. hdl:10524/657. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1884). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1884". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1884. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 76–82. hdl:10524/985. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1885). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1885". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1885. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 84–91. hdl:10524/1078. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1886). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1886". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1886. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 81–88. hdl:10524/1484. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1887). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1887". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1887. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 91–98. hdl:10524/659. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1888). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1888". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1888. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 91–99. hdl:10524/666. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1889). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1889". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1889. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 117–126. hdl:10524/655. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1890). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1890". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1890. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 117–126. hdl:10524/31851. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1891). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1891". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1891. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 161–169. hdl:10524/661. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1892). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1892". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1892. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 144–152. hdl:10524/662. 
  • Thrum, Thomas G., ed. (1893). "Hawaiian Register and Directory for 1893". Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1893. Honolulu: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. pp. 139–147. hdl:10524/663. 

Leaving aside items questioned above, the remaining sources have a mix of academic books, journal articles, popular books, and journalistic sources (modern and historical). There are also about 30 cites to the subject's own writings. Those categories are all accepted as RS, although some should be treated with caution. Spot-checking I didn't see any uses that seemed obviously concerning. --RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I've struck the resolved issues above. Looks like only three items are still unresolved: the Rogne source, URL for Ref 172, and how best to cite the Almanac and Annual. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
RL0919 I addressed Rogne and the URL issue.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, now struck above. For the Annual, a possible explanatory note might read like this: "Information on her titles and styles from 1874 to 1893 is from the yearly editions of the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, all edited by Thomas G. Thrum and published by the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Abbreviated citations are provided to indicate the specific editions used." I'm not hung up on the exact wording, just want some way to provide the publishing details so the abbreviated cites are meaningful. --RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
RL0919 Like this?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, looks good. I think we can call the source review completed. --RL0919 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • For images showing more than one person, captions should do a better job of identifying which is which
  • File:Lydia_Kamakaeha.jpg: source links are dead, when/where was this first published?
    • Many of these images were uploaded from the original Digital Online Archive of the State of Hawaii. They went off line but have since returned on different servers which changed the urls but kept the content online. I will correct links and check first publication.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Changed to PD-US-unpublished.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Liliuokalani_and_relative_(detailed).jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Kapiolani_and_Liliuokalani_at_Golden_Jubilee_(Onipaa).jpg
  • If you're going to use PD-US for these, need a pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Still don't know about these.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:USS_Boston_landing_force,_1893_(PP-36-3-002).jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Same with File:Liliuokalani_entering_palace_for_trial_of_1895_(PP-98-12-010).jpg
  • Add rough note on first publication both before 1920.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Aloha_oe_song_01.png should use original publication date
  • File:Liliuokalani_in_1917.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Queen_Liliuokalani_in_mourning_at_Washington_Place.gif
  • Changed to PD-US-unpublished.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For the former, what was the author's date of death? For the latter, the source site identifies a pre-2003 publication so the unpublished tag won't apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Revert change on the latter. The former was published before 1923 so added link to where it was first published.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_Hawaii_(Kalakaua).svg should include a copyright tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The work was based on other coat of arms from modern photographs and PD publications. Those files have appropriate tags.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Addressed most of these to my knowledge. And fixed migrated (not dead) links. But based on our past FA interactions, this is all I know about these images. Most of them have been published and printed in late 19th or early 20th century books on the overthrow but they are the archival image versions of those and others are straight archival images from the Hawaii State Archives or the Queen Liliuokalani Trust ( I am not sure what you want on the last image, just adding a PD-US to it?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If PD US applies, sure. For the others, if you can identify a pre-1923 publication that would work. If an archival image were unpublished, you'd need to see if {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: The infobox image is iffy as a TFA image. I tested it yesterday when I nominated the DYK. Shrunk down to that size, it was hard to tell who that is. Too old and grainy; too much throne chair and official attire. Is there something we can put in the article that is more a close-up on her head and shoulders? — Maile (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Check out: . Maybe the one by Prince is a good one.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I cropped it a bit and swapped it in the infobox. Tell me what you think. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I am against it. I can revert my change that seems to make it grainy but the reasoning for DYK and FA thumbnail size doesn't seem reasonable to replace what appears to be an official image of the Queen while ruling and has a clear publishing. I'd like to revert that for now.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
And I swapped it back. Per DYK rules: Wikipedia:DYKIMG "3. It must already be in the article". YES, only an image from the article can be used in DYK. The larger one also has clear publishing. And I would add that when we get to TFA, that would also be a reduced image with the same issues of how it looks. It's not just an issue of the graininess. In a reduced size, it's hard to see who that is. I understand you are the one who originally uploaded the one you want to use, but it's not workable as a reduced image for the main page. — Maile (talk) 11:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Reminder: stability is one of the FA criteria, and edit-warring over the image could well result in an oppose on that grounds. Sort it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Reach a consensus on which one to use. IMO, the J. J. Williams image dates to her reign, but it doesn't work well as an infobox image. It should be incorporated in the body if it ends up being ruled out. The George Prince image was taken during her residence in DC with the queen in the formal regalia of the monarchy. It seems exactly like the one she used for her 1898 autobiography File:Liliuokalani of Hawaii.jpg, anyway we can verify this and see if Prince photographed this one as well? Maybe that is something we can find in old DC newspapers from the era...There is also not a strong argument for a set image for Liliuokalani. Looking at Google and book covers you see most people just choose which ever one they like best from the hundreds of photographs she took in her lifetime. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
What the majority agrees on is fine with me. I just want it to be viable as a reduced main page image. For what it's worth, the image in DYK has to be from the article, but it does not have to be from the infobox. We could put the Prince image lower in the article. However ... whatever is in the infobox is the first image readers see of her. Again ... at TFA, it's the same issue of what works on the main page. — Maile (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I swapped some images that I couldn't find pre-1923 publication dates and added appropriate tags to others. Can you let me know what problems remain with the images? One of the original request I don't get was the one regarding the coat of arms, maybe you can be more direct with your suggestions there.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

  • File:Haleakala_-_the_C._R._Bishop_Residence,_oil_on_canvas_painting_by_D._Howard_Hitchcock,_1899,_Bishop_Museum.JPG needs a US PD tag and a date of death for the author
  • File:Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_Hawaii_(Kalakaua).svg should include a licensing tag on the image description page for the original design, which is presumably PD by now? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "founder of the Kamehameha Schools." Why does the reader need to know this in the lede of the article about Liliuokalani, which is a fairly long lede? You never mention this again (which makes it unsourced) Consider cutting.
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If you italicize hānai in the article, it probably should be in the infobox. Consider a link there on first use.
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "which was temporarily blocked by the President Grover Cleveland." I would cut "the"
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the oligarchical government" this has the feel of editorializing. If you feel the need to point out here that the Republic got there by questionable means, suggest more subtlety.
@Wehwalt: I'm just guessing at how that terminology ended up there. The term is in the lead, but not in the article, which might be what caught your eye. Separate biographies I've been creating/expanding on other individuals from that time and place, in the sourcing I see that phrase a lot, and I think it is referring to the provisional government that was inbetween the monarchy and the Republic. I can't swear to it without re-locating sources, but I'm pretty sure "oligarchy" was the accepted term used across the board, including (if memory serves me) used by one of our US Presidents. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's some examples of what I was referring to.
  • Grover Cleveland, "The Provisional Government has not assumed a republican, or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council, or oligarchy, without the consent of the people"."Hawaiian Situation: The President's Message to Congress". The National Tribune. Washington D. C. December 21, 1893. p. 8, col. 4. Retrieved October 19, 2017 – via Chronicling America. 
  • And in a search of only Hawaiian newspapers for the period of 1893-1898 (the life of the Provisional Government), results in 460 individual newspaper pages that are littered with the terminology (color highlighted each time).Chronicling America - Hawn newspapers.
So, to shine a little light on this. The monarchy was overthrown by 13 white businessmen, with some rabble rousing help and interference by the United States. They installed themselves in office. It was not voted on by either the populace or the legislature. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Checked - I have resolved this, I believe. I put the above Cleveland quote in the body of the article, with the above reference. — Maile (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Of the aliʻi class of Hawaiian nobility, her family were considered collateral relations of the reigning House of Kamehameha sharing common descent from the 18th-century aliʻi nui (supreme monarch) Keaweʻīkekahialiʻiokamoku." "Family" is singular, at least in AmEng. The introductory phrase is a bit confusing. Consider "Her family was of the aliʻi class of the Hawaiian nobility, collateral relations of the reigning ..."
Done — Maile (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "was one of the royal twins alongside Kamanawa depicted on the Hawaiian coat of arms.[7]" the "alongside Kamanawa" causes problems in this sentence. Maybe "was depicted, along with his royal twin Kamanawa, on the Hawaiian coat of arms".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "She, along with her classmates, had been formally proclaimed by Kamehameha III as eligible for the throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii.[13] Liliʻuokalani later noted that these "pupils were exclusively persons whose claims to the throne were acknowledged."[14]" so basically you're saying the same thing twice. I might cut the quote. If you want to substitute something else by L. about her schooling, that's another possibility. You really don't say anything about what the schooling was like for her, just who her classmates were.
  • "The boarding school headed by the Cookes discontinued around 1850," I might suggest a "was" before "discontinued" and change "headed" to "run".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "After returning from school," age or year, or possibly both, please. Also remember that the last real mention of her was in the young age group of her class, so having her come home clutching her diploma is a bit of a surprise so suddenly.
  • The last mention was when she transferred to a day school. Corrected that to reflect when she moved back with her Hanai parents. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Pākī's death in 1855" Since you differentiate between the two spouses by name, is it proper to refer to "the Pākīs'," earlier?
  • I think so. As a family, they were the Pākīs. Pākī refers to Abner Pākī same as you would differentiate Lincoln, the person from the Lincoln's, the family.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "but declared that if neither the King nor any high chief though proper to marry her" Note 2. Presumably "though" should be "thought".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "during the royal marriage" should "marriage" be "wedding"?
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of "Courtship" might be better placed somewhere in the following paragraph.
  • "She ultimately broke off the engagement at the urging of King Kamehameha IV and the opposition of the Bishops to the union." I would change "at" to "because of" because "at ... the opposition" reads oddly.
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "a staff member of Prince Lot Kapuāiwa (the future Kamehameha V) and secretary of King Kamehameha IV. " I would change the first "of" to "for" and the second to "to". I imagine that the secretary job was a personal secretary?
?? Obit for Dominis says he was "secretary and chamberlain" to Kam IV.
?? Obit 2 says "private secretary" for both Kam IV and Kam V, in addition to later being a Governor under Kam V.
— Maile (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Dominis began as a staff member to Prince Lot and later as a personal secretary, aide de campe and adjutant general for Kamehameha IV. As far as I know, Dominis did not hold the position of chamberlain during the reigns of the Kamehameha's. Changed the propositions.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "they had known each from childhood when he spied upon the royal children from a neighboring school next to the Cookes'." "neighboring" is redundant here. I might change "spied on" to "watched".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Rev." at baptism, you refer to the officiant as "Reverend" without the "the".
  • "her hānai sister Pauahi and her husband Charles Reed Bishop." Long intro for two people who in the last paragraph you called "the Bishops"
  • Remove, it is redundant anyway since we've introduced both figures by their full names.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "but Dominis's mother Mary made her disapproval apparent by not attending the ceremony. " Can you make your disapproval apparent? Either way, you're guessing.
  • These are the arguments of Helena G. Allens.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it possible Allen got it wrong? I don't have access to her book, but the 1862 newspaper announcement lists Mrs. Dominis as one of the guests: "Among foreigners present were Mr. J. H. Brown and Miss (unreadable) Swinton, W. A. Aldrich and lady, Mrs. Dominis ... " — Maile (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
"NOTES OF THE WEEK". The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. September 18, 1862. Image 2, col. 5. Retrieved October 18, 2017 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. 
  • I haven't read the passage in a while looking at it now..."Although some newspapers listed Mrs. Mary Dominis as a guest, one made the telling statement: "Mrs. Dominis, the groom's mother, waited at her home to greet her new daughter-in-law." Mary Dominis did not approve of the "kanaka" marriages. No doubt she would not have approved of anyone's marriage to her only son, but certainly not the marriage to a native, as later letters exchanged with Boston relatives reveal.2 Although written about someone else, they include the fervent wish that "he" not marry a "kanaka." ----KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed. It was not correct anyway based on the news sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The couple moved into the Dominises' residence Washington Place in Honolulu." I think a comma after "residence"
Done — Maile (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I just noticed that "Liliuokalani" is spelled without the mark in the sections at the bottom of the article, such as her arms, and her family tree.
Done — Maile (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@KAVEBEAR: I took care of all that I could from Wehwalt's first list above, and have checked-signed off on each one I dealt with. But others were not details I was necessarily familiar with. So would you please have a look at those if you have time? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Can you strike the one that are sufficiently addressed, so it's easier to navigate the remaining ones? There are some I need a little more time to address like the schooling piece.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt and KAVEBEAR: I struck the ones I believed were taken care of, so that should make it easier to focus on the remaining. Remove any strikeout I put there prematurely. — Maile (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll look at it again later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Some more comments:

  • "Lunalilo died in 1874, also without an heir to succeed to him." I would cut all after "heir".
  • Changed to "Lunalilo died without a successor in 1874." — Maile (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I would say "without a heir". He had a successor, it's just that no one knew for certain who it would be.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Checked - changed to heir. — Maile (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Leleiohoku died in 1877, leaving no one to succeed him." Heir is not really an office. I might say, after the comma, "meaning the king again had no heir"
  • Changed to "Leleiohoku died without a successor in 1877" — Maile (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Checked - changed to heir per item above. — Maile (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "wanted to be named heir to her son's right" I would cut all after "heir"
  • "the smarting of the royal ones" it's unclear what "smarting" means in this context.
  • It means smarting like the pain sensation one would have if they had a sore eye. Liliu (smarting) was one of her birth names. Her brother just used the less crude name of her birth and added -"okalani" (of the ones of heaven or royal ones) which is a common suffix for Hawaiian royal names. If it isn't clear how should that be conveyed? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • None of the obvious synonyms really seems to help. I might just drop a footnote and explain there. Smarting's unusual as a noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I can wiki dictionary link to wikt:smarting#Noun instead. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "to set aside land for branch hospitals at Kakaʻako." multiple hospitals?
  • Comment - This is ffy and probably should be eliminated or reworded. This is what the source says: "The next month, Princess Liliuokalani, who had been so overcome by what she had seen at Kalaupapa, assisted the president of the Board of Health, H. A. P. Carter, in procuring land at Kakaako, in Honolulu, for the establishment of “branch hospitals.” - the source has “branch hospitals.” in quotes as shown. Looking at the notes for that source, it cites: W. N. Armstrong, “Report of the President of the Board of Health to the Legislative Assembly, 1882,” Leprosy in Hawaii, 113 - I have been unable to run that report down. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Maile66 and Wehwalt: There is a snippet version which is probably a compilation of multiple years. "In October last, my predecessor, Mr. Carter, succeeded with the kind co-operation of Her Royal Highness Liliuokalani, in procuring a lease of the premises at Kakaako, near Honolulu, upon which be caused to be erected buildings which should serve as branch hospitals." I am not sure if there was ever the plural "hospitals" after this point there because Kakaʻako was always referred in the singular form in later sources. What do you suggest to clarify?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspect a minor shift in the English language ... Perhaps substitute "hospital purposes" for "branch hospitals"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. I reworded it a little bit and remove the plural. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and were seated with the other members of the Royal Household and foreign royal guests." given that they fell into Category B, I might say "and were seated with other foreign royal guests, and with members of the Royal Household."
  • "Attempts were made to replace Kalākaua with Liliʻuokalani as queen." By whom, generally? I imagine by royalists.
  • "After unsuccessfully dissuading his departure," maybe "After failing to persuade the king to stay " or similar.
  • "hold-over" may be more common as holdover.
  • "and the 1887 constitution gave the legislature the power to vote for the dismissal of her cabinet. Seven resolutions of want of confidence were introduced during this session, and four of her self-appointed cabinets" I might cut the "self-appointed" which makes it sound illegitimate and find some other way to make it clear she had appointed them.
  • @KAVEBEAR: I am somewhat confused by the article wording. It says cabinets were ousted, but is it referring to the entire cabinets, or just which member of the cabinet was named as head of it? Checking the Kuykendall source, I'm no more clear. Article says the the Widemann, Macfarlane, Cornwell. and Wilcox cabinets were dismissed. But was there a Widemann cabinet? "The queen wrote that Noble C. O. Berger's "was the casting vote. It was decided between Mr. Parker and myself that Mr. Widemann [Berger's father-in-law] was to be a member of the next cabinet and for that reason Mr. Berger voted against the Wilcox cabinet. And so it was, for Mr. Widemann gave his consent and afterwards he withdrew."200 There is another version of this affair, which says that Berger's vote was secured by a promise that his father-in-law Judge Widemann should have the naming of the next cabinet; after the vote was cast, Widemann was offered only a place in the cabinet along with Parker, Peterson, and Colburn; he refused to go into such a combination." Etc. etc. — Maile (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: The Widemann cabinet was her first chosen cabinet consisting of Widemann, Parker, Whiting and Spencer. The cabinets were named after the leading minister of the group or the one charged with setting it up; see User:KAVEBEAR/Liliuokalani#Cabinent Ministers. The Widemann cabinet was ousted after the lottery bill was introduced and replaced soon after by the ministry that Macfarlane tried to set up. It was a mess Hawaiian politics during the 1892 Legislative Session of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Widemmann refused to join the last cabinet selection before the overthrow because of the people chosen. The last cabinet was referred to as the Parker cabinet after the leading individual in the body. When cabinets were ousted it meant the entire body. The legislature had the power to introduce a resolution of want of confidence on the queen's cabinet. If this passes the chambers, it removes everyone on the cabinet not just the head. The queen could appoint people who resigned independently. The self-appointed prefix is there because it doesn't include the Cummins cabinet that was the holdover from her brother's reign. Does that explain it more better? You really have to read Kuykendall and the additional sources about this period in depth to actually understand what the hell was going on leading up to the overthrow. ----KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ouch! My brain hurts! I'm leaving this as an issue between you and Wehwalt, since you have a good grasp of what the situation was. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! — Maile (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Edit Conflict....A major reason why the cabinets were removed many of the time was due to the queen's insistence to retain Charles Burnett Wilson as Marshal of the Kingdom despite the legislature scorn for him. The Marshal is subordinate to the Attorney General which means the queen had to find and appoint an Attorney General who would keep Wilson in office while the legislature keep demanding every new cabinet ministry to dismiss Wilson and when they didn't they tack that on to a list of grievance onto a resolution of want of confidence. It also had to do with the political divide in the houses; no party held a majority meaning many of these men were from the compromising National Reform party which was the party the queen supported personally. I don't know if the bit about Wilson should be included though. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I know! It took me many weeks of reading the sources to actually understand it a little better what was going on. The reason why the cabinets are named is also to simplify the article a little so we don't have to name all the men on her cabinets.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wilcox is not linked on first use, and I'd check out the other names of the cabinets.
  • Linked Cornwell, Wilcox and Macfarlane.----KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I might move the explanation of the McKinley Tariff to the first mention.
  • @Wehwalt and KAVEBEAR: diff I did some moving and rewording around between the two sections where this information is somewhat duplicated. Please read before we sign off on what I did with this. — Maile (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you've omitted that the King might have been planning to go to Washington to discuss the McKinley Tariff with the ambassador.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It's in there, in there, and it's in the diff: "After failing to persuade the king to stay, Liliʻuokalani wrote that he and Hawaiian ambassador to the United States Henry A. P. Carter planned to discuss the tariff situation in Washington." — Maile (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oops. I had searched on "McKinley", silly me.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "a controversial opium licensing bill" You mention this before, without the link on opium.
  • Move links to first mentions.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked over the early part of the article a second time yet.
More sooner.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Mandatory break
I've replied to one comment above. I'll give the article a second read when I'm done with the first and will apprise of any remaining issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "to promulgate a new constitution that would have strengthened the power of the monarch relative to the legislature, where Euro-American business elites held disproportionate power." This seems a bit longwinded. I might say "to promulgate a new constitution to regain power for the monarchy and Native Hawaiians that had been lost under the Bayonet Constitution".
Done — Maile (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "With a vote of two-thirds of the registered voters,[77]" I'm not quite sure what this means. Was there a referendum? I might also split that sentence somewhere.
It's sort of in the footnote in the sentence before it, and sourced pretty much like it's written. In Liliuokalani's own account in her book is (pp 230-231): The election of 1892 arrived, and with it the usual excitement of such occasions. Petitions poured in from every part of the Islands for a new constitution; these Hawaiians Plead for a New Constitution were addressed to myself as the reigning sovereign. They were supported by petitions addressed to the HuiKalaaina, who in turn indorsed and forwarded them to me. It was estimated by those in position to know, that out of a possible nine thousand five hundred registered voters, six thousand five hundred, or two-thirds, had signed these petitions. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Really, there is a lot of repetition in the first three paragraphs of this section, especially regarding the opponents and what the proposed constitution was to do. Suggest consolidation.
  • "(co-written by the Queen and two legislators Joseph Nāwahī and William Pūnohu White)" Likely should have a comma after "legislators".
Done — Maile (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The proposed lottery and opium licensing bills were controversial.[80] " It might be better to put it in the active voice and make clearer L's involvement. It hasn't been made really clear why these matters are so crucial, though you've mentioned it before. Were gambling and opium having a deleterious effect on some part of the population? Also watch the duplicate linking, you've linked them before.
  • "Committee of Safety" is linked on second use.
Moved link to first mention. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "United States Government Minister" this may be a bit confusing, perhaps "the diplomatic representative of the United States," or similar? Or else cut "Government" and pipe "Minister" to Minister (diplomacy).
  • "US Marines from the USS Boston and two companies of US sailors landed and took up positions at the US Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall. 162 sailors and Marines aboard the USS Boston in Honolulu Harbor came ashore well-armed but under orders of neutrality." These sentences say basically the same thing twice.
  • "the Provisional Government.[91][92] (break) A provisional government," Although the capitalization could be defended, putting the varying capitalization so close together looks a bit odd.
  • "the US Minister (ambassador)" well, see a few entries above. I suggest changing to "Stevens".
  • "The administration of Grover Cleveland" I might add ", who took office for a second time on March 4"
  • "There was a dispute: Willis said the Queen said "beheading"; she later said she used "execute."[94][95][96]" The difference seems rather slight. Dead is dead. (Note to Wehwalt:That takes an explanation that is not in sourcing for this article. "Civilized" governments execute criminals all the time. The missionary descendants that overthrew the government believed the Hawaiians were heathens/cannibals, and not necessarily in a former time. And one of their favorite tactics was spreading fear that she was some backwards tribal woman. Word quickly spread that she had said "beheading", she was publicly denounced and called a Dyak headhunter, and other not thrilling names. That's why she changed the wording to "execute".— Maile (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Is "Queen" proper under the circumstances, btw? She wasn't by then, legally.
  • "Cleveland sent the issue to the Congress, stating, "The Provisional Government has not assumed a republican, or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council, or oligarchy, without the consent of the people".[97] The Queen later changed her position on the issue of punishment for the conspirators, and on December 18, 1893, US Minister Willis demanded her reinstatement by the Provisional Government." My research says that Cleveland sent his special message to Congress on the Hawaiian situation on December 18, 1893, so I don't see how you justify the "later" after "Queen". There's a bit of a continuity issue here.
The President's message to Congress was separate. Minister Willis had to negotiate with Liliuokalani, and she was slow in coming around. Thus on December 18, as Cleveland's message reached the Congress, and following a final session with Willis, the queen agreed to meet the demands made upon her. By the time the queen capitulated, Willis was aware of the nature of the monarchy and of the lack of political ability, and even honesty, on the part of the queen's native advisers. He was convinced that, even if restored to the throne, the queen could not last. Thus, although his heart was not in it, Willis approached the provisional government with the president's proposition and asked immediate acceptance. As an honorable man who would do his duty, he had even thought of requesting all American citizens to withdraw from the controversy, which would have dispensed with over half of the armed forces of the provisional government. On the afternoon of December 19, the executive council was formally advised of the president's wishes. Kuykendall p. 645 — Maile (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Republic of Hawaii was recognized by the United States government as a protectorate," a protectorate of whom? Surely not the US, under Grover Cleveland?
@KAVEBEAR: Wow, this dates back a decade in this article. The source does not say this. However, this section probably needs to be reworked. Among other things, Dole appeared too far down in the section, and came across almost as a marginal figure with scant info about how he played into the story. I did some rewording Here-1. But I think we need to take a look at this whole section again, just to make sure how it all works together. — Maile (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you comfortable, generally, that the citations reflect the references? I don't want to be hard, but this is one of the most important pre-statehood Hawaiian articles, and there's an extent to which I feel that some of this stuff should have been addressed pre-FAC. I don't catch everything. If I find one or two things beyond matters of style that make it seem that things have dropped between the nominators, that's par for the course, but I'm starting to feel it is a bit more than that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I have to defer to KAVEBEAR's opinion on that. I don't know what he checked before this went to GA, and we didn't get a chance to eyeball this before it was nominated at FAC. I can only vouch for the citations that I put in, which were specific sections. Let's see what he says. — Maile (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the base of Diamond Head Crater." do craters have bases? Our article on volcanic crater doesn't mention it.
Changed - It was on the beach below Diamond Head. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "of the former palace " I might say "of the ʻIolani Palace" and make the caption of the image in this section clearer in that regard.
  • Where was she imprisoned between January and September 1895. The image suggests it was the palace, in which case the "commutation" reads a bit oddly.
  • "in an upstairs bedroom of ʻIolani Palace, " I don't see why the link should be here.
  • "she wrote her memoir Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen with the help of Julius A. Palmer Jr. and Sara Lee, as editor;" ambiguous whether there were 1 or 2 editors.
Corrected - I just rewrote the paragraph with clarifications, and an additional reference.— Maile (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "but it failed to pass in the United States Senate after the Kūʻē Petitions were submitted by a commission of Native Hawaiian delegates ... The petitions were used as evidence of the strong resistance of the Hawaiian community to annexation, and the treaty was defeated in the Senate. After the failure of the treaty," the treaty is mentioned as failing three times. Surely a bit of consolidation can be done.
  • "of the former ʻIolani Palace" I get what you are trying to say, but it may look odd to the reader who knows that it's still called that.
  • "56th United States Congress[123]" I would think this was from the Hawaii Organic Act and would so state.
  • More soon. I'm sorry for the slow pace but it takes time.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Recommend closing this FAC to resume at a later date

There is now an edit war happening in the article regarding the infobox image. There are also related issues at the DYK nomination. This is not ready for FAC. — Maile (talk) 11:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's attempt to resolve the issue. It is a ridiculous thing to edit war about. Can I broker a compromise so things can proceed without this? Just use the original image and add the new 1898 image to a section below. We still can use either images for DYK.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR I am willing to go along with what you suggest. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me know if/when images are stable so I can re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I added Prince's image to the article.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Coldrum Long Barrow

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Neolithic burial site in Kent, south-eastern England, one of several Medway Megaliths located around the River Medway. Part of a tradition of chambered long barrow construction that took place across much of Europe in the Neolithic, it is one of the very oldest built constructions still extant in the British landscape. As well as having an important archaeological side to its story, it also has various folkloric associations. The article has been a GA for two years and I believe that it now meets FA criteria. I managed to get Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas to FA several months ago, and I'm hoping that this one can join it and improve our coverage of British prehistory. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Map_of_the_Medway_Megaliths.jpg: description page should include mention of sources used to create this map
  • File:Coldrum_skeletal_material.jpg: confused by this - if there is a FUR there should also be a fair-use tag of some sort. The given PD tag requires more explanation, both regarding which point is believed to apply as well as what steps have been taken to attempt to identify author. Same with File:Coldrum_skulls.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • There's a Harvard error on each of the Holgate citations - 1981 v 1982 I think
  • Well spotted! It is 1981, so the problem is in the bibliography. Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 51: mdash in page range
  • Replaced with the shorter dash (sorry, I don't know the specific name of it!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Bibliography:
  • National Trust: The title on the linked page is apparently "Stunning views from the top of the barrow", not the title you give in your bibliography
  • I was under the impression that the title is "Coldrum Stones", with "Stunning views from the top of the barrow" as a form of sub-header between the main title and the main prose? Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Way: Can you clarify which of the articles listed on the linked page is your source article?
  • Ditto with Wright
  • (being really pernickety) isbns should be consistently formatted. The 10-digit isbn shown for the Malone book can be converted to 13 via this.
  • Smashing website; thanks for the link. Will try and remember to use that in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources are of impeccable quality and reliability. Signature added following the reproof below. Brianboulton (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: the above source review is by Brianboulton. He should be forgiven his absence of mind in omitting to add his tiddlies, as he's almost as old as I am, poor soul. Tim riley talk 13:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time on this one, Brian! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I expect to be supporting the elevation of this comprehensive and fascinating article, but I have a few very small quibbles first.

  • In the "Meaning and purpose" section I imagine "mouments" is a typo, but as it is in a quotation I didn’t like to alter it.
  • In the Bibliography I wondered about "Otherparts" (in the George Payne entry).
  • That appears to be an error; I will correct it to "Other Parts". Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "North Downs" is linked twice in the main text.
  • "an idea likely derived", "monuments were likely influenced" and "a local community could likely muster" – a curiously AmE feel to this formation. In ordinary BrE I'd expect "an idea probably derived", "monuments were probably influenced" and "a local community could probably muster". (The other "likely" in the text seems to me perfectly idomatic.)
  • Sure. Changing instances of "likely" to "probably". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Good. Privately I think the AmE "likely" is rather better than our BrE "probably" (always prefer the shorter word to the long, and the Anglo Saxon - or in this case Norse - to the Latin) but the BrE usage here is pretty invariable. Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • False titles: in a BrE article, it is jarring to see false titles such as "Archaeologist Robin Holgate", "historian Ronald Hutton" and "Archaeologist Caroline Malone". Prefixing them with a definite article would take away the pain.
  • A fair point (and one you've made to be before, admittedly). I've made the amendments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "morris dancing – one hates to encourage goings-on of that sort, but the Wikipedia article capitalises Morris throughout. The OED on the other hand, doesn’t. I leave it to you to decide which is the greater authority on the point.
  • If we don't capitalise waacking or waltzing then there is probably no good reason to capitalise morris either. Ensuring that it appears in lower-case throughout this article (except when it appears in the name of a particular dance troupe). Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • waacking? I won't ask (nor click on the link); I agree with your decision about capitalising "morris". Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing of any great consequence here, but it would be nice to have these minor points cleared up. – Tim riley talk 13:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for offering your thoughts, Tim; I've responded to all of them but if there is anything else then please do let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
After another perusal I am happy to add my support for this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Another most readable and enjoyable article from Midnightblueowl. Tim riley talk 16:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

This is well-written and appears to be comprehensive. I have a small number of questions and suggestions.
  • ¶1 "located near to the village" – Trim to "near the village"?
  • Link sarsen in the lead caption?
  • ¶2 "Britain was largely forested in this period,[8] with Kent only seeing widespread forest clearance in the Late Bronze Age." – Link Late Bronze Age and give a date span?
Agreed. Good catch. Finetooth (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 Replace "with plus -ing" construction in the Late Bronze Age sentence? Suggestion: "Britain was largely forested in this period; widespread forest clearance did not occur in Kent until the Late Bronze Age (date span)."
The chamber
  • ¶1 "and 53 centimetres (1 foot, 9 inches) in depth at its thicker, eastern end." – Should this be "in thickness" rather than "in depth"?
  • ¶5 "revealed that while the bones had δ13C values" – Link δ13C?
  • ¶5 "they had significantly higher values of δ15C, which grew over time." – Should that be δ15N? An isotope of nitrogen rather than carbon?
  • Indeed, it should - my silly mistake. Well spotted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Post-mortem disposition
Again, a very sensible idea. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Damage and dilapidation
  • ¶2 "which ordered the opening of tumuli" – Link tumuli?
Folklore, folk tradition, and modern Paganism
  • ¶4 "Pagans sometimes visit the site alone or in pairs, there to meditate, pray, or perform rituals, with some having reported experiencing visions there." – Replace the "with plus -ing"? Suggestion: "Pagans sometimes visit the site alone or in pairs, there to meditate, pray, or perform rituals, and some have reported experiencing visions there."
Early antiquarian descriptions
  • ¶1 "alerted to their existence by a local vicar" – Link vicar?
Agreed. Good catch. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "stating that two individuals excavated in the centre of the chamber without permission, discovering a human skeleton, the skull of which was re-buried in the churchyard..." – Slightly smoother might be "stating that two individuals who excavated in the centre of the chamber without permission discovered a human skeleton, the skull of which was re-buried in the churchyard..."
Archaeological excavation
  • ¶1 "he returned to excavate on the north-west corner of the dolmen" – Link dolmen?
  • I'm going to change "dolmen" to "chamber" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for offering your comments, Finetooth. The article is much the better for them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • All good. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. A most interesting article, well-done. Finetooth (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Coldrum Lodge, which has since been demolished" When was this name coined, and when was the farm demolished?
  • If only we knew! Sadly, this does not appear to be mentioned in the reliable sources. Hopefully, it might appear in some future publication and we could use it in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "about 500 metres from", "one and a quarter miles away" I'm assuming that conversions would be needed for measurements here, since you also do it elsewhere. Anyhow, you should be consistent in what units you use.
  • I've ensured that in both of these instances we have both imperial and metric measurements. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you could mention country and area under Name and location too, the intro and infobox should only summarise info found in the article body, but now the info isn't there.
  • I'm not an WP:engvar fanatic at all, but isn't this sufficiently associated with the UK for British English to be used in the article? Maybe it is supposed to be UK, I just see "meters" written various places instead of "metres".
    I've ensured standardisation as "metre". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you could define long barrow in-text early in the article body. The article is written in a way that just assumes the reader knows what it means.
  • I've added a few sentences to the start of the "Medway Megaliths" sub-section to give greater explanation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, FunkMonk! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • "from the vicinity of the White Horse Stone" It could be explained what this is.
  • I have added the brief following explanation to the sentence in question: "a putatively prehistoric monolith near the river," Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and Maloideae Only genera and species should be in italics, not families.
  • Ah, I did not know that. Removed the italicisation of the word. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "They can be divided into two separate clusters" I would name them, since this is the start of a new paragraph.
  • "Eocene." You could add "epoch", so readers will not confuse it with the much narrower periods also mentioned.
  • Any genetic work done on the human remains?
  • Are there any reconstructions of how the monument would have looked originally?
  • I'm not sure that any would be fair use given that they would be artistic depictions created by other people. The other option would be for someone with a talent for art to produce a reconstruction (based on others) which could then be used here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Constructed circa 4000 BCE," Only seems to be stated explicitly in the intro, which should not have unique info. Also, what is the date based on?
  • I've changed this to "Probably constructed in the fourth millennium BCE". The issue of date is discussed when examining the bones, mentioned in the final paragraph of the "Demographics" sub-section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so that's the only line of evidence that has been used for dating? FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's also the stylistic evidence, i.e. that it is a chambered long barrow and these are known to have been erected in the Early Neolithic. So it's a matter of relative dating, rather than any absolute dating. Hopefully any future excavation might be able to utilise techniques like carbon dating and thus ascertain a more precise date for the barrow's construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "about by Neolithicisation" Which is what?
  • I've replaced the term "Neolithicisation" with the more explicit "the transition from the hunter-gatherer Mesolithic to the pastoralist Early Neolithic". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It would seem those 1910 photos might be PD-old, know who the photographer was? In any case, they are PD-US, so you should upload them here locally in full res, like for example this image:[19]
  • "in a paper largely concerned with discerning racial characteristics of the bodies" May be controversial, but what did he conclude?
  • "their results were published in the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society in 2013" Do we really need to name the journal in-text? You don't do this for other such studies.
  • " published in the Folklore journal" Likewise.
  • "Wysocki's team noted that in all but one case, the fracture morphologies" Maybe add "of the bones" to make it clearer.
  • "on the left frontal" Spell out frontal bone and link. A bit too jargony.
  • "sub-adults" Seems too jargony, could at least be defined.
  • The article defines the bodies as between 16 and 20, so I have added that date range to the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "as seen here in contemporary Sichuan" Better to give a date, or be more vague, like "modern". If this article exists in 50 years, will the photo still be "contemporary"?
  • Good idea. I've switched "contemporary" to "in the early twenty-first century". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The inclusion of occupational debris" Which is what exactly?
  • "earth energy" Any reason why this isn't linked?
  • "spirits of Albion" Could be linked.
  • I do not think that "Spirits of Albion" itself could really link to anything, but we could link "Albion" itself? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I was thinking. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I'll add the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Kit's Coty House" is mentioned a few times, but what is it?
  • It is the name of one of the other Medway Megaliths; this is mentioned in both the second paragraph of the lede and again in the third paragraph of the "Medway Megaliths" sub-section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, for some reason it didn't work when I searched the article... FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Have there been no excavations after the 1920s?
  • Unfortunately not from what I gather, but hopefully some will take place in the future, at which point we can add any information about them into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "An patch of scorched earth exists on the grass" Looks like a mistake
  • "After limited reconstruction" You mention this in the intro, but I cant see any elaboration in the article body.
  • The article mentions the chambers being fortified with concrete in both "The chamber" and "Archaeological excavation" sections; do you think that the lede needs to be clearer on this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
That seems just short of reconstruction, though? Perhaps clarification would be better. Or do the sources refer to it as reconstruction? If so, it could also be solved by stating this explicitly in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I expanded the lede a little to better clarify things, but I felt that doing so just made that last lede paragraph too clunky, so I felt that the best bet was just to remove "After limited reconstruction" all together. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Any reason why your self-made diagrams haven't been moved to Commons? Could be useful to other projects.
  • Not that I am aware of. If anyone wants to move them, then feel free to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I would, but the tools for it somehow don't work for me anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems only two issues are unaddressed, after that I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a fourth-century AD Christian patchwork Latin poem, arranged by the Roman noblewoman Faltonia Betitia Proba. Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi is composed entirely of lines by the Roman poet Virgil, but the author has taken them, rearranged them, and re-contextualized them to be about the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible. In addition to its peculiar poetic style, the work is unique for a number of reasons: for instance, it is one of the first examples of Christian poetry, and perhaps the first instance of a Christian, poetic description of hell. The poem was also likely the first work by a women to have been printed and disseminated via the printing press. Finally, this work falls under the umbrella of both Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers, meaning that the promotion of this article would help bring attention to an area that deserves study but has unfortunately been under-represented on this site. In regards to its readiness, the article was promoted to "good" status on May 2, 2016. It has undergone two peer-reviews (one in December of 2015, and one in June of 2017), and it was copy-edited in June of 2017 by Miniapolis. It looks good, reads well, has images, and is properly formatted. I think it is time for the next step.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Publius_Vergilius_Maro1.jpg needs a copyright tag for the sculpture. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've swapped the old Virgil pic out for a new one, to which I have also added an object copyright tag.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 32: I rather think that "Dorothy Disse" is the publisher of this website, as well as its author, in which case the question arises: what makes her a reliable source? Incidentally, the link to the original source no longer works.
  • That's a good point. Here is a really useful 'review' of the website by then-UIowa current-Concordia University faculty member Nora E. Jaffary explaining in detail why it's a good, reliable source. Jaffary makes some solid points (if I do say so) that I believe support its inclusion on this page. As to the second point, I'm not sure what you mean; I did archive it, so in terms of actually accessing it, it should not be a huge issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What I meant was, there are two links in the reference, the first of which goes to the source while the second gives "Internal server error". There is no problem in accessing the source via the working link. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I apologize if I'm coming across as thick, but I guess I'm confused as to the issue? The first link has 'died', and so I've added an archive link. If I remove the original, dead url link I believe the citation template will give an error message. Anyway, I believe we're supposed to keep them as per WP:KDL.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 53: page range inconsistent
  • Ref 60: "p." missing?
  • Refs 73 and 84: I assume that your sources are published editions of these ancient works, in which case you need to provide details.
  • I'm only referring to the original sources. Giving citations like this is standard practice for ancient documents, especially in the Classics, and based on previous experiences at FAN and GAN here at WP (e.g.), I have assumed it is acceptable here, too.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Having looked again at how these citations are used in the text, I have no further issue with them. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Other than these points, sources seem fine. Brianboulton (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Support. Well written, and (as far as a layman can judge) a comprehensive treatment of a delightfully dotty topic. Nicely illustrated, and well sourced and referenced. The lead is on the short side, but having read the main text I didn't see anything that I thought should have been mentioned in the lead. I enjoyed this article, and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. – Tim riley talk 13:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

This is professionally written, informative, and nicely illustrated. I have no first-hand knowledge of the poem itself or the period in which it was written, but I'm able to comment on prose, logic, and MOS issues. Nothing here will give you much trouble. My main concern has to do with confusion about the authorship controversy, as noted below.
  • ¶1 "taken from other authors and disposed in a new form" – Would "arranged" be better than "disposed"?
Origin and style
  • ¶2 The footnote numbers [7][4][8] should be arranged in ascending order: [4][7][8].
  • ¶3 "reinterprets a number of New Testament episodes in which Jesus urged his followers to eschew wealth into passages" – Maybe "reinterprets ... as" rather than "reinterprets ... into"?
  • ¶4 "This is because Hebrew names like "Jesus" and "Mary" were never used by Virgil,..." – Tighten by flipping to active voice? Suggestion: "This is because Virgil never used Hebrew names like "Jesus" and "Mary,...".
  • ¶4 "To compensate for this issue, the poet took to using..." – Tighten by deleting "issue" and replacing "took to using" with "used"?
  • ¶3 "Christ's deeds are telescoped down..." – Maybe "reduced to" or "expressed as" rather than "telescoped down"?
  • ¶3 "After Christ's death, Proba transforms lines referring to the erotic love between Dido and Aeneas to signify "the sacred love of Christ and his followers." - Rather than saying that after Christ's death, Proba does something, simply delete "After Christ's death"?
  • ¶3 "After his resurrection, Christ describes the world to come to his followers with the prophecy..." – Does Christ make this prophecy before or after his death? The sentence as written suggests "after". Recast the sentence if "before" is correct.
  • "¶1 "...Proba's cento was popular, and is attested in manuscript records..." – Maybe "as is attested" rather than "and is attested"?
  • ¶1 The Manual of Style in MOS:LWQ recommends against linking terms (mysogynistic in this case) inside a direct quotation.
Authorship controversy
  • ¶1 "largely on the assertion of Isidore" – Link Isidore here as well as in the lead and in the caption? Or have I missed another one in the main text?
  • ¶1 "...Danuta Shanzer has argued that the poem was not written by Anicia Faltonia Proba..." and "...who agree with [Shanzer] developed the following arguments as to why they believe that the work was by Faltonia Betitia Proba..." – Big confusion here. The rest of the paragraph asserts that Anicia Proba was the author and not her grandmother. Contradiction?
  • I would move the image of Isidore to the left so that he looks into the page rather than out.
  • ISBNs in the bibliography and further reading sections need hyphens. A converter lives here. It's a two-step process. Enter the unhyphenated 13-digit ISBN to convert it to a 10-digit ISBN, then enter the 10-digit ISBN to convert it to a 13-digit ISBN with hyphens.
  • The link checkers found no dead URLS or dabs.
  • I see no duplink problems.

Final Destination 3

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third installment of the popular horror movie franchise. Released in 2006, it sees James Wong and Glen Morgan return as writers after having been absent during the second movie. Diverging from its predecessors, which were highly linked to one another, FD3 was written from the beginning as a stand-alone sequel. The film focuses on Wendy Christensen as the film's visionary, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Having foreseen the derailment of the Devil's Flight roller coaster, she manages to save some of her friends and realizes the pictures she took during the fair contain clues about how they're all going to die.

I got the article to GA-status in spring and tried getting it to FA-status a few months ago but due to personal reasons was unable to continue with the review. Since then I've made a few minor edits, mostly focused on the sources, replacing them with more reliable ones. I hope people enjoy reading the article and become interested enough to watch the movie as well. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47

Wonderful work with this article. I will leave my comments/suggestions for improvement below and good luck with it this go-around:

  • In the lead’s first paragraph, would it be helpful to add in the release year for the first film (i.e. 2000). It could be placed in parenthesis at the end of the sentence.
  • Revised.
  • I was a little confused by the note. You do not specify where the “six years ago” line came from. I am assuming that it was in the beginning of this film, but I believe you should fully explain the context by adding that to the note.
  • I added a little bit more context as to when and where this happens.
  • For the lead, please add the year in which the second film was released.
  • Done.
  • I think you can cut “who was” after you talk about Jeffrey Reddick for conciseness.
  • Done.
  • I would revise the following two sentences, “Final Destination 3 received mixed reviews. Negative reviews stated that the film was formulaic and did not bring anything new to the franchise.“, to avoid ending one sentence with “reviews” and starting another with the same word. In the third sentence you also use “reviews” in “positive reviews”. I would cut down on the use of the word in such close proximity.
  • Revised though I'm not sure if replacing "negative reviews" with "negative ones" is that much better.
  • I have done some revision here. Let me know what you think. Feel free to revert. Once I hear your feedback on this part, I will support this as you have addressed everything else. Aoba47 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh damn, I didn't even think of that. It is better that way, thank you. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Make sure to link Final Destination 3 and Final Destination 2 when you first reference them in the body of the article. I would also add the release years too.
  • Half-done. I need to link the third film to itself?
  • Oops, you are right. I had brain fart here. Sorry about that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • XD
  • Link James Wong when you first mention him in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • In the “Casting” subsection, you do not need to link the characters as they are all linked in the “Plot” section above. The actors were already linked too so you do not need to link them again.
  • Doesn't that fall under the same instance with Wong's name that people should be linked the first time they're mentioned in the main body?
  • I would move the screenshot of the tanning bed death down to the section where it is discussed.
  • I did think about doing that as while their death scene is the source of analysis.. but at the same time it was also pretty notable in reviews, being regarded as (one of) the best death(s) in the film / franchise. I guess it has notability in both sections.
  • I will leave it up to further reviewers. It was more of a suggestion, as I do not have a major problem with the placement. It is a good screenshot for the section so it was a wise addition to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this. My comments pertain just to the prose, as I will leave anything about source use and reliability to the source review. If possible, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, great job with this and I will support this once everything is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I will wait to support this until the issue addressed below about the "Reception" section is more resolved as there are some sticky areas with prose there that I agree need to be further revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: I did make some changes in the "Critical response" section. Unfortunately Slightly mad wasn't satisfied with them. I did make some further changes based on his comments. Are there any further changes you'd like for me to make? PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have made the following modifications to the reception section: edits. Feel free to revert them if you do not like the changes. Just trying to help out to improve that part. I will support this. I am not sure if the first paragraph of the reception section is entirely necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Aoba. I really appreciate the help. As for the first paragraph, I think it should stay as it includes professional consesus sites that immediately give the reader a general overview of the film's reception. PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could offer at least some assistance as I know that you have worked a lot on this. And your reasoning makes sense to me. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Slightlymad

  • Kindly read my reply above in case you're wondering why I opposed the nomination outright. One final thought: while it's not for me to decide who should review the sources, I recommend pinging the editor who had opposed the source review from the previous FA for assurance that their issue has been resolved. Thank you for your effort. Slightlymad 05:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Slightlymad: I've made a few further changes in the reception section with the help of two other editors. It definately looks better now. Is there anything else that you'd like for me to change; hopefuly change your mind along the way? PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This article has been significantly improved following another detailed peer review, prose advice from Corinne, and an extrapolation of those comments to tighten up every nook and cranny of the article. Having implemented the prose polishing, the creation a smooth narrative flow throughout, and the trimming of the footnotes, it is now a much easier and more pleasant read. I am pleased to nominate this again for FAC ahead of the centenary on 2 November; I hope you enjoy it. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Support - all my issues were ironed out during the latest peer-review, so I'm happy to see it here again. A flurry of sudden interest and intense edits from many editors, in a way I haven't seen before, seems to have made the article less cohesive right before the first FAC (and after the first peer-review where I, for full disclosure, acted as mentor). FunkMonk (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up lead image slightly
  • At the previous FAC, you had mentioned proposing an amendment to the UKGov tag wording - any progress on that?
Yes. I have pinged you on Commons
This fix has now been completed. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • File:The_"Basel_Program"_at_the_First_Zionist_Congress_in_1897.jpg: first source link doesn't appear to work.
Fixed with Wayback Machine

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Replies in green above. Many thanks for the speedy review. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

In my view all sources meet the required standards of quality and reliability. This review is concerned with issues of presentation and format.

  • In about 20 cases you use "p." instead of "pp." when citing page ranges (17, 33, 65 etc)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 65 and 73 need ndashes not hyphens
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit dubious about the use of "et seq" in cited page ranges. It's open-ended, not particularly helpful to someone wishing to check. Is it possible to be more precise?
Agreed and fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 32: Your text refers to the Jewish population as "a small minority, approximately 3% of the total" – but I don't see any mention of 3% in the source.
I have added Bachi, the underlying source, which includes a table with percentages supporting the "approximately 3%". Other sources summarize the data in a similar fashion, which we can use if needed: ([24], [25], [26]). Onceinawhile (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also in 32, why is it necessary to refer your readers to another WP article for "further details"? What "further details" do they need? (same issue arises with ref 85)
I have removed this in ref 32. Source 85 is a link to the Central Zionist Archives article, that is intended to be linked in the same manner as Cambridge University Press is linked, rather than for further information in the way ref 32 was being used. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Refs 214 and 236: wikisource citations should give author and date information (there is a useful template available)
Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 216: Harvard error
Fixed by RL0919 (thanks). Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 217: Italicize Jerusalem Post
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 262: requires author and proper source title
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 276: The link on "Virginia Page Fortna" is dead.
Updated. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 287 lacks publisher information; Jim Miles is the author
I removed this ref as not necessary. Instead I added an additional page number to the Schneer ref. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 290: Italicize The Guardian
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Access dates are required in a number of cases: 262, 287, 290 and 292 are obvious examples, but there may be more.
I added these. I also looked for others, and can confirm that these are the only primarily web-based sources in the article which did not already have access dates. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is your criterion for adding access dates in the bibliography, which you do on a couple of occasions?
I removed the two access dates; I have always considered them only relevant when the reference is primarily a web-based source (WP:CITEHOW only mentions access dates under "web pages") Onceinawhile (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You need to be consistent about including publisher locations for books. In general you don't give them, but in the odd instance you do (Stein, Wavell and Woodward are examples but there may be more)
I found and removed nine examples of this. They don't add anything; the books are all easily identifiable with existing information. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent about how publishers are shown. For example, you have "Cambridge University Press", but "OUP". Another abbreviation is "NYU Press". Also, consistency is required in the use of "The...", e.g. "University of Texas Press" and "The University of California Press"
I reviewed and fixed these. On the first topic, I found three abbreviations (including SUNY). On the use of "The" I have removed the example you pointed to, and added it to a journal name – the criterion I am using is that "The" is only used when it appears in the official title of the organization or journal. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Yapp appears in the bibliography but has no citations.
Removed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all I've found. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

All fixed; replies in green above. Many thanks for looking at this so thoroughly; I imagine it took some quite some time (I figured that the volume – c.300 citations and c.100 items in the bibliography – would have made a source review more onerous). Onceinawhile (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict": "origin" doesn't work because it's ambiguous; it can mean "initial stages", "explanation" or "cause". Pick a different word.
This is a very good point. I spent some time looking across the underlying sources in the article, and opened a discussion at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#The_Declaration_and_the_Conflict. The consensus is for "cause", which I am happy with. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "On the basis of the quid pro quo agreement in the correspondence, the Arab Revolt was launched on 5 June 1916. However, in May 1916 the governments of the United Kingdom, France, and Russia secretly concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement": "However" is the wrong word here, because a secret agreement doesn't negate or mitigate a revolt. Rewrite to clarify which two things are being contrasted.
Done; I have flipped the first sentence around to directly juxtapose the two agreements. As such I kept the word "however", but I case just as easily delete it if you think better without. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sykes was a British Conservative and Unionist MP whose role had developed from his seat on the 1915 De Bunsen Committee to have a significant influence on British policy in the Middle East, including initiating the creation of the Arab Bureau, whilst Picot was a French diplomat and former consul-general in Beirut.": Loss of clarity, mainly from trying to do too much in one sentence.
Done. I had the same uncomfortable feeling reading that sentence previously. I have now split the sentence into two, and copyedited the Sykes sentence to improve clarity and flow. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • “: no curly quotes, per WP:MOS
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "it was intended that Palestine may become a Jewish Commonwealth if and when ...": might, or would, not may.
Done. Changed to “would” since that’s the word Lloyd George used in his quote Onceinawhile (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. I got down to the last section before the end-sections, Reaction. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Seraphim System

This statement is in the lede: The opening words of the declaration represented the first public support for Zionism by a major political power. I am looking for a source for it in the body but I can't find it, could someone please point it out for me? Seraphim System (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I have now added this into the body in the Zionist reaction section. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

  • Do we really need the full quotation of the Declaration's wording in the lede? It looks a little messy to have an indented block of prose in the lede itself, and I'm wondering if we would be better off simply paraphrasing its contents in that opening paragraph. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Not my article, but ... personally, I wouldn't want to see this changed without a discussion at WT:FAC of the general principle. - Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed during the last FAC at Talk:Balfour_Declaration#Infobox:_Proposed_RfC and Talk:Balfour_Declaration#RfC:_Location_of_verbatim_text. The discussions were linked at the FAC review. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have said before that I am not too keen on having both the info box and the text block; now that there is a higher resolution image available, could we not look at this again? Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. I also added a link to Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Allied war effort" - this is the first introduction of the concept of the "Allies" in the lede. I'm concerned that there are points like this which require the reader to have a pre-existing understanding of the First World War and its various sides in order to understand what the lede is actually referring to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Good point. Took a great deal of thinking, and a lot of iteration, but I think I have fixed this. I only explained the position of the countries we discuss in the lede. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The opening words of the declaration represented the first public support for Zionism by a major political power" - probably could just go with "The declaration represented the first expression of public support for Zionism by a major political power." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have made most of this proposed change. The bit I didn’t implement was the deletion of the words “opening words of”; this is there in order to differentiate from the latter part of the paragraph which talks about “the second half” of the declaration, which comprises the two key provisos. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • We link to Palestinians when mentioning "local population of Palestine" but it would be better to move that link to the earlier mention of the "the local population in Palestine". Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories, and was the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considered the world's most intractable conflict." I'm wondering if this would work better as two separate sentences: "It greatly increased popular support for Zionism, led to the creation of Mandatory Palestine, which later became Israel and the Palestinian territories. It was also the origin of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, considered the world's most intractable conflict." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I have split this as proposed, and incorporated Dank's comment above. Rather than "also" I used "As a result" as the linkage, because the causation of the conflict runs through the strengthening of Zionism and the creation of Israel/Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
In "Background"
  • The first sub-section has a lengthy paragraph and then a very short one. Consider rearranging so that we have two even-sized paragraphs? That should make it more appealing for readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. I didn't make them exactly evenly sized, but created one paragraph relating to the mid-1800s and one to the late 1800s/early 1900s. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The British Foreign Office worked to encourage Jewish emigration to Palestine" - perhaps "The British Foreign Office encouraged Jewish emigration to Palestine"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Changed to "actively encouraged", to be clear that this was not passive encouragement of an existing trend. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The 1881–84 Anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire encouraged " - "Anti" should probably be "anti" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Consider aligning the "Basel program" picture to the left, to avoid clustering on the right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and former MP" - this acronym has not previously been explained in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done - I have now explained this. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Turks began to apply restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine in late 1882" - I think that this is the first explicit mention of the Turks; before this we have only mentioned the Ottoman Empire. It might be worth making clear the connection between the two for readers unfamiliar with the situation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Done - I have added "also known as the Turkish Empire" in the paragraph above. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " At the meeting David Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whose law firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co had been engaged a decade before by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland to work on the Uganda Scheme,[40] "referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine".[41] " This is a bit clunky, especially the middle section. Perhaps it could be broken into two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, by moving the middle section to the next sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " a Zionist, who believed Weizmann's demands were too modest.[" - we could quite easily scrap the comma here and streamline the sentence as a result. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed; restructured the sentence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "his election defeat in 1906," - perhaps "his electoral defeat in 1906," would read better? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "member of the Conservative and Unionist Party in their role " - link to Conservative Party (UK); also, probably best to simply use "Conservative Party", which is common use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Added link as proposed. Conservative and Unionist Party was the contemporary name in common usage, because the merger of the Unionist and Conservative parties had only just taken place in 1912. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Many further discussions followed, including the initial meetings in 1915–16 between Lloyd George, who had been appointed Minister of Munitions in May 1915,[48] and Weizmann, who was appointed as a scientific advisor to Lloyd George's Ministry of Munitions in September 1915.[" - it is a bit repetitive to use "Minister of Munitions" twice; in the latter case perhaps just "advisor to the ministry in September 1915." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Seventeen years later in his War Memoirs Lloyd George described these meetings as being the "fount and origin" of the declaration although this claim has been rejected by historians.[" - this sentence could do with some additional commas, after "years", "Memoirs", and "declaration". Midnightblueowl (talk)
Done. I made the last one a semi colon and removed "although". Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a few instances of passive voice where active voice might be more appropriate. "Zionism was first discussed at a meeting of the British Cabinet on 9 November 1914," could be "The British Cabinet first discussed Zionism at a meeting of the British Cabinet on 9 November 1914," while "although this claim has been rejected by historians." could be "although historians have rejected this claim." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the "1915–16: Prior British commitments over Palestine" sub-section, the second paragraph is far, far too long. Definitely trim this into two if not three smaller chunks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done, split into three. I made some additional stylistic improvements to make this work. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In late 1915 the British High Commissioner to Egypt, Henry McMahon, had exchanged ten letters with Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, in which he had promised Hussein to recognize Arab independence "in the limits and boundaries proposed by the Sherif of Mecca" with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo", in return for Hussein launching a revolt against the Ottoman Empire." This is a very lengthy sentence and it would work better if divided into two sentences. Also, no reason to include the "had" in "had exchanged" and "had promised". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " for carving up the area" - "for dividing the area" might be a little more encyclopaedic in tone. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sykes was a British Conservative and Unionist MP" - no need for "and Unionist", I'd have thought. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Per above, it is more accurate to contemporary usage to retain Unionist. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In Sykes’ mind, the agreement became outdated even before it was signed – in March 1916, he was to write in a private letter: " - change the apostrophe after "Sykes" to the standard style; maybe "was" rather than "became"; "he was to write" to "he wrote"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "borders of the Ottoman empire" - Upper case E needed in "Empire" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "responsibility for Middle Eastern Affairs" - "Affairs" should probably be "affairs" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sykes’ goals" - again it's the odd apostrophe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "mobilizing of Zionism" - "mobilisation of Zionism", perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done, although retained American spelling Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the wider war had reached " - "the war had reached"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "would first turn in " - "first turned in"; "had declared war" to "declared war"; "was still hoping to avoid" to "still hoped to avoid". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done, except for the first one, where I am intending to communicate that we are talking about events which post-date the subject of the declaration – and in particular the narrative to come in the following sections. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Russian forces were known to be distracted " - "Russia's armies were distracted"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's important to retain the information that this was known to the British, as the most relevant point to the article is what the British thought rather than what was or was not true. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Alexander Kerensky's Russian Republic " - perhaps better to state "Alexander Kerensky's Provisional Government"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " and would only withdraw after the final stage " - "and only withdrew after the final stage". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Balfour met Weizmann at the Foreign Office on 22 March, in a meeting described by Weizmann in a letter two days later as being "the first time I had a real business talk with him".[94]" This could be edited down a bit to something like: "Balfour met Weizmann at the Foreign Office on 22 March; two days layer, Weizmann described the meeting as being "the first time I had a real business talk with him".[94]" Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Balfour was in agreement" would work as just "Balfour agreed". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the French and Italians were to send" - "the French and Italians sent". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph is very lengthy here; it should be divided into two, if not three. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Following the US entry into the war on 6 April, Balfour travelled on the Balfour Mission to the United States," - "the US..." but then "the United States". Perhaps the other way around? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "were all in favour of supporting the " - perhaps "all supported the"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Balfour met with Lord Rothschild and Weizmann and asked them " - "and... and"; perhaps "and asked them" could become "asking them". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " his fellow Conservative and Unionist MP" - again, just "Conservative MP" would probably do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Drafting and Terms
  • "Declassification of Government archives" - small g for "government", surely? Also, perhaps better to be crystal clear by saying "British government" or "UK government" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph is one long sentence, and I really think we would do best to divide it into two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "a number of mainly presentational amendments were proposed by Balfour" - we could switch to active voice here, as "Balfour proposed a number of mainly presentational amendments". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "having previously been High Commissioner for Southern Africa during the Second Boer War" - superfluous information here that unduly elongates the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "debated as to who" - scrap the "as to"; it is superfluous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Explication of the wording" - might "explication" be a bit too obscure a word here? "Analysis" or something like that might be preferable. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the interpretation of the Zionists" - "the Zionists' interpretation"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "also no accident" - "also intentional"? Or "also deliberate"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of "Scope of the national home "in Palestine"", there is a quote which has been italicised, but need not be (and indeed probably should not be). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Again in the same paragraph, we put words in quotation marks in the first sentence to emphasise them but italicise them in the last for the same purpose. Best if we standardise our approach here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "described that this community were to observe that they had been " - not keen on this wording, it seems a bit clunky. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "compared against the commitment " - "contrasted against" would be better, no? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "British Governments have " - lower-case g for "governments"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In "Rights and political status of Jews in other countries", we have two sentences that are standing alone as paragraphs. I think that we need some rearrangement to ensure that the paragraphs are more equitable in size. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was first published in newspapers on 9 November, " in the "Zionist reaction" section. This information has already appeared in the section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "after the issuance of the declaration" - perhaps "the declaration was issued" will be easier for a lot of readers. "issuance" is probably not an everyday word for most people. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "From 1918 until World War II Jews in Mandatory Palestine" - probably best to have a comma after "World War II". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the first post-war settlement in Mandatory Palestine," - this is the first link to the article but is not the first mention of Mandatory Palestine in the section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Adolf Hitler had taken a similar approach " - "Adolf Hitler took a similar approach". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "was to continue for some time to come." - "continued for several years"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Why do we link to Zionism in the "Evolution of British opinion" sub-section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "British public and government opinion became increasingly less favourable to the commitment that had been made to Zionism;" could be streamlined to something like "British public and government opinion became increasingly unfavourable to state support for Zionism;" Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • We could cut "Lloyd-George's personal testimony in the context of his role as Prime Minister at the time of the declaration" back down to "Lloyd-George's personal testimony" quite easily. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Balfour had died in 1930 and Sykes had died in 1919" to "Balfour had died in 1930 and Sykes in 1919". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "described a total of nine factors motivating " - to "listed nine factors motivating". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Suez Canal and reinforce the route to Great Britain" - scrap the "Great" and wikilink Suez Canal. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "appeal to Jews in Germany and particularly America, " - "United States" rather than "America". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "French pressure for an international administration" - perhaps add "in Palestine" to the end of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " that British government's decision" - there needs to be a "the" before "British". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Long-term impact
  • "With respect to the latter, the declaration has been described as the "original sin" with respect to Britain's failure in Palestine" - "With respect... with respect". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " it was seen as a repudiation of the declaration by Zionists" - this can be misread as meaning that Zionists themselves repudiated the declaration. Change to "Zionists saw it as a repudiation of the declaration". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Arab-Israeli conflict in a wider sense ran primarily from 1948–73, but continues today, mainly in the form of the more localized Israeli–Palestinian conflict." - unreferenced and perhaps not really necessary given the prior mentions of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Scrap "in her work Britain's Moment in the Middle East, 1914–1971" as we do not mention other historian's books in this manner. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The 2010 study by Dr. Jonathan " - scrap "Dr.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The Document
  • Additional Manuscripts number 41178 - no need for italicisation, perhaps. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm really not a fan of the very heavy use of quotation in the Notes, which I find a bit excessive. That would not stop me supporting the article, but I do think it could be trimmed back. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Understood. You may be interested to see the discussion at the last FAC. I have cut them down since then, and will have another go at some further trimming now. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: just to say thanks very much for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: do you expect to have any further comments? I am keen to encourage Wehwalt to have another look at the article following his previous detailed feedback, but if you are still in the middle of a detailed review I imagine he may prefer to wait. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Can people ping me when ready? I would hate to overlook returning to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile:: I will ensure that all my comments are provided here by the end of the day, apologies if I have held anything up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Midnightblueowl. You certainly haven’t held anything up. You have provided superb comments, always constructive and always clear. Your input has been greatly appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

G'day, nice work. I have the following suggestions/observations (apologies if some have already been mentioned above): AustralianRupert (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • "...Churchill's 1841–42 exhortations...": probably should be "...Churchill's 1841–1842 exhortations" per WP:DATERANGE
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • same as above for "1881–84 anti-Jewish pogroms" and "1905–06 election campaign after" and other similar constructions
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • the duplicate link checker tool suggests that the following terms are overlinked: Zionist Organization, Nathan Rothschild, Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland, Lloyd George ministry, Western Front (World War I), Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks, Leonard Stein (Liberal politician), League of Nations mandate, King-Crane Commission, Occupied Enemy Territory Administration, Public inquiry, 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
All removed. Thank you for listing these out, it was very helpful Onceinawhile (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography, for the Renton work, is there an end to the page range? Currently it has: "pp. 16–"
Corrected Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography, "A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the struggle that shaped the Middle East" --> probably should use title case caps: " A Line in the Sand: Britain, France and the Struggle that Shaped the Middle East" (please check for other instances)
Done. I found four more in addition. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography, some isbns have hyphens and some don't (e.g. compare Barr with Antonius)
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography, for the journal articles, I suggest adding ISSNs if there aren't dois. For instance, Brecher is missing one of these.
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography, "THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF THE PALESTINE PROBLEM 1917-1988 PART I" --> should use title case instead of all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: many thanks for taking the time to review the article, and for your helpful comments. I have made all of the changes, per above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BrightR

Very satisfied to see the increase in Palestinian, Jordanian, and other sources on the topic. I can see what Midnightblueowl says about apparently excessive quotes, but I am a fan of direct quotes myself and see it as a benefit to the article's verifiability. At any rate, if required, all the quotes can be removed. Strong support. Bright☀ 10:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations


Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a CIA covert operation in Guatemala, one of many articles I worked on related to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, which became an FA earlier this year. It's based on pretty much every scholarly and book source that discusses the subject, and I feel it's comprehensive. It went through a detailed GA review by Shearonink earlier this year, and I've polished it since. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Guatearbenz0870.JPG: per the FOP tag, should include more details about the artwork pictured, particularly its specific location
  • Hmm. I'm uncertain how specific I can be about this, because the location "covered an entire city block within two hundred meters of the National Palace". If we need the precise address, I can ask Soman. But you reviewed this image already, here; has something changed since then?
  • Think you can just add that description to the image page. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, done.
  • File:PatrickJHillings.jpg: don't see that tag at the source site, or am I missing something? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I investigated this in more detail, and you're right. The image seems to originally come from the NYT, on whose website it is no longer available: I also find it unlikely that the NYT image would be PD, and unlikely that we could justify non-free use here. So I've removed the image: the article has a fair few images in any case.
  • @Nikkimaria: I've responded to your concerns. I've a question for you, if I may: this image is clearly horizontally compressed, but I've no idea of how to fix that besides downloading it, stretching it, and uploading it. I'm uncertain if there's a better way, or if that method is acceptable: d'you have any advice? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, they were very helpful. The issue has been fixed. Vanamonde (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from SchroCat

  • Why is the title part-capitalised? I don't see any rationale in the MoS that would justify it (although I may have missed it). - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @SchroCat: That's an understandable question. Basically it's because that's what the source do: Holland, for instance, says "There is, to be sure, an oft-told anecdote derived from PBHISTORY, the cryptonym for the project dedicated to gathering and exploiting Guatemalan Communist documents." (Holland, 2004, p 300). More generally, it's the convention used by the vast majority of RS for all of the related CIA operations: Operation PBFORTUNE and Operation PBSUCCESS, for instance. I'm uncertain as to the origins of the convention. If there is a good reason to ignore this convention and move the article to Operation Pbhistory, I'd be willing to do so. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'm right in saying that most military operations also use the same capitalisation format, but we drop it to sit in line with the MoS. (And looking at WP:FA, I don't see any other capitalised operations). Ian Rose or Dank (both being active in that project) will know better than I. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Well, Milhist is not my usual area of work; this is as close as I get: so I'm happy to follow the advice of folks more experienced in this area. Let me just throw in a few more options: "PB" is the CIA's geographical moniker for Guatemala. The "History" was operation specific. So I imagine a case could be made for "Operation History", and for "Operation PBHistory". Also going to ping Peacemaker67, who reviewed PBFORTUNE at GAN: I'd like to hear your views. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Others may have a different view, but although military operation names are usually rendered in Title Case, given these operation names seems always to be in all upper case in sources, we should IAR, ie I reckon the whole operation name should be in upper case across these CIA articles (Operation PBFORTUNE etc). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Either Pbhistory or PBHistory would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 12:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: I wonder if we could get your opinion here too, as we seem to be evenly divided. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I did see the original ping and was going to stop by but, perhaps because I didn't yet have the nom on my watchlist, it dropped through the cracks... In RL I'm used to operation names being upper case (see the RAAF's current ops page for instance) but we do seem to have broad consensus for title case on WP, thus given the slightly unusual situation with this one (initials evidently being part of the name) I think I'd have to go with "PBHistory"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, Ian Rose. It looks like "PBHistory" has the most support. As I've temporarily handed in my mop, I'm unable to move the page: might I ask you to do the honors? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @SchroCat: The article has now been moved. Did you have any other suggestions you wish to mention? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I will see if I can. I have promised myself to a couple of different things and time is a bit stretched, but if a window comes up, I'll be along. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 10 requires pp. not p., and ndash not hyphen
  • Fixed: also used the dash script on the whole page, there were a few others.
  • For consistency, the citations to "Holly" should be to "Holly & Patterson", as per the other multiple author source.
  • Also fixed.

Otherwise, sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Northern rosella

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've scoured everywhere and feel I have covered just about all information available on this pretty parrot. I feel it has come together okay and is within striking distance of FA status. have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment: There's nothing in the lead that actually says what the Northern rosella is (a species of parrot). This should be in the first sentence, as is the case in the other FA parrot (and parrotfinch) articles: Broad-billed parrot, Mascarene parrot, Rodrigues parrot, Turquoise parrot, Fiji parrotfinch. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Good catch...I rejigged it now... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • I'll give this a look soon... FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "first described as Psittacus venustus by German naturalist Heinrich Kuhl." Give date.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The description was based on an illustration by Ferdinand Bauer" The article is pretty empty, perhaps find and include this important type illustration?
having trouble locating it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thought so, can't find it either... FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Butting in: could this be the illustration? - Which is one of 52 plates held by the NHM in London - see here. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The NHM has a watermarked image here - Aa77zz (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Seems very likely! I think it would be good to include somehow, since that image is what the species is based on... FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
that's definitely it...surely it is out of copyright... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gregory Mathews described P. venustus hillii in 1910" You could add "the subspecies" before the name, so the reader will know what you're talking about.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "possibly through bowdlerisation" I have no idea what that is.
linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "was basal to the other" Could be linked and maybe explained.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "and that non-sister taxa" Likewise.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The description section feels like a wall of text, but I can't really see any place where it would make sense to split it...
  • "the adult northern rosella weighs 90–110 g (3.2–3.9 oz), is 29 to 32 cm" And is?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "in the western subspecies hillii" Seems out of place and redundant to mention this under description.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "not a gregarious bird" Could be linked.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "such as Darwin Stringybark (Eucalyptus tetrodonta)", listed later as ", E. tetradonta". Seems odd you would list all species with the common name first and scientific name in parenthesis, except for this example.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The bird louse Forficuloecus wilsoni" Everywhere else the scientific name is in parenthesis after the common name.
it is a species of bird louse. And has no common name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)" Why is the abreviation, and not the full name, linked?
target article is at acronym...but switched now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is IUCN not spelled out, like CITES is?
is now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breeders have attempted to use sprinklers in enclosures to induce pairs to breed at other times" How would this help?
not spelt out in source but presumably to mimic rain (monsoon) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "native to Australia's Top End" That term is neither used or explained in the article body.
just changed to "northern Australia" as the term adds nothing really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The sexes have similar plumage, while younger birds are generally duller with occasional spots of red." Maybe include females in the latter group as well, as you state they are occasionally red in the article body.
good point - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - that was quick! FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz


  • Spell out IUCN
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy and naming

  • Spell out RAOU
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • nonsister -> non-sister?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Link Arnhem Land (as in lead)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "John Gould reported in 1848" perhaps just Gould here
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "However, a mitochondrial study by Ashlee Shipham and colleagues published in 2017..." Shipman et al used nuclear DNA in their study ("genomic wide sampling of thousands of loci") which they considered more reliable and which gave a different tree from that obtained using mtDNA.
damn...I need to read these articles when less tired...done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


  • First sentence needs to be split
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Strangely HBW alive has 28cm and 85g - not within the range given in the wiki article
I'll stick with HANZAB... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • mention bill colour
I did...see "The beak is off-white with a grey cere"... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link retrices
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


  • "The northern rosella is not a gregarious bird, found solitarily or in pairs, although several birds will perch together in the same tree." -> ..."and is found solitary or ..."?
changed to "alone" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


  • "Plant species it eats both seeds and nectar of include" word missing?
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


  • add size of egg in inches
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Conservation status

  • Are there published estimates of the population size?
not known - remote areas its lives in and poorly studied Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC) Perhaps add some links:

  • link scapulars in lead and body
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link mantle in lead and body
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link Melville Island (Australia)
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link cere
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link Tiwi Islands
doneCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking good. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Re comment from FunkMonk above:

  • "The description was based on an illustration by Ferdinand Bauer ..." - need a source for this information. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

More on Bauer

  • "The description was based on an illustration by Ferdinand Bauer from a specimen collected by Robert Brown..." From your source (Australian Faunal Directory) it isn't clear that Kuhl based his description on the drawing - he could have used the actual holotype. He mentions that it was in the Museum of the Linnean Society (now in the NHM). Bauer's illustration is from the same specimen. (I've been following up all the references on the Australian Faunal Directory page to see whether Brauer's illustration has been published). - Aa77zz (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 23: The hyphen in the page range should be replaced by an ndash
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Page range formats should be consistent - compare, e.g. ref 16 with 9, 23 and perhaps others.
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JennyOz

  • "International Ornithologists' Union (IOC)" was it intentional to keep that acronym after the name change?
No idea, but I do know they still have "IOC" on their site.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • possibly reword to avoid close (proximity) repetition?
"...there is no evidence indicating a decline in population." and
"...with no evidence of any significant decline."
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all, JennyOz (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

  • Rosella should be linked in the lead.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, it might be good to say "nominate" (linked) before "Northern Territory subspecies", as the other subspecies has its name shown in the lead.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, "blue green" should probably be hyphenated.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity, in the sentence "The long tail is blue green and the wings are blue-violet and black", "black" and "blue-violet" should probably be switched, as it might be interpreted as meaning that the wings are blue-violet and blue-black.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In this phrase, "but may also eat insects", you should probably say "it".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There probably shouldn't be a comma separating "Brown" and "in 1821" in the sentence "Dutch zoologist Coenraad Jacob Temminckpublished the name Psittacus brownii, in honour of Brown, in 1821."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It would probably be better to say "synonymous to the nominate" or something like that instead of just "synonymous". This can be found in the sentence "Animal taxonomist Arthur Cain treated the subspecies as synonymous as the only difference he knew of was the colour of the cheeks, but conceded further evidence could prove them distinct."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You should probably specify what "this" is in the sentence "Gould reported in 1848 that this was the local name used, and it was the most common name at the end of the 19th century."
changed "this" to "the latter" to avoid repetition yet highlight what was being discussed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the description section, you inconsistently use "to" and "–" to represent ranges of numbers.
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That is all for now. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC) More:

  • It might be better if you say "in addition to" instead of the second "and" in the sentence "It has broad wings and a wingspan of around 44 cm (17 in), and a long tail with twelve feathers." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
changed the first "and" to "with" instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't mean to say a whitish throat and large, whitish cheek patches when you say this, "a whitish throat and large cheek-patches", right? If so, please specify. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
not quite - one subspecies has predominantly white with some blue and the other predominantly blue with some white - this info is in the sentences following Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There are four problems with the sentence "These last are mainly white with lower borders violet in the nominate subspecies, and more blue with narrow upper segment white in subspecies hillii." First off, violet should be before "lower borders". Second off, after the comma, you do not specify whether you are talking about the cheek patch as a whole or just the lower borders. Third off, "narrow upper segment white" should be "a narrow white upper segment". Fourth, you should specify what "these last" are.
changed "these last" to "which" to link. switched the two colour adjectives to the places identified. To me it seems obvious that I am talking about the whole cheek patches of the two subspecies in each segment...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... looking at it now, it does seem pretty obvious. Also, it might be better to say "the latter of which" instead of just "which". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
err, that could make it really confusing. To my eyes, the "which" clearly refers to the cheeks and cheeks alone. Making it "last of which" sounds weird as leads me to wonder how it refers to a portion of the cheeks... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence, "The feathers of the lower neck, mantle and scapulars are black narrowly fringed with yellow, giving a scalloped appearance, while the feathers of the back, rump, upper tail coverts and underparts are pale yellow with black borders, and concealed grey bases; those of the breast have very dark grey bases, occasionally tinged with red", should probably be broken up into two sentences, with a split at the semicolon. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Immature birds resemble adults but duller overall, with less-well defined cheek patches", it should be "are duller overall". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying "The northern rosella is endemic to northern Australia", it might be better to say the states that it can be found in, because the next sentence literally starts "In Western Australia". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe try and reword this sentence so you don't have two "south"s so close together: "In Western Australia, it is found across the Kimberley south to the 18th parallel south, around Derby, Windjana Gorge National Park, the northern King Leopold Ranges, Springvale Station and Warmun, with vagrants reported at Halls Creek and Fitzroy Crossing." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I just abbreviated it to "18th parallel" as it is obvious which one we're talking about Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Saying "further east country" sounds odd. This can be found in the sentence "t is absent from central Arnhem Land, but is found further east in country around the western and southern coastline of the Gulf of Carpentaria, south to Borroloola and across the border into western Queensland[21] as far as the Nicholson River." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
yeah, reading it again "in country" is redundant so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The northern rosella lives in grassy open forests and woodlands, including deciduous eucalypt savannah woodlands", do you mean to say that the woodlands are also grassy and open, or not? If not, then maybe switching around the two would do the trick. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I mean they are both grassy and open Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "More specific habitat includes vegetation along small creeks and gorges, sandstone outcrops and escarpments, as well as some forested offshore islands", you should probably say "habitats include", as "habitat" seems to be plural. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
was thinking of it as a collective noun but done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It isn't "green public space" (which, to my mind, is public space that is the colour green), it is "public green space" (which is a public park). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't forest be enough in the sentence "It avoids dense forest and rainforest", as a rainforest is a type of forest? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To maintain consistent tense, it would be better to say "although several birds sometimes perch together in the same tree" instead of "although several birds will perch together in the same tree". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The northern rosella feeds on the ground ingrassy glades in woodlands, roadsides, riverbanks and in the canopy of trees", you say that they feed on the ground, but you also say "in the canopy of trees". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
reworded, does that help? they generally feed on the ground...unless in canopy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You should not say "winter" in the sentence "Nesting occurs in tree hollows in winter, often in eucalypts located near water." If the source doesn't specify the months, then saying "Northern Hemisphere" or "Southern Hemisphere winter" should be ok. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
SH added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The incubation period is around 19 or 20 days, with the female performing this duty alone", "performing this duty alone" doesn't really make sense, as there isn't a verb that "this duty" refers to. Maybe say instead, "with only the female incubating the eggs". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
changed to "The female incubates the eggs alone, over a period of 19 or 20 days" instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There should be an indefinite article before "fall" in the sentence "Although the northern rosella is an uncommon bird, there is no evidence indicating fall in numbers." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe say "may have a negative impact on northern rosella numbers" instead of "may have impacted on northern rosella numbers". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You should be able to just use the abbreviation for IUCN in the conservation section, as you have already mentioned it in full in the lead. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
see above - I unabbreviated it in the course of this FAC. Technically they are separate areas of article, like how we link once in lead and once in body. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There shouldn't be an Oxford comma in the sentence "Like most species of parrots, the northern rosella is protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) with its placement on the Appendix II list of vulnerable species, which makes the import, export, and trade of listed wild-caught animals illegal", as you do not use Oxford commas throughout the rest of the article. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That's all. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey @RileyBugz: are you now satisfied with items to this point? Any other issues? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Revival (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the comic book Revival, published by Image Comics between 2012 and 2017. It passed GA in June 2017. The previous FA failed due to concerns over sources. Some of them have been replaced since then. Rationales showing why I think the other questioned sources are high quality can be found here. Since the previous FA nom, I tried to work with the opposer, but did not receive a response. I have also added a second image in the body of the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

I still support this article based on the prose as all of my concerns and comments were addressed during the first FAC. I do have some concerns about the "Merchandise" section though as it is rather short, and would be curious if the information could be moved into a different section (such as a part about the comic's release). Otherwise, great work with this and good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've mixed the merchandise into the release. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

From Slightlymad

Nothing else is bothersome to me... except the Reviews section; it's the usual A said B structure that has been retooled around many articles that has a Reception section. Have a look at this essay—Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections—as it gives a couple of interesting points to make this section a fine read. Is it standard to report on Comic Book Roundup aggregate scores on comic articles? If so, then just find a way not to remove them right after you've copyedited the section (In the essay, the True Detective example had the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate score removed as a result of the copyedit, even though it's pretty standard for film/TV articles to keep them intact.) Otherwise, I believe this passes FA. SLIGHTLYmad 05:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the essay link. I have revised the review section with your suggestions. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Support SLIGHTLYmad 13:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Casey Stengel

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... Casey Stengel, one of the great managers in baseball history, and one of its great characters. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. There are a lot of good things going on in this article, but right now there are a few holes. The article's evaluation of Stengel as a manager is incredibly slight, with little effort given over to describing his managerial style or his impact on those great Yankee teams of the 1950s. I also don't see how an article on Stengel could only contain the word "platoon" or variations thereof a total of three times -- and not at all in the lead -- when his popularization of the practice is arguably his greatest baseball legacy. These issues can be rectified by including information from The Bill James Guide to Baseball Managers, The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, and Evaluating Baseball's Managers by Chris Jaffe, all of which try to place Stengel and his accomplishments into the larger context of baseball history. Without this material, I do not believe the article can pass the comprehensive or well-researched FAC criteria. Indrian (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
That sounds good. As it happens, I can get my hands on copies of all three without too much trouble. Please, Indrian, check back in few days on this or I will ping you. I'd certainly welcome any other comments you might have, either in the interim, or later.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Indrian:, I've done as you asked. Would you mind looking it over?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Love all the additions. I will do a formal review soon.Indrian (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Casey_Stengel_1953.png: source link is dead. Same with File:Billy_Martin_1954.png
  • File:HOF_Stengel_Casey_plaque.jpg: when was the plaque created? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Fixed on the plaque, still looking on others ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the dead links. There is still a verifiable reference without them. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Source Review

  • Your ref #1 seems irregular in multiple ways. It is missing publisher info and retrieval date, and it has first name first.
  • For the Jaffe and James refs, it says "Check isbn=value: invalid character". I guess that's related to your note that "Numbers for the James books and for Jaffe indicate Kindle locations."

Everything else for your sources seems to be in order. Moisejp (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed those things.-- (Wehwalt) 14:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments – After recovering from a sudden bout of severe depression last night, I'm happy that there's something in my wheelhouse to review here. This is what I saw in the early part of the article; I'll return as time allows.

  • Linking World War I in the lead is probably a bit of overlinking since that's such a common term.
  • Same goes for the basketball link in Early life.
  • Check the titles of several of the subsections. They appear to be using large em dashes instead of the smaller en dashes. Minor point, but the bigger dashes don't look great when reading the individual sections.
  • Return to the minors: "and was very reluctant in his content when reached by cable." Was "content" meant to be "consent" or am I reading this wrong?
  • Repeating success: "Mantle's talent and speed awed Stengel. Stengel...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.
  • "Much of the burden of winning a third consecutive pennant fell on Berra, who put together a MVP season." This should be "an MVP season" instead.
  • Another unwanted em dash in 4—1 lead, which should also be the smaller en dash. Same goes for 1936—1939 later in the section. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I think I've gotten everything there. I share your pain, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Now that my pain has eased, I've come back to the article and looked at the rest of it. Only a few referencing quibbles to point out. First, reference 6 (Toledo Blade) has an author which can be added to the cite. Also, my from experience, these Google News links can go dead from time to time (due to licensing issues and the like) and I find it helpful to add page numbers to them as a precaution, although this is purely optional.
  • It appears that reference 168 comes from Fox Sports, not Fox News.
  • Since ref 74 is a book, it may be helpful to put the full cite in the bibliography, where the other books are, and just leave a short cite in-text as is done elsewhere. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Done those too, though in the case of ref 74, found an alternative source.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – All of my concerns have been resolved, and the article looks to meet FA standards. Nice work on a topic familiar to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Glad you're feeling better :).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


  • Should "managing vacancy" be "Management vacancy". Ceoil (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's how it is in baseball talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Fine. Its a Support from me anyhow. The article is rather comprehensive, well sourced as noted above, crisply and tightly written throughout, and in a pacey, engaging style. Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not know a lot about basketball but it was a good read. Some minor quibbles for your consideration:

  • Does the "I learned more from McGraw than anybody." quote really need to be in quote box? Can't it be part of the prose?
  • (Bibliography:) why can't New York, New York be simply New York?
  • I believe you should only link authors on their earliest instance. Also, why are the publishers in the section not linked? It might be useful linking them. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. The technical things are fixed. Regarding the quote box, I am using quote boxes as a way of showing the reader Stengelese, without which I doubt the baseball people would consider the article comprehensive. In a way, it's Casey's running commentary on his own life. If I put it in the text, it would sort of duplicate the Appel quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator notes: I think this is just about ready for promotion, but I'd just like to check if Indrian plans to return. In the meantime, a few queries from me. Not all the images have alt text, which isn't a FA requirement, but is always good to include as best practice. I also noticed using this tool that we have a few duplinks. Some of them are probably justified as they are some way apart, but I'd appreciate someone taking a little look. And a minor point, why are we spelling out "twenty-nine days after the World Series ended" rather than having "29 days". Sarastro1 (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it immediately follows a date, thus it would be "On November 13, 1923, 29 days ..." I seem to recall one of my English teachers saying don't do that. I'm pretty sure most of the duplinks are intentional--Bill Veeck for example--but I'll look them over and add the alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Either of these is fine either way, just checking. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any way to add alt text for the retired numbers, but I've added the remainder and delinked a couple of multiple links. The rest seem worth having. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Jean Bolikango

Nominator: Indy beetle (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Jean Bolikango, a prominent Congolese educator, writer, social figure, and politician. He began his career in the Belgian Congo as a teacher, where he educated two future prime ministers. He also wrote an award winning novel and contributed to a Catholic newspaper. In 1946 he founded an important cultural association. By the late 1950s he was the only Congolese to hold an executive position in the Belgian colonial administration. In the lead up to the independence of the Congo he took on the role as leader of the Bangala people. Most of his attempts to secure important government positions failed (though he did twice serve briefly as deputy prime minister of the Congo), but he had significant influence as an opposition leader in Parliament until 1965. His career was quiet afterwards but he held esteem among the Bangala people until his death. He is remembered as one of the fathers of Congolese independence and as an elder statesman of the Congo. I think that, in spite of its relatively small size, this article includes all the information available on Bolikango and is ready for FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Taking a preliminary look:

  • There are two dead link tags in the list of sources. These sources need to replaced.
  • I found another dead link: Associated Press 16 April 1966. This also needs replacing.
  • There are several Harvard errors affecting the following sources:
  • La Fontaine (refs 4, 5, 11)
  • O'Brien (ref 50}
  • Kyle (ref 52)
  • Multimedia Congo 2007 (ref 58)
The issue in these cases appears to be a discrepancy between the date/year given in the citation and that given in the source.
  • The list of sources should be in alphabetical sequence.

There may be other sources-related matters, but perhaps you'd deal with the above first. Brianboulton (talk) 17:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Response to @Brianboulton:

  1. From WP:LR: "Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." I must ask on what basis should I replace these sources?
  • Sorry, I meant to say "links", not "sources", and then only if such were available. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Ah thank you for the clarification. The Digital Congo link is probably salvageable, as I've seen links from that website rescued before. Though the last time it happened on this page was because of the WaybackMedic 2.1, and I don't know how to activate it. The other link is apparently "permanent"ly dead. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

2. Removed the link, as it was only a scan anyway and the link was not going to be of much help.
3. Fixed the cite errors.
4. Alphabetized.
-Indy beetle (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • I've deleted two instances of Template:Interlanguage link multi. Please don't use that template at FAC. If you don't want the link to be red, then create a stub on the English Wikipedia and link to that.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but the second caption should end in a period as a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

  • "He served twice as deputy prime minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo." - I would definitely give the years here, which is fairly standard on a lot of political biography articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "deputy prime minister" - should this perhaps be capitalised? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the opening paragraph, could we get a mention of Bolikango's ideological approach and political party affiliations, as we for instance have at FA-rated African political biographies like Nelson Mandela and Steve Biko? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "making him one of the "fathers of independence" of the Congo" - the "of the... of the" phrasing is a little repetitive. Perhaps the latter could be "in the"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "the various factions in the Congo" - "various Congolese factions"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bolikango became a minister in the government" might work better as "Bolikango became a minister in his government"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a brief paragraph at the end of the lede summarising Bolikango's legacy; again, like the Mandela and Biko articles. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Early life
  • Do we have any idea which ethno-cultural group Bolikango belonged to? That would appear to be pretty important information that we are missing here. If we can find that out, it would also go in the lede too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in this section is pretty lengthy. I definitely think it would be more user-friendly to split it into two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Why are the names of some organisations italicised and others not? Ensure that this is standardised (I would suggest non-italicisation as the more appropriate option here as we are dealing with the names of groups, rather than books). Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • " by the colonial administration for its attachment to Belgian social ideals" - this is the first indication that Belgium controlled the Congo in this period. I think that we need to make this more explicit for readers unfamiliar with Central African history. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "in Ghent" - definitely wikilink this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Kethulle de Ryhove's funeral " - who is this and why was he at their funeral? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "That year he hosted and contributed to the drafting of the first Congolese political manifesto, Manifeste de conscience africaine, in his own home." I think that this could be reworded; at present it is a little confusing to have "he hosted" right at the beginning and only "in his own home" at the end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Political career

Response to @Midnightblueowl:

  1. Done.
  2. Done.
  3. Revised to say he "was a prominent Congolese educator, writer, and conservative politician who enjoyed a substantial amount of popularity among the Bangala people. He served twice as Deputy Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in September 1960 and from February to August 1962. He also headed the Parti de l'Unité Nationale and worked as a key opposition member in Parliament in the early 1960s."
  4. Done.
  5. Revised as "warring factions in the Congo".
  6. Done.
  7. Seeing as his legacy section is rather small, I've tacked this on to the end of the last lede paragraph: "His grandson created the Jean Bolikango Foundation in his memory to promote social progress. The President of the Congo posthumously awarded Bolikango a medal in 2005 for his long career in public service."
  8. Added that he was born into a Bangala family.
  9. Done.
  10. Corrected so that none are italicised.
  11. It does read that he was born in the Belgian Congo. I'm not sure how else I could make this more explicit without being undue. Suggestions?
  12. Done.
  13. It is mentioned previously that Kethulle de Ryhove was a missionary who worked with Bolikango to establish UNISCO.
  14. Revised as "That year he hosted in his home and contributed to the drafting of the first Congolese political manifesto, Manifeste de conscience africaine."
  15. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Black-necked grebe

Nominator(s): RileyBugz会話投稿記録 & Kostas20142 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a grebe that can be found throughout the Northern Hemisphere (and in some places in Africa). Me and Kostas think that the article meets all of the featured article criteria, and I personally think it to be an interesting read. Hope you enjoy it! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon, but as usual, I have some image suggestions, since the article looks rather empty. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! Hopefully the taxonomy section is interesting enough. The original scientific name is the same as it is today, so I didn't have to do too much there. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We have photos of the juvenile, and though not a particularly good picture, we should always show it if images are available:[27] Also shown in this video, which could be an interesting adittion.[28] As well as this photo of a feeding individual.[29] There seems to be other interesting stuff on Commons as well.
Added the first two, but not the third. Although it is interesting, it just shows it eating, not doing things like diving. I did, although, add a picture of the black-necked grebe diving. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This free photo on Commons seems to show some kind of interesting behaviour (courtship display, according to the caption there):[30]
Transferred to Commons and added. It is in fact courtship behaviour. There is actually a name for this; the penguin dance. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems off that you use the scientific name in one caption under description, yet the common name in another. Seems the second image shows the other subspecies, so you could state this in the caption.
Fixed and done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You should end each subspecies sentence under taxonomy with a citation for clarity.
I'd disagree; I think that it would be unneeded, as the reader should be able to understand that it is all from the same source. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
As far as I see, there are no such exceptions at Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Only the lead is exempt from citations. Every stand-alone sentence should be cited, we can never know what the reader may or may not understand. The info could just as well be from different sources, but it isn't apparent. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I think I understand which sentences you mean. Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The other subspecies', P. n. gurneyi, is slightly smaller than the other subspecies" Repetitive.
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The adult of this subspecies also has, on its lesser wing-coverts, a rufous-brown tinge." Sentence seems overly convoluted, why not just "The adult of this subspecies also has a rufous-brown tinge on its lesser wing-coverts."
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "in addition with the tufts" In addition to.
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems a bis strange that you show each subspecies in the taxobox, but one with breeding and one with non-breeding plumage, but then show both under description with non-breeding plumage. Better to show both with breeding plumage in the taxobox, or take the non-breeding image out (you already show it better under description).
I switched this up a bit. I'm going to show both in the taxobox (but both will be the nominate subspecies), and then take out one of the images in the description (the one showing the nominate subspecies in non-breeding plumage). I think that it is better to do this because it is better to show the major variations in the species in the taxobox (like how we sometimes show both male and female birds in the taxobox when the two have a large difference). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, wonder why I didn't think of that instead... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "As of 2016, the black-necked grebe is classified as of least concern by the IUCN" Not needed, and repetitive.
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "classification of the species as of least" Again.
I actually changed this to "the current classification of this species" and removed the whole "least concerned" thing, as it is a bit repetitive. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the past, this species was threatened in North America by egg collecting and the millinery industry." When and how?
Date not specified (both in the source and in other sources I found), but I specified how the millinery industry affected it (I think it should be pretty clear how egg collecting would affect it). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "hunted in the Gilan Province and northern Iran" There should be a way of making it clear that the Gilan Province is in Iran without being repetitive.
Fixed this. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "(although this can vary, with nests ranging from about 20 centimetres (8 in) to over 30 centimetres (12 in)) on average while nests in colonies have an average diameter of about 25.5 centimetres (10 in)." Not sure this very long sentence needs to parenthesis, also looks confusing with the multiple× parentheses within a parenthesis.
Fixed this by removing the parenthesis and breaking up the long sentence. Hopefully it works for you. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "it will often nest in mixed-species colonies." With which other species? I see you mention one species further down, but why not just mention it briefly the first time you mention mixed colonies?
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "It is suggested that sometimes, some pairs" Why is this only "suggested", when almost everything else is stated as fact?
This is suggested because it was inferred from the data; specifically, the author of the paper thought that since there were more nests than grebes at a certain colony, that some grebes watch over more than one nest. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "individuals used the whole area of the lake" Use the whole area of a lake? Why definite tense?
It's definite because I previously used "the breeding lake" (two sentences back) and "the lake" (one sentence back). Thus, since it is already introduced (as the breeding lake), it is definite. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "with the last note only able to be heard" "Less audible" would sound better, and is less wordy.
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "This grebe lays one, but sometimes two,[9] clutch" The tenses are messy here, could be rewritten.
Rewrote this. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You use the word "although" an incredible amount of times, could be good with some variation.
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Egg in a museum collection" Name the museum, WP:easter egg links are advised against.
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "This is compared to other species of grebes, which cover up their eggs when leaving the nest." This seems odd. You could say "by comparison, other species" etc.
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Predation does not usually take eggs" This is oddly worded. You could say predators, or "eggs are usually not lost to predation" or such.
Reworded. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't explain why it needs to migrate for moulting
I'm guessing you meant to say that I don't need to explain what a moult migration is. I cut that part. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hehe, other way around, I was wondering why it has to migrate to moult? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I added a bit, so one should be able to understand why. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this in US English? You write "moult" (instead of "molt"), which is UK English. You also say colour instead of color.
No, it is written in British English. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Are all those external links really useful?
Seems not. I'll keep the Wikispecies and Commons links, but I will get rid of the rest with the exception of the link to Cornell. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "this bird greyish-black upperparts," Has?
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I only see one unanswered issue left, then I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Only minor issues:

  • Ref 2: You should note that the source language is German
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 10 carries a "subscription required" note, yet it's the same source as ref 6, which doesn't.
The latter is in fact a different source that is freely accessible. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Publisher locations missing from 11, 14 and 29
Done, except for 29, which should be a journal, which I have now converted it to. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I have replied to all of your comments. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
All sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird

Glad to see the bird train continued while I was on holiday. Some comments:

  • Taxonomy is a bit threadbare. No reference to relationships with other grebes within its genus. HBW notes that Sometimes placed in genus Dytes (not noted at all in article) and Often considered to include †P. andinus as a race. (the extinct Andean Grebe) and Also closely related to P. juninensis, P. occipitalis and P. taczanowskii. Older specific name caspicus officially suppressed. E African birds sometimes placed instead in race nigricollis. All of these points probably merit mention. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I actually got myself to search through the archives for the story behind this. Hopefully it will now satisfy you. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Tres bien. I'll go through the rest tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Some weird stuff happening with structure. Information about migration is pretty thin and scattered around article. The following from BNA would add some context to the single statement of the wintering grounds of NA birds for example: Despite broad breeding range, main winter range is fairly restricted. Hundreds of thousands, the vast majority of the population, evidently winter around islands in the n. and central Gulf of California, with additional tens of thousands on the Salton Sea, CA. Several thousand winter on salinas at Guerrero Negro, Baja California Sur (Carmona and Danemann 1998); only small numbers are reported elsewhere.
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The bird migrates in winter, to places such as the Palearctic and east Africa and Asia. This is very imprecise and not very helpful. Birds migrate to Asia from Asia?
Clarified. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Palearctic Is a similarly unhelpful descriptor of its wintering range. Click on the link to see. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I specified where (in terms of direction). Hopefully that clears things up. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • it travels as much as 6,000 kilometres (3,700 miles) to reach prosperous areas that are exploited by few other species Prosperous is an unusual word here.
I would disagree; they fly to areas where there is basically shrimp (and really only shrimp) everywhere. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It is usually used in a financial sense or referring to success. I have never seen it refer to the natural wealth or condition of a land, only in the sense that it is used. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Huh, maybe it is a difference between American and New Zealand literature. Anyways, would "flourishing" do? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Nah, I moved here but grew up in the US and UK. I would say to reach rich feeding areas... Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The legs only move when they are underwater. maybe the legs on start moving? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: I'm done! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pair formation in the black-necked grebe starts during pauses in the migration to the breeding grounds. It continues through the breeding season, and sometimes occurs on the wintering grounds. This suggests that it can start before the pauses. Also, perhaps it is fair to say it happens during migration, and qualify after?
Fixed. The source doesn't say, although, that it happens during migration itself. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The eggs, although they are not initially spotted, do get stained by the plant matter that the nest is built out of. Does this mean that the stains are always spotted in appearance?
No, my bad. Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Predation is usually not the primary cause of egg loss, with most failures occurring when the chicks have hatched this is the first introduction of the concept of nesting failure in the article, so I would preceed failure with the word nesting. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Sabine's Sunbird, do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

    • Not logged in (at work) but my comment about Palearctic remains unanswered above. (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead It occasionally practices foliage gleaning. is this common enough to warrant mention here?
Yep. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the subspecies description section you render the names of subspecies three different ways, one just the subspecific epithet, once the full trinomial and once the trinomial with the genus and species abbreviated. Is there a reason for this inconsistency?
When I used just the epithet, I was saying something specific about the epithet itself (the etymology, in this case). I only used the abbreviation after I had already written out the genus (or species) that I abbreviated in full. Hopefully that makes sense. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • When breeding, the black-necked grebe gives a quiet "ooeek" that ascends in pitch from an already high pitch. This call is also used as a territorial call Is the "when breeding" referring to the whole season or the actual act? If the whole season then is there another specific behaviour or purpose alluded to in the first sentence? Also, how can the call be territorial when the species is noted not to be territorial later in the article?
The source doesn't specify in relation to the first sentence. Second, it was only mentioned that it wasn't territorial when courting. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
If the species is territorial in other contexts it should be mentioned to avoid the misunderstanding that I mentioned being made. I did some follow up research and I see the species maintains a small breeding territory in the immediate vicinity of the nest. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Added. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This grebe is silent when it is not breeding[4] and when it is feeding or resting per above it would be good to make the distinction between seasons and behaviours more explicit here.
Luckily, the source does specify here. Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • After a period of time, it migrates to winter in places such as Maybe After completing its moult they may remain on the lakes for several months before moving to their wintering grounds (BNA).
Changed it to something similar. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This has the effect of the behaviour of black-necked grebes changing in response to the availability of brine shrimp; very wordy, maybe The behaviour or black-necked grebes changes in response to the availability of brine shrimp;
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This species builds its floating nest in the usually shallow water of[21] open lakes.[22] The nest itself is anchored to the lake by plants try The black-necked grebe nests on open lakes, building a floating nest in shallow water and anchoring it to plants - a little simpler and you don't have to cite mid sentence without a punctuation mark. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I messed up here. Citation 21 doesn't support it; instead, citation 22 supports it. So, I will correct that. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

support Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

  • There are currently three accepted subspecies, including the nominate subspecies. - err, why mention the nominate here? Comes over as odd...
So that people don't assume that there are three accepted subspecies, in addition to the nominate. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd move mention to the sentence The subspecies californicus can be distinguished by its usually longer bill. --> "The subspecies californicus can be distinguished (from the nominate subspecies) by its usually longer bill. "
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To get crustaceans, molluscs, tadpoles, and small frogs and fish, this grebe dives. - odd flow and odd use of "get" - I'd rejig as "This grebe dives to catch/hunt crustaceans, molluscs, tadpoles, and small frogs and fish."
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • link brine shrimp in lead.
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • date Brehm's description in the body of text
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This grebe eats mostly insects (both adult and larval insects) ...why not just say "This grebe eats mostly insects, of both adult and larval stages.."
Done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Been busy and rushed for time. Will have another look later, but looking on track...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  • link moult at first instance in body, link biotoxin.
Done; also changed the link to moult in the lead to the first occurrence (to "moulting"). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 13:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise I think that's about it. Not seeing any prose clangers and looks pretty comprehensive so cautious support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Source Review from Adityavagarwal

  • No issues source wise, and really good sources cited. No copyvio issues either. Support Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Adityavagarwal are you supporting this on sourcing, or in general? I only ask because it is not clear on what grounds you are supporting, and we had a source review earlier in this FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Sarastro1 I thought the previous source review was on general formatting and reliability, and not on spot checks, right? So, I supported on just sources, and not prose (meaning it is all clear source-wise, and spot checks were also fine). It is not included in the general three prose reviews required for an FAC. It is just to mention clearly that source review went all fine! If support should not be mentioned for this and just the sentence stating that the source review went fine, please let me know! :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

From here. What that means, I have no idea. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like it's copyrighted to me. May want to ask on commons:User talk:Merops why they did upload the image under that license. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
It's stated in a link near the bottom of the about page on the source website. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
No ALT text so no comments on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC) & MWAK (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is the first about a ceratopsian (or "horned dinosaur") nominated for FAC in ten years, since 2007's Styracosaurus. This ceratopsian dinosaur is unusual in having bosses where most others of its kind had horns, and it has been theorised to have been a transitional form between horned and non-horned members of its group. We have summarised most of what has ever been written about this animal in the article. This is also MWAK's first stint at FAC, who wrote the main part of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Image check All images seem appropriately licensed and properly used. I note the following:

Added a PD-old tag. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Most images lack alt text.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Are these a requirement? It is extremely inconsistent whether reviewers ask for these or not, so it has become a bit confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley

I don't know if I will really do a full review, but I will provide some comments. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • For the pronunciation note, it would probably be good to use {{cite web}} for the link to the email.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There seems to be two instances where the citations are out of order (ie where a citation with a lower number goes after a citation with a higher number when the two are right next to each other).
    • I fixed one instance; the other instance addresses a series of research, where it might be preferable to put them into chronological order. Of course the numbering as such is inherently unstable.
  • There is one point where there are four citations at the end of one sentence; is this really needed?
    • This is the same series of research mentioned above. If we omit a paper, the series is no longer complete.--MWAK (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Adult Achelousaurus had rough bosses above the eyes and on the snout where other centrosaurines often had horns in the same positions," what are bosses?
Note that there is no appropriate article at present for the definition of "boss" as it applies here. An in-text definition would probably be necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
"Boss" is actually explained in the description section as "(a roundish protuberance)", but the text has been moved around so much that I should probably move it farther up again. The question is whether it's an appropriate description, though... FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Added that explanation to the intro and moved explanation in article body up. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that the genus is monospecific (just having read the lead). If this is the case, then the species should be bolded. If not, then this probably needs to be mentioned.
Yep, I'll bold the full name. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That is all for now.

Thanks, even if you don't feel like an "expert" on the subjects, all comments are welcome. It is good to know whether the text is understandable to most readers. I can take care of some of these, but can you look at point two and three, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
A copy-edit is in process, so I'll fix the remaining issues when that's done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Everything should be addressed now, RileyBugz. Any other issues? FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

I think it was removed during the copy-edit, added it back. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Horner, an expert on the Hadrosauridae family, had less affinity with other kinds of dinosaur", I think that it would be proper grammar to say "dinosaurs" instead of just "dinosaur". Plus, it just seems odd that you would say affinity; maybe say interest or something similar? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Said "less familiar with" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't quite reflect the source correctly. But I made an idiom mistake and should have written "affinity for".--MWAK (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, looking back, what I wrote is also a bit too interpretative... FunkMonk (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to link to, so I made that a redirect to dump truck. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You use both spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes. Choose one or the other. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    I think I fixed this now? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, no. See MOS:DASH.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    I changed them all to – , is that it? FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    I think so.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentences "Horner, an expert on the Hadrosauridae family, had less affinity for other kinds of dinosaurs.[15] In 1987 and 1989, horned dinosaur specialist Peter Dodson was invited to investigate the new ceratopsian finds.[15]", only one citation is needed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence might easily seem OR. It is perhaps preferable to make clear from the outset that it is sourced.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Fine with me, then. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Saying "separate" in the sentence "In 1990, the fossil material was seen by Dodson as strengthening the case for the validity of a separate Styracosaurus ovatus, to be distinguished from Styracosaurus albertensis" makes it seem like this is strengthening the case of a new species called S. ovatus. Maybe say instead "seen by Dodson as strengthening the case for the collected specimens as being of Styracosaurus ovatus", or something like that. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, S. ovatus was already mentioned, making it unequivocal that Dodson was not proposing to name a new species. But his point was not simply to assign the fossils to S. ovatus but to reaffirm its validity, which had been doubted. So, more in general your impression was correct!--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
In that case, you should make it clear that the validity of it was doubted when you first introduce it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Doubts inserted.--MWAK (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "For the time being they declined to name these taxa", to me, at least, implies that the taxa are still unnamed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, if the phrase was simply "They declined to name these taxa", it might suggest they had never been named. Adding "For the time being" correctly suggests that they were named at some point in the future.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you then try and find a way to reword it? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll try...--MWAK (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For the sentence "Sampson had continued his studies of the material since 1989", what time exactly does this occur? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Sampson doesn't say. Of course, this functions simply as an introduction to remind the reader that Sampson's 1989 studies had been mentioned earlier.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
It would seem to mean it was to "win her favour", but she isn't actually mentioned in the source used, so it would probably have to be snipped. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed it, since it isn't in the source, and isn't really relevant to the dinosaur's name. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a sentence separate from the previous one: "Achelous lost the battle when one of his horns was removed". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Does it look better after I removed the "Deianira" part? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It still looks odd. Maybe say "Hercules, the mythical hero, won a battle against Achelous, who was in the form of a bull, when the latter's horns were removed." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, how about " During a fight with Hercules, the mythical hero, Achelous took the form of a bull, but lost the battle when one of his horns were removed." FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, but it should be "was", not "were". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Additionally, it preserves some bones of the skull rear and sides, among which are a right squamosal bone, the left squamosal, both maxillae, both lacrimal bones, both quadrate bones, both palatine bones, the braincase and the basioccipital bone", uses "both" a lot. I suspect that you could reword this to cut down on its usage. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, we could replace it with "the left and right" — but then we would be using that phrase a lot. Simply speaking of the "maxillae, lacrimals, quadrates, palatines" presumes that the reader knows that these are all paired bones. And using "both maxillae, lacrimals, quadrates, palatines" makes the sentence very confusing. Sometimes you have to sacrifice elegance for clarity.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "None of the specimens were of an advanced individual age", it might be better to say "None of the specimens collected showed dinosaurs of an old age", or something similar, as "advanced" is both slightly confusing (I thought for some reason that "advanced" meant adult) and unneeded technicality. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This is tricky. It is vague, but the source is deliberately vague in using the word "advanced". It doesn't simply claim that they were not senescent animals. What really was meant by the source was that the level of bone fusion in no known specimen implies it was fully grown. So "adult" is not far of the mark. I feel it is best to stay as close to the source as possible.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain the meaning of "TMP 2002.76.1"? It is in parenthesis. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Added "specimen", better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yep. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that there should be commas after Einiosaurus in the sentence "It is about as large as its close relative Einiosaurus but with a much heavier build." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be better to say the common term, toes, instead of "digits" in this sentence: "As a ceratopsid, Achelousaurus would have been a quadrupedal animal with hoofed digits, and a shortened, downwards swept tail." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
In this case, it is a common denominator for both toes and fingers, so we would have to be much more wordy to replace it. Digits seems a pretty common word anyhow? FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Oops, that was my fault. I wasn't thinking, so I didn't take into account the fact that dinosaurs walk on four legs. It's good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, what choice shall we make? Personally, I find the Oxford comma a silly affectation, but many will disagree :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this, I'm in on whatever you prefer. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if this was fixed, RileyBugz, but I personally don't know how to do it, not a comma guy. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What is a "column of teeth"? Did you mean row of teeth? If not, could you please explain? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This is one of the most confusing traits in these animals. I'll try to clarify how the column of stacked teeth works.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed the things I could above, MWAK will probably have to have a look at the content parts. Also, since the date of description was changed from 1994 to 1995 in some places, I changed all instances; whatever we choose, it should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great! I still have to review a bit, so hopefully I can finish it before Monday (EST). MWAK did a great job expanding the article to this level. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Defined in text. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is "medially curved" inside commas in the sentence "The frill spikes of Achelousaurus are more outwards oriented than the, medially curved, spikes of Einiosaurus; these spikes are, however, less directed to the outside than the comparable spikes of Pachyrhinosaurus"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
But now you introduce an ambiguity. The sentence could now be read as "The frill spikes of Achelousaurus are more outwards oriented than the medially curved spikes of Einiosaurus, in contrast to the not medially curved spikes".--MWAK (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
What could be an alternative? What do you think, RileyBugz? FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
If you are in fact saying that the spikes of Einiosaurus are medially curved, then saying "the former spikes are, however" instead of "these spikes are, however" should fix the problem. If you are saying that the spikes of Achelousaurus are the ones medially curved, then putting "medially" before frill spikes in addition to doing the previous fix it should fix it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That wouldn't quite do it. I'll change it into "the spikes of Einiosaurus, which are medially curved".--MWAK (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • When you talk about the frill spikes that Achelousaurus has, you should probably mention that they primarily cover the sides of the neck (looking at the picture). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
The spikes are only the two long ones poking backwards, the small ones on the sides are the "epoccipital" processes mentioned in the text. Perhaps this is not clear enough? FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems to be the confusion. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
So is the problem that those processes are mentioned too late in the article, or what do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Instead of "the opening at the rear skull side", why not say "the opening at the rear of the skull"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This is indeed ambiguous. I'll replace it with "the opening at the rear of the skull side".--MWAK (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Why do you need to include "side"? It makes it a bit confusing. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The "rear of the skull" is that part of the skull you see when you look at it from behind. The "side of the skull" is the part seen from the side. However, these parts themselves can again be subdivided. The rear has its sides and the side has a rear. In technical texts that rear is called "posterior" or "caudal" but most readers will not understand these terms. Calling it the "back of the side" or the "hind(er) side" will not be very helpful either, I fear. Also note that the phrase is "the opening at the rear of the skull side" not "the opening to the rear of the skull side".--MWAK (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The first occurrence of "et al." should probably be linked (in the article body). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "The animals were living on a narrow strip on the east-coast of Laramidia, bordering the Western Interior Seaway, and constrained in the west by the three to 4 km (2.5 mi) high proto-Rocky Mountains", you should probably use the convert template like this: {{convert|3|to|4|km|mi}}. This will yield this: 3 to 4 kilometres (1.9 to 2.5 mi). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There should be a comma after "Transgression" in the sentence "During the Bearpaw Transgression sea levels were rising, steadily reducing the width of their coastal habitat from about 300 to 30 km (186 to 19 mi)." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The first comma in the sentence "The lower number of individuals that the smaller habitat could have sustained, constituted a population bottleneck, making rapid evolution possible" should probably be removed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It will not improve readability but in principle such a noun clause indeed does not need a comma.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It would probably be better to say "was" instead of "would be" in the sentence "That sexual selection had indeed been the main mechanism would be proven by the fact that young individuals of all three populations were very similar: they all had two frill spikes, a small nasal horn pointing to the front, and orbital horns in the form of slightly elevated knobs." RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It is best to make clear that these are hypotheses by Horner, hardly undisputed facts. I added a "according to Horner".--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Such a tree would as a consequence of the method used never show a direct ancestor-descendant relationship", should probably have commas after "would" and after "used". RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For me, "direct line of descent to" in the sentence "Subsequent studies have sought to determine the precise relationships within this part of the evolutionary tree, with conflicting results regarding the question whether Styracosaurus albertensis, Rubeosaurus or Einiosaurus might have been in the direct line of descent to Achelousaurus" sounds like you mean the descendant of the animal, which would conflict with previous information. It might be clearer to say "most recent ancestor" or something. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Good point. It must of course be the "direct line of ascent".--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Which outcome is this referring to: "In 2011, a subsequent study by Andrew T. McDonald had the same outcome"? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Removed the ambiguity.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Aberrant" should probably be linked to Wiktionary. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

One more section to go! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

reference info for Achelousaurus
unnamed refs 22
named refs 13
self closed 53
cs1 refs 34
cs1 templates 42
cs2 templates 3
harv templates 7
sfn templates 69
  • Since "Jack" Horner publishes under his formal name of John R. Horner, this form should be used (see ref 3). In all other instances in the Sources section the formal name is used.
    Fixed, we have tried to abbreviate all names anyway, so this was a slip. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why some of the items in the bibliography are inset – what is the distinction?
    Not sure if this is what you mean, but Trappist the monk just placed some book chapters into the bibliography with this edit.[31] Until then, we only tried to keep the books that had been broken up into smaller page ranges in the bibliography. Maybe he can change it back? His other citation edits look good, though. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
    When I came here I was chasing a cs1|2 error caused by a bug in Citation bot (see here). There were a handful of other cs1|2 errors on this page so I fixed them. The most common was the use of |editors=. In fixing that particular error, I noticed that but for one, they were all the same book edited by all of the same editors, had all the same title, publisher, isbn, ... except for author(s) and chapter titles. That kind of repeated citation is why editors at cs1|2 suggested the creation of {{harvc}} – to reduce the clutter in a reflist caused by unnecessary repetition of bibliographic data over and over again.
    At the time I made those edits I did not know that this article is a FAC. Now that I know, I'm surprised that it has got this far considering that it has a variety of citation styles in the wikitext, most notably is has a combination of hand crafted citations and templated citations. Surely one or the other should be chosen and implemented for the sake of internal consistency.
    Per the comment below, I have tweaked §Bibliography so that listed items are in alpha order and all have cs2 style because that is how Horner & Dobbs is defined.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if consistency in whether a template is used or not is an issue at FAC, as long as the visible result is the same, but I'll see if Brianboulton is satisfied by the above changes. Thanks for that, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    I think what you've done, and your explanation, is OK by me. Brianboulton (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)I think that these are, pretty obviously, visibly different from those rendered by the cs1|2 templates used in the article:
    1. ref 3: double dot after 'J'; no isbn; no page numbers;
      Added template and ISBN, MWAK will have to add page-range and location. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    2. ref 9:
      Added link and template. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    3. ref 15: typically a subtitle is set-off with a colon; multiple pages is 'pp.'; endash between two numbers in a range; no isbn
      Added template, ISBN, and the other fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    4. ref 16: (a pdf); the total number of pages in the source does not really help the reader verify a statement in a Wikipedia article – an in-source location would be better;
      Added link and template, MWAK will have to add page-range. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    5. ref 19: isbn; is Dragons' World a publisher? location? in-source pagination instead of total pages;
      Fixed all. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    6. ref 20: editor handling style;
      Fixed by adding template. Also ISBN. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    7. ref 25: 'p.' missing the dot; isbn?
      Fixed most while adding template, but MWAK will have to look for location. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    8. ref 27: in source locations(s); isbn?
      This seems to be a CD rom (included with the book New Perspectives on Horned Dinosaurs), but I have no idea how to cite such. Wikipedia:Citation templates doesn't appear to help much. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      So you are citing something that you have not seen? How then does this article even begin to be an FA. If you have not seen this source, what about the others?
      Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
      As you may have noted, this is a co-nomination; I and MWAK wrote different parts of the article, and he wrote most of it. I don't have access to many of the sources used by MWAK, but that hardly prevents me from adding citation templates to the sources he added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    9. ref 28: this?; again, total number of pages ...
      Added template and link, MWAK will have to fix page numbers. Seems the article has since been validly published (2017), so maybe the source should be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    10. ref 29: what is 252A?
      Added template, not sure what the number means (presentation number?), but it also needs a page-range, so MWAK will have to take a look. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    11. ref 33: isbn?
      Added template and ISBN. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    12. ref 34: isbn? total number of pages ...
      Added template and ISBN, MWAK will have to look for pages. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    13. ref 37: publisher; isbn; 'pp.'; endash; editor style handling;
      Fixed while adding template. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    14. ref 40: publisher; isbn; 'pp.'; endash;
      Don't think this has an ISBN, not a "proper" book, but added the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    15. ref 52: isbn? total number of pages ...; missing publication date; editor handling style; 'pp.', endash in page range;
      I think all is fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    16. ref 61: editor handling style; 'pp.', endash in page range;
      Fixed all when adding template. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    17. ref 62: this?; total number of pages ...;
      Added link and template, MWAK will have to add page-range. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    Not necessarily an exhaustive list; I haven't the time for that right now.
    Author name-order in the references are variable; they are either surname-given name or given name-surname. Pick one style and use that throughout
    Publication dates are different; the hand-crafted citations don't usually wrap the publication date in parentheses as the cs1|2 templates do
    Trappist the monk (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    I'll try to fix these examples. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    I've modified my list.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks, I'll add citation templates to these, while MWAK will have to add the page ranges to the sources, many of which I don't have. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    Better that instead of page-ranges, a citation should list only the actual page(s) that support the factoids stated in the Achelousaurus article. Page-ranges are fine in a bibliography but I think that using page-ranges that cover an entire chapter of a book or entire article in a journal when the source mentions that factoid on only one page or some subset of pages does our readers a disservice because to find the supporting mention in the source they must hunt for it. That is clearly wasting their time. So, in short cites ({{sfn}} templates and the like) and in a long or full cites (those listed in §References), identify the exact pages that support the factoid. For those sources listed in §Bibliography, whole page-ranges may be identified in the {{harvc}} templates, |pp=, though there is no requirement to do so.
    On another topic, ref 32 is a PLOS One journal article. Articles in PLOS One are generally free-to-read. Typically sources linked by identifiers (|doi= etc) are behind registration- or pay-walls. When they are not, consider marking those that are free-to-read by using, in this case, |doi-access=free which will add a green open lock icon after the doi identifier. This may also apply to ref 35 and ref 38. Regardless, all doi identifiers should be checked and those that are free to read, so marked.
    More tweaks to my list.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    I've added then open acces parameter to the journals I know are open access, and added automatic citation templates to all the sources that had DOIs. Will continue with the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    I have now added citation templates to books with ISBNs, but MWAK will have to take a look at exact page ranges and some other things. Also note that the sources have shifted a number forwards from ref 16 onwards since the list above was made. This is probably because one redundant book-source was merged (see below). FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    I fear it was because I had to insert another sourced explanation... Great work and I'll add the page ranges later today. I'll also try and find a solution for Ford's Compendium.--MWAK (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    I must not be communicating clearly. There are already too many page ranges. For example, this reference is cited seven times (currently ref 35):
    Currie, P. J.; Langston, Jr., W.; Tanke, D. H. (2008). New Horned Dinosaur from an Upper Cretaceous Bone Bed in Alberta. Ottawa, Ontario: NRC Research Press. pp. 1–108. ISBN 978-0-660-19819-4. doi:10.1139/9780660198194 (inactive 2010-10-01). 
    The reference uses this in-source parameter: |pages=1–108. So, if I, as a reader, want to see where you got one of the six 'facts' that this source supports, you have done me the (dubious) 'courtesy' of telling me that I must search 109 pages to find support for the 'fact'. Really? Surely you can pin down these facts with better precision than that.
    As an aside, Langston's first name probably isn't Junior. See WP:JR. Also, in cs1|2, the value assigend to |url= and which links the value of |title= is considered to be free-to-read. When it is not, as in this case, |url= should be omitted or, as I have done here |url-access=subscription should be added.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    We get the issue, we just haven't come around to fix it yet, which should be apparent from the multiple times I mention issues will have to be fixed by MWAK. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    It was not clear to me that you did. In items 1, 4, 10, and 17 of my list you wrote: ... MWAK will have to add page-range ... or words to that effect. Editor MWAK used similar words in this post. Given those words, how am I supposed to interpret that to mean 'MWAK will have to add specific in-source locations'?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    "Page range" can mean both, as far as I'm aware. You just asked for a more specific page range (as opposed to full), but anyhow, good we agree. FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    I've tweaked §Bibliography to use the correct cs1 templates, to delete empty parameters, and to provide for uniform style.
    Gilmore (currently ref 5) has this link and |pages=1–39 but the linked source at is incomplete having only pp. 1–10. Perhaps this is the same thing except that it's more complete:
    {{cite book |last=Gilmore |first=C. W. |chapter-url= |chapter=On dinosaurian reptiles from the Two Medicine formation of Montana |title=Proceedings of the United States National Museum |at=Article 16, p[p]. ?? |volume=77 |location=Washington |publisher=United States Government Printing Office |date=1931}}
    Gilmore, C. W. (1931). "On dinosaurian reptiles from the Two Medicine formation of Montana". Proceedings of the United States National Museum. 77. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Article 16, p[p]. ??. 
    Trappist the monk (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed it is. Good catch and thank you for providing the better link!--MWAK (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    I think that if you are going to use that link, you should not be using {{cite journal}} but should be using {{cite book}} as I have above, because, to the reader, the current citation is a mishmash of original publication date with particulars of the collection publication. And, yet again, the reference uses the source's entire page-range to cite a single sentence. Surely it is not necessary to compel the reader to hunt through 39 pages to find the text that supports that sentence – especially since Gilmore mentions at least one other Sternberg in his article.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    Well, the citations serve several functions. To provide evidence that the text is sourced, the present format in principle suffices. For the average reader, however, this function is of little concern. More often he will be interested in finding additional information on the subject. For this he will not need to know the exact page. By far the most prevalent reason a reader will want to be informed about the publication, must be that he wants to copy the citation for his own use. As the pages are a normal part of such a citation, it is highly preferable that they are there. No doubt this is why in most scientific publications such a citation format is standard if not mandatory. Indeed this particular article was later published in an annual compilation, but this aspect is usually disregarded when citing such articles.--MWAK (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
    There was a very long discussion about page ranges for journal articles a while back[32], doesn't seem any consensus came out of it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    Clearly we disagree. I might agree with some of what you've written for this particular citation were it part of a bibliography listing. In such a listing the entire page range is wholly appropriate. But that isn't how it is being used in this article. Here it is used as an in-line reference to identify the source where an editor found information to support the text to which it is attached. But, and I shouldn't have to keep saying this, with a 40-page range, it may take some searching to find where the supporting text is located. There is no need to make the reader do that.
    I think that we should not make assumptions about what uses readers make of citations and bibliographies that they find at Wikipedia. If there is any truth to your argument that [by] far the most prevalent reason a reader will want to be informed about the publication, must be that he wants to copy the citation for his own use, then shouldn't you want the citation to be accurate? I have described above why the citation in its current form is not accurate. At Wikipedia we are required to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. The editor didn't get it from the link that I provided as an alternate to the 10-page (incomplete) version hosted at The information may be there in the new link but that isn't where the editor got it. All of the details in the original citation except publication year, refer to the compilation, not to the original publication; yet, it is cited as though the source is the original publication.
    I note that apparently many of the in-source locations listed in §References are not whole-page-ranges, but appear to precisely locate the source within the referenced work; as they should. But there are others, like Gilmore, where apparently whole-page-ranges are identified. Why this inconsistency?
    Because an FA article is supposed to exhibit Wikipedia's best work, the claim that merely sufficient citing is good enough is, in my view, falling far short of mark. So, I guess, were anyone to ask me, I would have to oppose advancement of this article to FA status because I can't see how merely good enough is our best.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    Well, let's then combine whole page ranges with {{rp}} page indications, so that we'll have the best of both worlds. Would that be agreeable to you? Will take some time, though, as we'll have to read those sources again :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
    That would not be agreeable to me because it introduces a third citation style. I would agree to this:
    1. in-line citations are moved to §Bibliography
    2. {{sfn}} and/or {{harv}} templates identify precise in-source locations
    3. whole page-ranges are included as part of each item in the bibliography where appropriate
    Some of this is already done and has the benefit of consolidating the current two-style citation format into one-style format.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
    If you insist. As said, it will take some time.--MWAK (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    I have no authority to 'insist' on anything. Is there a problem with the task [taking] some time? I do not have access to the sources but I can do a lot of the grunt work of moving in-line citations to §Bibliography if you would like me to do that.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
    I appreciate your generous offer but I prefer to do it myself: it will be less confusing :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In any event the bibliography should be in alphabetical sequence.
    Seems it was fixed above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

No other issues that I can see. The sources seem to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton, fixed one, and asked a question for the other. I also have a question for MWAK, shouldn't ref 15 be a page range like the others from that book? FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that reference was mistakenly not removed.--MWAK (talk) 07:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

  • It'd be good if at least one of the three lead paras didn't start with "Achelosaurus..."
Reworded in second para. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, don't need to mention at the start of the third lead para that it is centrosaurine as you've done so in para 2.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not just say "lucky" rather than "fortuitous"?
Shouldn't the style be more formal? Also, for Horner, the situation was not simply "lucky" as being banned from his main research site was potentially disastrous for his career.--MWAK (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it should be lucky. If you want to emphasize that he was really lucky, then say "extremely lucky" or something like that. We need our readers to understand what we are writing, otherwise, it does them no good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
No, my point is that he was really unfortunate :o). We might change it to "serendipitous". That's a fashionable concept now-a-days ;o). Besides being much too informal for an encylopedia ("Napoleon was lucky to return from Moscow"), "lucky" poorly combines with "chain of events". I'll change it into "accidental".--MWAK (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I would not view the word "lucky" as informal, and as it (to me ) is synonymous with fortuitous I see no reason not to use it. However, it is such a trivial thing to argue about that I don't see it as a dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jens Lallensack

I'm glad to see this article here, its level of comprehensiveness is quite impressing. Here my first comments, more will follow soon:

Thanks for the copy-edits! FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • He stated that paleontologists needed to be cautious when naming new ceratopsian genera because their intraspecific variation (i.e., variation within a species) might be mistaken for interspecific differences (between species). Sampson, however noted that until 1995, only one new genus of ceratopsian dinosaur had been named since Pachyrhinosaurus in 1950, namely Avaceratops in 1986.[22] – This reads as if the latter argument would refuse the former. This can't be the case. I would suggest to at least remove the "however", to break the connection between both sentences.
Well, it is the case. Sampson's argument was: "you have to be careful naming these genera but only one has been named in forty-five years, so we're hardly oversplitting".--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I can not believe this was his argument, as this would be highly unscientific. And I do not find this statement in the paper either. In the first paragraph of his discussion, he wrote some general sentences, including "one must be cautious in describing new taxa" and "Only a single centrosaurine [In the article you wrote "ceratopsian"] genus has been erected since 1950". But there is no obvious connection between these bits of information. I feel you did over-interpret this.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The interpretative elements were removed and a change was made into "centrosaurine".--MWAK (talk) 08:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, a fragmentary lower jaw is present, which has been catalogued as MOR 485-7-12-87-4.[29] – Could you please explain why you are treating this lower jaw separately, in a separate sentence, and even specify the exact specimen number (you are not doing this for all the other skeletalal elements of the specimen, which are just listed)? I think "MOR 485" (the number for the whole specimen) might already be enough detail here.
I thought about that too, maybe MWAK has something to say. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
This way we structure the known holotype material as the sources do. Sampson gives only a very vague and incomplete indication. The thesis reveals both the fact that there is a lower jaw — not mentioned by Sampson — and a more detailed accession number. These numbers are not published for any other element. Ford allows us to complete the list.--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, but I still feel these jaws should be just listed with the other skeletal elements of the respective specimen. There is no obvious reason to keep them separate. And I feel these exact specimen numbers for the lower jaws are just too much – they did confuse me a lot while reading (I first thought these were separate finds of isolated jaws) – and I can't think of any situation where people might find this information helpful. When these numbers occur only in the thesis and not even in the first description, there are, in my opinion, simply not relevant and not in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The Summary Style policy is about deciding when articles should be split. Certain information — never in itself absolutely excluded — can be too detailed for the main article and should then be moved to a separate article. If e.g. large numbers of Achelousaurus fossils had been found, their elements subnumbered, we should have created a separate list. In this case only a single element is subnumbered, so the principle offers little guidance.
Mentioning the lower jaw in a separate sentence has some advantages. It sets the element apart from the cranium, nicely following a natural subdivision. More importantly, it makes the source structure transparent. Sampson is vague. He mentions the skull but only indicates the bosses and the parietal as present. Only Ford lists the cranial bones. Neither mentions the lower jaw. Your impression of a separate find might be not far off the mark. In 2010 it was made public that MOR 485 represents at least two individuals. Likely that lower jaw was not articulated to cranial material. To which individual did it then belong? Is the museum mount a composite? Was Sampson well aware of these problems inducing him to limit the described material to the bosses and the parietal? Until this is revealed by some publication, it seemed wise to me not to collate too much. We should not suggest that Sampson simply understood the elements listed by Ford to have been part of a single holotype for he might very well have concluded to the opposite. This also shows the importance to give the full subnumber, for otherwise we leave open to what extent the thesis takes a position on this. I'll rephrase the text, disentangling these issues and hopefully, this will make the distinctions seem more natural.--MWAK (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It also includes lower jaws, catalogued as MOR 591-7-15-89-1 – same as above.
Here the situation is the same.--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In addition to the three specimens described in 1995 – When starting the section "Additional finds" like this, you should also move MOR 456.1 here, since it is not one of the three specimens described in 1995, right?
Yes, that was inconsistent. We might change it to "In addition to the specimens discovered by Horner".--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, that's not a good criterion either. We might instead make a distinction between material that has been unequivocally referred and fossils that are only possibly belonging to Achelousaurus.--MWAK (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I just made an attempt.--MWAK (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Perfect! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A centrosaurine ceratopsid specimen with bosses from the Dinosaur Park Formation (specimen TMP 2002.76.1) found in 1996 was suggested to belong to a new species in 2006, but may instead belong to Achelousaurus or Pachyrhinosaurus. – I don't understand, this doesn't preclude each other. Do you mean "new genus" instead of "new species"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
The source (Sampson & Loewen p. 408) says species, but we may get around the issue by spelling out the full binomials of the species it might belong to (though the source only uses their generic names in that sentence). Or maybe by, as in the image caption, just saying it could be a new taxon instead of species? FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Pachyrhinosaurus has a lot of species... "belong to known species of Achelousaurus or Pachyrhinosaurus"?--MWAK (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I went with "new taxon", just to be as close to the source as possible... It is vague, but the source isn't really specific either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Such a boss is often called "pachyostotic", i.e. consisting of thickened bone.[42] This can be misleading, however: in fact its bone floor is thin and it forms a wide depression with irregular excavations, though it is less depressed than with Pachyrhinosaurus.[33] – Not exactly sure what a "bone floor" is. The bone cortex? I wanted to get an idea by searching the respective passage in the provided source (Ryan et al., 2010) but couldn't find the part discussing the term "pachyostotic", can you help me?
It's on page 141. This article spells it as "pachystotic". As it is in fact not really a boss but a depression, it has a "floor", meaning the vertical thickness between its top and the sinus. I'll rephrase this.--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Its intermediate position suggests that it shared its habitat with forms roughly found in the middle of its formation. – It is not clear what "intermediate position" means here (could be in a morphological, geographical, or stratigraphical sense). I would also make it more clear if "middle of its formation" means the geographical or the stratigraphical middle.
Rephrased.--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The skull of Achelousaurus was more than twice as strong in its bending strength and torsion resistance. – This is not unambiguous as well: Twice as strong than what?
Added "than the skull of Einiosaurus".--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For this reason, Hieronymus considered it unlikely that the bosses served for species recognition as this was already guaranteed by the innate species-specific display rituals preceding a real fight. – I think this misses the main point of the Hieronymus paper. What is missing is the reasoning why they think the bosses were used for combat in the first place. In the Description section, you elaborate on their take on the life appearance of the bosses. But you do not make the link between this inferred appearance and the combat behavior, and on what this is based (comparison with modern animals showing similar morphologies and behaviors). Furthermore, consider changing "real fight" in "fight".
The analogy with extant animals is now mentioned. An explicit contrast has been added with a ritual fight.
  • Others however, tend to see the finds as representing single individuals, not bone beds.[76] – I do not understand this sentence at all. It does not depend on the interpretation of the researcher if something is a bonebed or an isolated find. Its either the one or the other. I also can not find this information in the source provided.
Well, the way a concept is applied, depends on the scientist's conceptual framework. Dodson clearly thought of Achelousaurus as living in herds and being found in bonebeds — he had observed the situation personally, so he might be right within his personal frame of mind. Others just as clearly see the limited amount of specimens referred, as indicative of equally limited discoveries: "Many centrosaurines, such as Centrosaurus, Styracosaurus, Einiosaurus, and Pachyrhinosaurus, are known from multiple skulls and skeletons or bone bed material. Others, such as Diabloceratops, Albertaceratops, Sinoceratops, and Achelousaurus, are known from isolated but well preserved specimens".--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but a bone bed does not necessarily imply that there was herding. McDonald (2011) only states that Achelousaurus is known from isolated but well preserved specimens, but he does not state that this means Dodson's claim was incorrect, neither did he discuss anything about herding (perhaps I do miss something). Interpreting this claim as an contra-argument to the herding hypothesis is original research and should be removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a modicum of synthesis present. I'll remove the sentence but Dodson's interpretation then has to go also, as it can no longer be balanced.--MWAK (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, but was it really necessary to remove the argument of Dodson? I don't see that McDonald is necessarily conflicting with Dodson's claim (when there is some evidence for bone beds his general rule might still apply. He doesn't state that bone beds are entirely absent). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I reinserted it while moving McDonald's assertion to the Discovery chapter.--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe consider removing the section "Paleopathology", and move its content (the syncervical) to the "Description" section, where it might be better placed. The syncervical is quite interesting, but I think the fact that they had been interpreted as pathologies by some people is only of secondary importance, not warranting its own section. The section title also is somewhat misleading, as it implies that there are paleopathologies; the text then says that this possibility is unlikely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had thought of that but there appeared to be a insurmountable obstacle: we have no sourced information on any other part of the postcrania. Creating a separate "Syncervical" subchapter seemed rather ludicrous, while the paleopathology aspect, though indeed in a way deceptive, offered an elegant solution...--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought it might fit with the section "General built", where you already mention that the head was large and the neck straight. But well, its a minor point, and the decision is on you of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we could just change the section title? It does go into possible function... FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
That would be also a good idea, maybe even just combining it as an additional paragraph in "Function of the neck and skull ornamentation"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, though not 100% fitting, I'd be for that. To me, it seems logical the function would strengthen the neck during skull impact, but that's apparently not what the writers of the paper concluded... FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to close with two more general comments:

  • The "Description" is quite detailed, and without doubt challenging for most readers. I had problems with some sentences as well. Yes, the article does its best to avoid technical terms, but this also makes the wording more ambiguous and unclear. But the main problem is maybe the lack of illustrations showing the described features. Even if we have full access to such figures, we unfortunately can't refer to specific images right from the article text, as a scientific paper would always do. However, relying entirely on text to describe complex anatomical shapes can be impossible in some cases. In this article, we have the advantage that the relevant anatomical information is concentrated in parts of the skull only. I therefore would propose two things: 1) Expand the image captions, explicitly stating which features discussed in the text can be seen. 2) Some long-term thing probably not realizable during this nomination: Add a diagram of the skull in both lateral and dorsal views, with all the skull sutures and with individual bones labeled, maybe based on the skull reconstruction in Sampson 1995. I think such a figure would make a huge difference.
I fully agree that an explanatory diagram would be most useful. I have limited talents in this field but even then should be able to improve on Sampson 1995 ;o). Meanwhile, I can expand the captions of the two smaller images, which highlight detail already.--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
This map[33] shows a line drawing of the skull, could perhaps be used as basis. I can scale it up and remove the background, would you be able to add text, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I could try :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright, MWAK, here's an isolated skull diagram with transparent background[34], not sure which software you have, Photoshop would of course be optimal, but Gimp would do. You can just upload directly on top of that file. If we really need a dorsal view, I'd have to draw it from scratch (tracing a skull-photo or something). Maybe Jens Lallensack has some further thoughts. I've added the preliminary diagram to an appropriate spot in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, and the preliminary diagram already helps a bit, I think. Well, this was supposed to be a suggestion for improvement for the future, it is not something that one can demand until the end of this candidature, so please no hurry. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It can be finished pretty quickly, I just need to know which features we should highlight and spell out... I guess we should not be as detailed as the diagram in Sampson 1995. Only the dorsal view will take some more time. I like how the image fills an empty space in the text, hehe, we don't have too many images of the subject of the article itself here... FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I have an old version of Gimp installed but it proved to be just as user-unfriendly and counterintuitive as most software. I'll try good old Paint next and upload the results.--MWAK (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, if you do that, I can maybe do a more "refined" version based on the text you've added afterwards (if necessary). FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not doubt it will be necessary but have full confidence in your powers of refinement ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I feel that the information flow is not always optimal, but I do not know what to do about it. For example the section "Keratin sheats", whose implications are only discussed much later. Maybe one could think about merging this with the "Function of skull ornamentation" section, to something like "Life appearance and function of the skull ornamentation"? It would make it easier for the reader to follow. The other example is the section "Horner's hypothesis of anagenesis". Based on the wording one can guess that the anagenesis-hypothesis does not currently enjoy wide support, but some of the important argument against this hypothesis are only discussed in the "phylogeny" section. It feels like the anagenesis discussion is somewhat disjunct, with the follow-up to be found within a completely different section. The problem I see is that a reader just interested in the anagenesis (and thus only reading this section) will miss the rest. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, if Hieronymus would have published some biomechanical analysis determining e.g. exact strength values of the ridges and estimating impact forces, such a direct link between morphology and function would have forced us to treat the subject in a single section. As it is, the reader only has to remember that the bosses are padded. It then seems preferable to present a distinct part of the morphology under "Description".
Yeah, the text about the keratin sheaths is only descriptive in nature, and doesn't go into function, so I also think it is more fitting as part of description. FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Lusotitan also pointed out that the anagenesis section is deficient in this respect. I'll add a reference to Sampson's critique.--MWAK (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
A reference is now added.--MWAK (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I am supporting now – thank you a lot for this comprehensive work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Lusotitan

Didn't initially think I'd be able to contribute much, but I decided to run it over anyway and found some things:

Good to see you have a go at it! FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pachyrostra is listed as a subtribe in the taxobox, but to my knowledge it's a clade not corresponding to any rank, similar to Brachyrostra - the body of the article supports this. Now, this'd obviously be the fault of the taxonomy template, but it's still something relevant that'd need fixing if I'm right (seeming supported here [35]). Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree, but this is beyond the limits of this particular article.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I've gone and changed in on the taxonomy template for Pachyrostra, although it's still not displaying as a clade in the taxoboxes. If I'm remembering right that can take a few minutes though, so maybe it's resolved? Anyway, I agree it's not relevant to this nomination in particular. Lusotitan 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not super knowledgeable on how these templates work, so maybe I'm describing something that couldn't happen, but I feel it seems redundant having both Pachyrostra and Pachyrhinosaurini in the taxobox, especially when Centrosaurinae isn't. Is there any way to make it display Pachyrostra (which re-directs to Pachyrhinosaurini anyway...) and Centrosaurinae instead? Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
If we abandon the automatic taxobox. But someone will then soon restore it... The entire taxobox system is of course a total mess, unable to be validly sourced and OR. As these ranks are meaningless anyway, the taxobox is best ignored.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I've gone and swapped the "always display" tag on the taxonomy template for Pachyrhinosaurini and Centrosaurinae; I don't think this should have any adverse effects on the non-pachyrostran's taxoboxes, but I'll see. Again, it's not immediately displaying. Anyway, yeah, also irrelevant for nomation. Lusotitan 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Let's hope for the best ;o).--MWAK (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In this locality, Gilmore had employed George Fryer Sternberg to excavate skeletons of the horned dinosaurs Brachyceratops and Styracosaurus ovatus. – I think a note in parentheses the latter taxon would later be named Rubeosaurus should be added. On its own I think'd be nice but largely unecessary; however, Rubeosaurus as a taxon is referenced later in the same paragraph, with the reader having no reason to think these are the same animal unless they had followed the links. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It is now made explicit that Rubeosaurus is Styracosaurus ovatus.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • For that matter, the paragraph comments two specimens would later be named Einiosaurus and assigned to Rubeosaurus; would this not, however, fall under the "Interpretations of the fossils" section? Perhaps establishing it in this initial section would lead to less confusion, but in that case, shouldn't MOR 485 be noted as later being named Achelousaurus in the following paragraph? I'd personally lean towards not mentioning names until the next section, but I think either way a change is needed for consistency IMO. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, the "Interpretation of the fossils" section covers a phase before the formal naming of Einiosaurus. Normally, in a Discovery & Naming chapter you first list the discoveries and then relate the naming acts. It's redundant to state of each specimen: "This is of Taxon X". Here, it's no different. In this case, the situation is more complex because Einiosaurus and Rubeosaurus material was found also. So we make clear from the outset which fossils belong to these. By default, the others are of Achelousaurus. Of course, not explicitly indicating Achelousaurus at this point generates an expectation. Which is then abundantly met in the subsequent sections.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • He still thought that the fossil material had been part of a single population but concluded that this had developed over time as a chronospecies evolving into a series of subsequent taxa. – perhaps a note in parentheses about what a chronospecies is? Then again, the tail end of the sentence might sufficiently do that already. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree with your last observation :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This puts it in the same size-range as other members of the Centrosaurinae subgroup of ceratopsians that lived during the Campanian age. – the larger end of the relevant Pachyrhinosaurus surpassed this by a couple metres, so I'm not sure if this statement is entirely valid. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is what the source says. You have to read it literally: Achelousaurus is neither the smallest centrosaurine known, nor the largest.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Horner however, noted that the newer forms often had a strong similarity to the previous types. – there should be a comma after "Horner". Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Done.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A further indication was the failure to identify true autapomorphies – unique traits that prove a taxon is a separate species. The fossils instead showed a gradual change from basal (or ancestral) into more derived characters. – some of this might go on the source, but I find this statement very confusing. How are there a lack of autopomorphies when we've based over a half-dozen species (counting the multiple Pachyrhinosaurus species) on them? Within the claim of anagenesis, there is indeed a gradual change, but they still obviously cluster (as seen with the multiple specimens of Achelousaurus nobody disputes group together). If this is merely describing how Horner viewed things, that should be made more clear. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Added a "according to Horner".--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The horned dinosaurs discovered by Horner exemplified this phenomenon. – this obviously implies the last paragraph was talking about the dinosaurs of the time in general, but the last paragraph never clearly established if the phenomenon was restricted to ceratopsids or not. Of course I know the claim extends to other groups, but most readers won't. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This should have been made clear by talking about "animal communities", "animal types", "newer forms", "various types" and a "fauna". Should there still be an ambiguity, this will be destroyed by the sentence you cite, which indeed carries a strong implication!--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The orbital horns showed coarse ridges. Today, "Taxon A" has been named Rubeosaurus,[9] "Taxon B" has become Einiosaurus, while "Taxon C" is Achelousaurus – does this need to be re-stated again, when the point of the history section was to establish this already? Also, why is the naming of Rubeosaurus given a reference but not the other two? Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Most readers will not clearly remember the history section at this point :o). The reference does not proof the naming but warns that the reference has been doubted. We talked about this earlier.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I'm merely ignorant, but is there a reason MOR 456 8-8-87-1 has to be used over merely MOR 456? Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The jaw has its own subnumber, so we best mention it. Also indicates the precise excavation date, which might be of interest.--MWAK (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
O, dear, I confused this with another issue. The number 456 8-8-87-1 is mentioned by the source. As I understand matters, a lot of the material has in the 1980s been imprecisely catalogued, with the result that MOR 456 represents several individuals.--MWAK (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In 2010, Gregory S. Paul renamed Achelousaurus "Centrosaurus horneri". – I think this'd read better if it said either that he sunk the genus into Centrosaurus or re-assigned the species, rather than "renamed" it. I'd learn towards the latter personally, but either woudl be an improvement. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"Synonymized" would probably be the most accurate way to describe it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
There is the added problem that the statement has to be true both on the generic and the specific level. Perhaps "assigned Achelousaurus to the genus Centrosaurus as a Centrosaurus horneri"?--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Then it should rather be "assigned A. horneri to the genus Centrosaurus, as C. horneri"? I'll add that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sampson felt, in 1995, that there was not enough evidence to conclude that Achelousaurus was a direct descendant of Einiosaurus. – this seems important to note in the anagensis section, even if it's just a brief sentence somewhere. That said, the latter half of the paragraph isn't even relevant to phylogeny anyway, so I think the whole thing could be lifted and put into the anagenesis section, before the paragraph on Dodson's objections. The word "subsequent" would merely need to be removed from what is now the second paragraph in the Phylogeny section for it to function perfectly fine as the first paragraph, with the former one moved up. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the first sentence is about anagenesis but only by referring to a rejection by Sampson of the hypothesis, who then chose for the phylogenetic method. So, the sentence fits perfectly within the phylogeny topic, while serving as an elegant introduction of it, meanwhile providing a connection with the first chapter section to ensure the narrative coherence of the chapter as a whole. This way we make a nice contrast between "anagenesis" and "cladogenesis". Such considerations should override the objection that not everything is perfectly covered by the section title :o). The speciation in the second half of the paragraph has again a clear connection with phylogeny. Also, the entire second paragraph is about research either confirming or refuting Sampson's tree, so his results should precede them immediately.--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Fair on the paragraph as a whole, but a lack of mention of Samson's disagreement in the anagenesis section seems odd as its directly relevant to the topic. One sentence could easily be thrown in somewhere, and merely have this fact be mentioned twice, once in each section, seeing it's relevant and needed in both. Lusotitan 02:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
I've now split the paragraph, as you suggested.--MWAK (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • At the end of the Campanian, there seems to have been a trend of pachyrostrans replacing other centrosaurines. – this seems oddly out of place in the middle of a paragraph in the Phylogeny section. Could it fit into the Paleoecology section somewhere?
Well, the paragraph is about the relevance of Achelousaurus within somewhat larger groups. Given that we now know Achelousaurus to have been among the first members of a newly coined clade Pachyrostra, this fact gains some importance by realising that this clade would ultimately dominate the centrosaurine tree. Such trends, though obviously having been caused by some ecological phenomenon, are usually treated within a phylogenetic context. Our Paleoecology section is focused on the ecology of Achelousaurus itself. If we find a source about the ecology driving Pachyrhinosaurus evolution while explicitly referring to Achelousaurus, this should change, of course.--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Apart from Einiosaurus and Rubeosaurus, this included Sinoceratops and Wendiceratops, according to the 2012 analysis.[58] – reference 58 makes no mention of Sinoceratops, and is from three years before Wendiceratops would even be named.
Ouch, that should have been Xenoceratops. And the reference is incorrect as well. I'll repair this immediately.--MWAK (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Ceratopsid skull casts positioned in a phylogenetic tree, in the Natural History Museum of Utah, with Achelousaurus at number 03 – would it be to clunky to instead say that it's the third from the left on the top row? I can barely read some of the numbers when I enlarge the image, nevermind look at it normally. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Ill see if I can figure out to reword it... FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Added something perhaps even wordier to make it clear... FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Jens has now added an image with more resolution.--MWAK (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, that looks amazing! FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • One of these was a form in-between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus;[23] in 1994 he would name it Hypacrosaurus stebingeri. – there should probably be a note that this hasn't really been followed. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Anagenesis is indeed largely rejected here, I believe, and a rejection can easily be sourced.--MWAK (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Source added.--MWAK (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In 1992 he named Prosaurolophus blackfeetensis,[72] that later would be seen as identical to Prosaurolophus maximus. – its presence in the paragraph implies this was also a case of anagenesis, but this isn't stated (and wasn't, to my knowledge, the case, but I could well be wrong). Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Good point. I at first assumed Horner would have proposed an anagenetic relationship here too, couldn't find this and then still kept it, as it was part of the fauna anyway and named by Horner. Sloppy writing. I'll restructure this.--MWAK (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, the most convenient thing would be to omit it entirely.--MWAK (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Finally, Horner thought there was a taxon present that was transitional between Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus. – a note that this has since been named would probably be in order, however noting the connection to Tyrannosaurus hasn't been followed. Lusotitan 05:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Another loose end. Of course Daspletosaurus horneri should have been mentioned, the paper after all suggesting anagenesis with D. torosus but not with Tyrannosaurus, but I kept postponing this as I wanted to study the article more carefully. That's not a valid excuse, obviously, so I'll remedy that.--MWAK (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Phylogenetic analyses have varied in the closeness of the relationship between Achelousaurus and Styracosaurus, here at the American Museum of Natural History – to me at least, "here at the AMNH" would be used when you are presently located at the institution and are talking about it. What about "seen at AMNH" or something? Lusotitan 21:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Or "shown in an exhibit at the AMNH". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
How about just "; here, a skull at the American Museum of Natural History"? FunkMonk (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I added that, any further thoughts, Lusotitan? FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
That's definitely acceptable, but on second thought, wouldn't it make more sense to first state that it's image of an Styracosaurus skull at the AMNH, then afterwords talk about the important of this in relation to Achelousaurus, instead of the other way around like it is now? Lusotitan 19:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, the other captions are inconsistent in how they order it, so I'm not sure if it's a big deal, as long as it is clear... FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • My only two remaining issues are the lack of a mention of Sampson being opposed to the anagenesis hypothesis in the anagenensis section, and the fourth paragraph of the palaeoecology section still not mentioning the other anagenesis hypothesises brought up haven't gotten support either, or that D. horneri has been named. Elsewhere on this page it has been said (independently) all three of these things would be added, but they still haven't been. Lusotitan 20:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleopatra Selene I

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Cleopatra, but not the most famous one. Actually, her story is as interesting. Cleopatra Selene I married her two brothers, then married her cousins (two of them,.... who were also brothers). She then married her step-son and gave birth to two children, one of them became king. This is a summary of the story of Cleopatra Selene, queen consort of Egypt and Syria then regent and queen regnant of Syria. She started as a winning card in the hands of her mother and became an important political player herself. The article was reviewed by our great editor Constantine and took two months to write because most of the sources (which are scarce to say the least) were not available online which meant that I had to tour the country to find the sources at different libraries. Hope this will be an enjoyable read into the mysterious life of the queen.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Seems like this one has been hard work! I'll review it soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort
  • You explain the name Selene, but maybe the name Cleopatra should be explained too? What was its significance since so many different queens had this name?
  • Maybe give some context for sister-brother marriages, that it was normal back then?
Done. It was (still) further explained in the notes. Now note number 7
  • To me, since this is a pretty short article, I think some of the more significant footnotes should be incorporated into the main text. I think it would give a better flow, and a fuller/more comprehensive reading experience. Since I wanted to know more details about what happened, I had to go back and forth between the article and the notes to get the full picture, which was kind of disruptive.
I have eliminated four notes. The rest are divided into: 1- opinions by different scholars which will confuse most readers and are not historic events, just theories. 2- notes about other events not really related to the queen, such as the marriage of Cleopatra IV or the long arguments about Ptolemy XII's legitimacy which is already the focus of a paragraph. Putting them into the main text would deviate the article from its main subject.
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "that Herakleon will never be accepted as king" Should be past tense.
  • "ugate coins which depict her alongside her ruling son" This should mean we there are depictions of her, that we could possibly use here?
Yes, and I have links to the three coins but as usual, copy rights are the problem. Here is a link to an article that have the so called Burgess coin, the last to be discovered, and this link shows you the coin directly if you dont wanna scroll through the article. The second coin which is the first to be discovered, called the Bellinger coin can be seen here. The last coin, that of Kritt, can be seen here. The Bellinger and Kritt images are taken from this article
Hmmm, so it seems most of these photos have been recently published? And we don't know of old sources that have published images of the coins? If they weren't 3D objects, we would be able to upload the images freely... We would be allowed to trace-draw the images, but I think the results would be dubious... FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
the oldest was published in the late 1940s.... sadly
In what country? The US had pretty lax copyright laws until the 1970s, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there is a chance. The oldest was published in 1952 in the USA. Now, the publisher have the coin on their website and I read this note "All images licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License." This is the link, can you make sure ?
Wikipedia sadly doesn't allow non-commercial, but if the oldest one was published in the 1950s in the US, there is a chance the copyright of the book was not renewed. Search the title of the book here[36], and if it doesn't show up, it wasn't renewed. Then you can upload the image with a licence like this image has:[37] FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
It didnt show up. It is from 1952. This is the link. How will I upload the picture ? I dont have the picture that was published in 1952. I only have the newer version taken lately and published on the website of the ANS.
What is the title of the 1952 publication? Perhaps we can find it online, or request it at the resource request[38]... I definitely think it would be worth it... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The author is Bellinger, Alfred R... The year: (1952)... The article: "Notes on Some Coins from Antioch in Syria"... The journal is: Museum Notes... The volume is: 5... The publisher is: The American Numismatic Society... ISSN is: 0145-1413.--------I tried to find it online but its not provided. Only Jstor allows me to see it but only the first page and I couldnt access it through my university
That definitely looks like a winner. I suggest you request it at the resource request, and enable your email (under preferences) so it can be sent to you. I have limited JSTOR access so I can read the article online, but I can already see there are some nice images we could get in higher resolution with the PDF. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Asked for it
Nice, I'll assist if you need help uploading, and then I'll support. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
The image was added
Nice, might be a good idea to add the JSTOR link to Commons as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Alfred Raymond Bellinger (it)" Never seen such a link to a foreign language Wikipedia, not sure if it's allowed.
  • "if they actually existed and sent to Kos" Were sent to.
  • I think "morganic marriage" could be explained briefly in parenthesis or such.
  • "son of Ptolemy X, was among the princess", "had two Egyptian princess in his hands" Princes.
  • "by his niece Cleopatra III" Only mentioned in intro.
  • "Considered by her mother more easy to control than her sister" Only stated in intro.
  • "but the marriage lasted less than a year" Only explicitly stated in intro.
  • "To protect herself and her position" Also seems only to be stated in the intro.
  • "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars" Fed up seems a bit too informal here.
changed wording
  • One last thing, you state in the blurb here that she married her cousins, but no cousins are explicitly mentioned in the article?
Yes, Antiochus VIII and his brother are the sons of Cleopatra Thea, the aunt of Selene
Oh, I mean, from reading the article, you wouldn't know they were cousins, could it be stated explicitly? FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - everything has been dealt with nicely, and it was great we found a free image after all! FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

At a first look, I have some problems with the prose in this article. Some examples follow.

Grammatical problems:

  • "Considered more easy to control by her mother": more easy to control than what?
More easily controlled than Cleopatra IV. I reworded the sentence.
  • "As a queen of Syria, she is the second to rule with the name Cleopatra": tense. Should be "was".


  • "leaving Cleopatra Selene free for her mother to possibly marry her to the new king, Ptolemy X.": "possibly" is entirely unnecessary here.
Well, it does seem unnecessary at first glance. However, the article explains that this marriage is not attested but a very strong theory. So, Selene possibly married Ptolemy X but we can not say it as a fact and that is way it is important to note this in the lede.
Hmm. I might suggest rewording this for clarity, then, because I did not get that at all. Tension between the king and his mother grew and ended with Ptolemy IX's expulsion from Egypt, leaving Cleopatra Selene behind; she probably then married the new king, Ptolemy X., perhaps? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "the marriage lasted less than a year before she lost her new husband who was killed in 95 BC": "she lost her new husband" and "who was killed" tell us substantially the same thing. Simply "before her new husband was killed" would be fine.

I don't have time to do a full review right now; I shall come back to this later. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments:

  • "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars": "fed up with" seems like an extremely casual register for encyclopediac writing.
  • "between 135–130 BC": "between 135 and 130 BC". See MOS:DATERANGE.
  • "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, mention the queen with the name Selene": this is a little unclear, but I think means: "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, call the queen Selene"?
  • The second paragraph of Cleopatra Selene I#Queen of Egypt is confusing to me. First we read that Cleopatra III decided that Cleopatra Selene should marry Antiochus VIII; then that Cleopatra Selene divorced Ptolemy X; then that Ptolemy ran away before the divorce. The chronology seems all mixed up.
  • "Justin wrote that Cleopatra III "made two daughters husbandless by marrying them to their brothers in turn"": again, not really sure what this means. Cleopatra III seems to have done a very good job of keeping Cleopatra Selene in husbands, so far!
This quote is a circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Selene married Ptolemy X. Selene is one of the two sisters who was married to her brothers (not brother) in turn (this means Ptolemy IX and X)
I think this needs more clarification, then, because this wasn't at all obvious to me from reading the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I cant explain it cause I have no source for the explenation. Chriss Bennett who wrote the academic article "Cleopatra V Tryphæna and the Genealogy of the Later Ptolemies. Ancient Society. Peeters Publishers. 28" missed to include that quote in the article. He had a website where he said that he should have used that quote (see not 13, section III). I cant use the website as a source as it wont fulfill the criteria for reliable sources. However, deleting the sentence would be damaging as it is an important evidence and some readers will be able to analize it
At least per my reading of WP:SPS, if we are accepting Bennett's scholarly articles as reliable sources, his website might be acceptable as a reliable source for claims within the same field, even if it hasn't been published with editorial oversight. On the other hand, if you don't think that Bennett's website counts as a reliable source, and you expect readers to draw this conclusion from the quote, then you are in danger of violating WP:SYNTH. (In fact, I don't think that readers are likely to draw this conclusion, and you are not violating any policies but you are failing criterion 1a of WP:WIAFA: non sequiturs are not a feature of prose which is "engaging" and "of a professional standard". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Bennett's work is accepted by modern scholarship as a whole so he is a pretty respected expert in this field, His website is defunct and the current website is only hosting the content of the original one and thats why I cant consider reliable, not because of doubts regarding Bennett. However, what you said about WP:SYNTH and criterion 1a violations is totally baseless. The sentence is referenced, and it's talking about Cleopatra III and her daughters and Selene was one of them. If I have added an explenation without a reference then you would have been able to claim a failure to fulfill criterion 1a. Since the sentence is referenced then you are using criterion 1a wrong. There are no non sequiturs in this article. All sentences has something to do with delivering the best possible knowledge about this vague queen. So, no SYNTH is here and we cant delete this very important passage. I will put it as a note and this would be a suitanle solution rather that delete it !

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I still don't really see why you don't think the website is a reliable source: it's hosted by a reputable academic institution, and is hosting the works of an expert in the field. I think you are misinterpreting criterion 1a, though: that's not about referencing at all, but about quality of writing. A random quote without any explanation of its relevance is, I maintain, bad writing, and therefore a violation of criterion 1a. (I think it's better as a footnote insofar as it isn't distracting from the flow of the main text, but I'd still like to see an in-text explanation of the relevance. This is the only time you quote an ancient source directly: readers will want to know (or at least this reader wants to know) why it's important enough for that.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Many experienced editors read the article and the quote and found no problem understanding it; it can not be random as you describe it since this article is about one of Cleopatra III's daughters and the quote is about Cleopatra III's daughters. As a writer of feautured content, bad writing can not describe what I write and must be maintained as your own opinion and not an actual bad writing. Anyway, I explained Bennett's view just to put an end to this
  • "The capital of Syria, Antioch, was part of Antiochus VIII's realm at the time of his assassination; Cleopatra Selene most probably resided there." This seems a bit of a non sequitur. If the fact that Cleopatra Selene lived in Antioch is worth pointing out, probably it should go before the assassination, with "details of Cleopatra Selene's life with Antiochus VIII are not clear".
I believe this is the most suitable place cause we cant say that Selene resided in Antioch for the duration of Antiochus VIII's reign since he was evicted from that city several times by his brother Antiochus XI. Hence, we can be sure only at the time of his death that Selene might have resided in the capital
Okay, I see the point that this is making now. In that case, this might be better placed with the next paragraph, where the fact that Cleopatra Selene was in Antioch is relevant to Antiochus IX's seizure of power and marriage to her? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, the current place is also suitable since her residing at the capital at the time of the assasination is directly related to the time of her marriage to Antiochus VIII. The following paragraph starts with telling that the queen held out in Antioch before the coming of Antiochus IX. Moving that sentence below will turn the paragraph on Antiochus VIII into a very short one. Plus, the sentence clarify that Antioch was part of Antiochus's VIII realm and its more suitable for it to be in Antiochus VIII's paragraph than in the paragraph about Antiochus IX.
I am still unconvinced by this, but if you insist I would at the least rewrite this sentence to put the focus on Cleopatra Selene. Perhaps "At the time of Antiochus' assassination, Cleopatra Selene was probably staying in Antioch, the capital of Syria."? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I dont see why is this becoming an issue. The paragraph is about Antiochus VIII. The guy lost the city multiple times so its important to mention that it belonged to him when he was killed to justify the position of his wife in it. I can not delete this fact like you suggest! Disagreeing on the place of a sentence is not part of the criterea for FA.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── its important to mention that it belonged to him when he was killed to justify the position of his wife in it Why is it important to mention that his wife was in it at all? It seems to me that that fact is only important when explaining her marriage to Antiochus IX – hence why I believe that it makes more sense for it to be part of the next paragraph. If there's another reason that it is important to tell readers this, I'm really not seeing it, and I think the article should make it clearer. Even the note which follows this claim is about Cleopatra's relationship with Antiochus IX. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Implementing the change you want will damage the article. I can not see the merit of your proposed deletion of information and changing the place of the sentence from its most suitable place. I can not convince you why it is important if, after all I have wrote, you can not see it. Convincing an reviewer is not what a featured review is about. Its about guaranteeing the best information for the reader and deleting an information would definitely damage the article. Feel free to Oppose the nomination.
  • "the queen needed an ally who will help her control the capital": another tense problem. "who would help".
  • "It is unlikely that this marriage appeased Antiochus VIII's sons." I know what you mean, but I don't think that "appeased" is quite the right word here.
  • "Antiochus IX marched against his nephew but was defeated and lost his life." No need for the passive voice here. "killed" is more concise and straightforward.
  • "The rationale of the marriage might be more pragmatic": once again, be careful with tenses. "might have been". I would also say "rationale for" rather than "rationale of".
  • "jugate coins": might be worth linking jugate

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Would be nice to have an image of her if one might be available
I have links to the three coins of her but as usual, copy rights are the problem. Here is a link to an article that have the so called Burgess coin, the last to be discovered, and this link shows you the coin directly if you dont wanna scroll through the article. The second coin which is the first to be discovered, called the Bellinger coin can be seen here. The last coin, that of Kritt, can be seen here. The Bellinger and Kritt images are taken from this article
  • The first two coins need US PD tags, the second two should include explicit tags for the coins rather than just the photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I'll add those tags

Comments from Dank

  • "[[:it:Alfred Bellinger|Alfred Raymond Bellinger]]": I changed this to [[Alfred Raymond Bellinger]]. If you don't like the red link, then create a stub here on the English Wikipedia.
  • 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) 04:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources look to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. A very minor formatting point: where citations are to multiple pages (25, 40, 70, 72, 76, 77), pp. rather than p. should be used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


We Are X

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a rockumentary film about X Japan, arguably the biggest rock/metal band in Japan. The film deals with the turbulent history of the band in general and its front-man Yoshiki in particular. The article covers all aspects of the movie, including plot, production, reception and the soundtrack. The article is already a GA, has been on DYK? and has been peer reviewed. It is hard to think how the article can be expanded to cover any other aspects that may be worth mentioning. I think it is suitable to be promoted to GA and await any further comments. ISD (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Italicisation of source publishers: italicisation should be used for printed sources – magazines, newspapers, books – but not otherwise, i.e. not for organisations such as Anime News Network or CNN, or for websites such as Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and many others.
  • Website titles such as or should not be given as publishers, when the publisher's name is available
  • Some sources may not meet FA standards of quality and reliability; can you comment on the following?
  • Blood Red Dragon (note you have mis-typed this title)
  • Loudwire
  • J. Rock News
  • Brave Words
  • Jame world

Apart from the above points, the sources and citations look well organised and, in general, solid. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: I've tried to make some changes. I think I've corrected the italicisation but I'm not sure about all of it (e.g. MyM Buzz, as MyM is the magazine by MyM Buzz is the website. Most of the italicisation comes from the use of "work=" rather than "publisher=" in the citation templates. Concerning the sources:
  • Blood Red Dragon - Comic book that is mentioned in the film. As is directly mentioned by the film itself I assume that makes it reliable, but if I'm wrong do correct me.
  • Loudwire and Brave Words are both print heavy metal magazines and thus I assume makes them reliable.
  • J. Rock News - Replaced reference with one directly from the film's official website, which I assume is a reliable source.
  • Jame World - Replaced reference with one from Anime News Network.
ISD (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. Incidentally, the "work=" field is generally used in connection with "publisher=", so that the work title is italicized but the publisher's name is not. Organisations like CNN etc are not "works". I'll check again, but I think you've got then hang of it. I hope you get some content comments soon. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: Thanks for the update. If there is anything else I need to carry out do let me know. ISD (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

All files have reasonable ALT text. I see that the three last ones have a watermark/credit in the image which is a little distracting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you think it would help to contact the people responsible for the images? If not should I just get rid of the three photos and uses something else? I believe that these photos of X Japan's frontman Yoshiki are free-use and might possibly be suitable.
ISD (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
No, the images are fine. It's the file description on Commons I wonder about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - Oh I understand. I've tried expanding the description for the poster image. I don't know if OK now though. ISD (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the second studio album by Romanian singer Alexandra Stan. This is already the fifth (!!) nomination of this article, and I fully believe it should be promoted. There has been a lot work that was put into this, and I thik it is now ready for a better status than GA. I would greatly appreciate comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • As much as I would like to see this article pass, I find it strange that you nominate this article without any activity for months. Can you explain what steps you have done to improve this article from its last failed nomination? Can you also explain why you have decided not to edit the article in about two months and then renominate it for FAC? I look forward to your answers as it may be brought up by others who may find it puzzling since your only explanation is that it should be promoted. Thanks – jona 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, @AJona1992: There was actually a lot going on with this article. First, I have requested a copy-edit. Then, I have worked in detail to the article with Mike Christie, which also led to a check on each source. As the previous nomination (and most of the other) left me with nearly no comments and were closed due to inactivity, I decided to give this another try. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Thank you for addressing my comments, and I am looking forward to your reviews. I support this for promotion. Good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Paparazzzi

My comments have been addressed, so I'm going to support this nomination. If you don't mind, could you take a look at my FAC? If you are not able to do it, don't worry, I understand. Congratulations for your great work! Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Sportsguy17

The only two things I noticed were so minor that I just took care of them myself. With that, I support this nomination. A very well-written and well-organized article, good work! Sportsguy17 (TC) 03:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

I'm not a music expert, never heard of this album or artist, so just a few comments on prose. There's little to argue about, fine work:

  • Commercially, -> Not sure this is the right word. Is this ranking all about money?
Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Unlocked itself debuted -> this seems a bit odd, almost an afterthought. But isn't this the topic of the article instead of all these singles? I would expect a more prominent position, and definitely more detailed info.
Originally, the article included a nearly week-by-week overview of the album and its sales in Japan. However, that was suggested to be removed as it was way too much info for just one charting country. I think the info that we have now suffices. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • both the album and its content -> a puzzling choice of words
Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That's all really. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Thank you very much for your comments and your time. I responded to your comments. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Although we have three supports so far, I'd be happier if some reviewers could look more closely at 1a, 1b and 1c so that we can see if the article meets those criteria. I wonder if Mike Christie or J Milburn are able to have a look? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm afraid I'm a little stretched for time at the moment and so can't make any promises. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if John or Tony1 are available to take a look? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from John

  • Which dialect of English is the article in? I see examples of both major spelling conventions at the moment. John (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@John: Hi there! The article should be written in British English, I think. Btw can we do a copy-edit to fix these issues? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Not according to this early version, which has "colorful" and "practicing", which are American English. Per MOS:RETAIN we should leave it in this dialect. --John (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The cover art for Unlocked was photographed by Dimitri Caceaune and shows Stan sporting a multicolored jacket in front of a neon light But neon light is red and the image looks green. What's going on? --John (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @John: What's your suggestion here? I think it's odd to say "purple−pink background"; what should we do instead? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @John: What do you think of: "...and shows Stan green–toned, wearing a multicolored jacket in front of a pink–purple background." ? Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I must have missed your first ping. Yes, that looks better. Do you accept my point above about WP:ENGVAR? --John (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @John: No worries! Face-smile.svg I have changed the "neon" thing and yes, I fully accept your point. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Another question; I see 18 references to iTunes; doesn't this source fall into WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are there other less promotional sources we could use? --John (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@John: I haven't found any other source where I can get release dates for so many countries. Is iTunes that bad? I have seen it in other FACs. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: While John is working, I wonder if HJ Mitchell could take a look at this as well? I think between us, we should get this wrapped up fairly soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Will look tomorrow morning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Oppose at this time, purely on prose. I might pick up on a few things not related to prose, but prose is primarily what I'm looking at.

  • I don't review a lot of music articles, but from a quick glance at a few album FAs, it seems usual to include the genre in the opening sentence.
  • Even just the lead paragraph is choppy. It's essentially one fact per sentence with nothing linking them to make it flow.
  • She also developed material What's that also trying to say? In addition to what? And while we're on that phrase, what sort of material?
  • Album or record? Be consistent. Sure, mix it up a bit when you need to avoid repetition, but at the moment you have second studio album, several producers on the record, developed material for the album, to distribute the record, The album's music (also, what else would you get on an album?), critics gave the album. And that's just in the first paragraph.
  • which had led her to take a short hiatus in 2013 "had" is often unnecessary and this one just makes the sentence confusing; putting the date at the end confuses the reader and makes them go back to the beginning to recall the album's release date.
  • Do you need to mention the altercation with the manager so prominently? If it's a crucial detail you need to explain why; if it's not, you're putting too much emphasis on it.
  • Why are we discussing its performance in Japan first?
  • for her second album ... The record's release I'll let you off for the inconsistency here, but it's not clear what you're referring to
  • I see the chopiness continues into the background section. I have other things I need to do on-wiki and off so I'm afraid that's as far as I'm going for now. I may revisit to review the rest of the article or look at other criteria if there are improvements to the prose. For now my advice would be to think of an encyclopaedia article as telling a story, rather than just listing facts.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Are these thing we can get fixed before failing this alltogether for the 5th time? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That's up to the coordinators. There's probably a few hours' work there. It's not insurmountable, but it's more work than an FAC is supposed to need. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell:,@Sarastro1: I hope you don't get me wrong, but we could work on the article together — if you have time... Maybe we can change the "oppose" into a "support" with some work. The article is 80% ready (as it made its way to 4 previous FACs), but it just needs links between sentences and some other clarification. That should not be that hard to do... Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
As we have quite a bit of support, we can leave this open longer if both the nominator and HJ Mitchell feel that the issues can be addressed relatively quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Sarastro1:, @HJ Mitchell: Thank you for your response. As I said, the main issues pointed out by HJ Mitchell are the sentences being "choppy". I will take a look later and edit the article. HJ Mitchell also needs further clarification on some parts, but those are things that can be done in a few days. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I suggest bringing in an editor experienced in writing contemporary music FAs. You are making some progress, though you've introduced a couple of new problems (the position of "as a result" suggests she left the label because of her hiatus, and "however" is generally frowned upon at FAC). You need to read it as a whole, not just a word or a sentence at a time, and look at how it flows as a story. Which is hard to do with your own work, hence my recommendation to bring someone else in. I've looked at a handful of album FAs more or less at random (including Californication (album), The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, and just for something from the same decade as Unlocked, 4 (Beyoncé album)) and I notice several things: they all seem (based on the opening paragraph and a skim of the body) better written than this article, there are very few FAs on 2010s albums, they all cite more heavyweight sources, and they're all at least twice the word count of this article. I don't know how big these problems are, or even if they are problems, because I don't know enough about music or writing music articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell:: @Ian Rose: could take a look on the article. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The Fountainhead

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This novel was the first bestseller for Ayn Rand, a writer who still generates controversy (and sales) over 35 years after her death. Some readers find it inspirational and life-changing, while others think it is poorly written and immoral. It's about an architect, but it also has kinky sex, satires of other writers, critiques of the New Deal, and an explosion. If you aren't a novel reader, there's a movie, a comic, and a stage version. The article has been GA since July and just got a GOCE copy edit, so now I'm looking for your reviews to build it up to FA. RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Harold_Laski_1936.JPG: what's the status of this work in the US?
  • File:Fountainhead_cafe.jpg: as a representation of a 2D work, typically the photographer wouldn't have a copyright claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the prompt IR. Regarding the Fountainhead cafe image, I kind of figured that could be a problem, so I was prepared to remove the image if needed. I did not notice the problem with the Laski image previously. After rooting about for an hour, it isn't clear to me that the images from the 3rd edition of this source (the one this photo would be in) actually would be PD in the US. I've put in an inquiry on Commons about it. In the meantime I've removed both images. If I get information that justifies restoring the Laski image, I'll ping you about it. --RL0919 (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Apologies for the whiplash, but after some helpful clarifications around older Swedish copyright law, I've updated the tagging for the Laski image on Commons and restored it to the article. The cafe image is still out. Let me know if there are any other concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Sorry to pester, but I wanted to confirm whether you have any further concerns with the images, or if the changes described above took care of it. --RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

  • "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand and was her first major literary success." – inconsistent tense (is/was). Also, who is Ayn Rand? Give brief description on first mention
  • Split the sentence and mimicked the description used for Rand in another FA. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The novel's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who refuses to compromise his artistic and personal vision for worldly recognition and success" – purple prose (and probably non-neutral)
  • "The story follows his battle to practice modern architecture while opposed by an establishment centered on tradition." – how do you practice modern architecture?
  • I revised to combine the sentences from this point and the one above to address your comments. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Roark is opposed by what Rand described as "second-handers", who value conformity more than independence and integrity" → "over independence and integrity". Also, isn't "second-handers" also Roark's evaluation?
  • Yes, it is his evaluation (albeit not until almost 600 pages into the text), so copy edited accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Their relationship begins with a sexual encounter that feminist critics have denounced as endorsing rape." – how can a sexual encounter endorse rape?
  • Its presence in the novel suggests to some that Rand was OK with rape, so re-worded accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why does the Gary Cooper image appear under ¶ Impact on Rand's career and not ¶ Film?
  • Primarily to spread the images out a bit so there aren't large stretches of text. The film adaptation is mentioned in the section, so it isn't entirely misplaced. But if it's a big deal, it's not hard to move one image. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

--Gertanis (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gertanis: Thanks for your comments. I have made changes and inserted replies above. Possibly some of the wording could be further improved, so let me know if you have additional feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Gertanis: Sorry to pester, but since it has been a while since your last comments, I wanted to see if you had any further concerns, or perhaps if you wanted to express your support? :-) --RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit short on time atm, but here are a few more suggestions:

  • Consider using authorlinks in the 'Works cited' section
  • Had some, but missed several, now added. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Every para in the section 'Other adaptations' starts w/ "In [year]"
  • "Rand was irritated that Bobbs-Merrill allowed the edited version to be published without her reviewing the text" — reword: 'irritated' feels awkward in this context (kinda itchy to be frank); delete the '-ing', try smth like "...her having reviewed", "her approval of"; perhaps restructure along the lines of "To Rand's great bewilderment/dissatisfaction/dismay, Bobbs-Merrill..."
  • "A reviewer for The Guardian praised the Festival d'Avignon production, describing it as "electrifying theatre",[154] while that for La Croix praised the writing, acting, and staging." – 'that' does not rhyme with 'reviewer'
  • I don't want to be mean or anything, but I find the writing in this entire section ('Adaptations') to be rather pedestrian. It's not quite of a brilliant standard yet. Perhaps WP:RECEPTION could be of help.
  • Technically, "brilliant" is no longer in the FA criteria, but I have revised to address all the points above and hopefully made it at least a little shiny. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The year 1943 also had the publication of..." → "...saw the publication of..."
  • Fixed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "In more recent years, The Fountainhead has received relatively little ongoing critical attention." – weasly prose: more recent than what? relative to what? 'ongoing'? Pardon?
  • Reworded. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That's that for now. Gertanis (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gertanis: Thanks again for taking the time to review. Hopefully I've addressed all of your concerns; specific replies inserted above. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Gertanis, do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Sorry for the tardy response, but RL has kept me occupied these last weeks. Anyway, here we go:

  • "several directors and writers have considered doing a new film adaptation" – informal/unencyclopedic language
    • Changed to "developing". --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Today, more than 6.5 million copies of The Fountainhead have been sold worldwide and it has been translated into more than 20 languages." – doesn't the MOS somewhere recommend against this usage of 'today'?
    • Not sure offhand about the MoS, but the word is superfluous anyway, so removed. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "...and has enjoyed a lasting influence, especially among architects and political libertarians." – might want to specify what breed of libertarians, lest Chomsky become enraged :)
  • "Initial sales were slow" – 'slow' in what sense?
    • In the sense that it did not sell a large number of copies per week. This phrase or close variants (e.g., "slow sales") is commonly used in reliable sources to describe the novel's early sales. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Some praised the novel as a powerful presentation of individualism, while others thought it was overlong and lacked sympathetic characters." – is 'presentation' the right word here? Perhaps 'endorsement' or 'paean' or 'encomium'. Also, to enhance parallelism, try "..thought it overlong and lacking sympathetic characters/proper reader identification [character(s)]."
    • Revised per your suggestions. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Their relationship includes a first sexual encounter that feminist critics have denounced, accusing Rand of endorsing rape." – Sorry to harp about this, but I find the sentence still grammatically and stylistically troubling. Can a relationship include a sexual encounter? Why is 'first' significant? Denounced as what? Maybe censured/criticized/condemned would be better.
    • Rewritten to "Feminist critics have condemned Roark and Dominique's first sexual encounter, accusing Rand of endorsing rape." Regarding the word 'first', these criticisms are strongly focused on what happens the first time the characters have sex, not their subsequent sexual activity. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There you are, a few comments on the lede. I appreciate that the FAC criteria no longer commands that the prose be 'brilliant', but it still says "engaging and of a professional standard"—I don't think we're quite there yet. I recommend querying brianboulton, tim riley or other superlative prose stylists for their belle-lettrist advice. Gertanis (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Responding to that irresistibly flattering ping (I shall need a larger hat) I offer my opinion, for what it's worth, that in terms of readability the lead is fine as it stands. Whether it adequately sums up the content of the main text I could not say without reading the latter, which I don't propose to do, preferring to avoid such a subject as A. Rand. Tim riley talk 12:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Gertanis: Updates and replies to your latest comments above. As always, I welcome more input on how to improve the article.
Tim, I wouldn't insist on anyone reviewing an article on an unappealing subject, so thanks for the feedback on the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Sorry to be a nuisance, Gertanis, but I'd like to wrap this up fairly soon. I'd like to clarify if you still have concerns over the prose. If so, is there anything specific you feel needs to be addressed? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt

I've read it several times over the years. A few comments:

  • "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand. It was her first major literary success." I've read the comments above. May I suggest, "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand, her first major literary success." Because I do think it's a bit choppy at present.
  • "with an architectural establishment centered on tradition. " For "centered on tradition", I might say "unwilling to accept innovation". Tradition is a pretty broad term and I'm not sure the reader is going to get what you're saying.
  • "describes as" I would say "calls" is simpler.
 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "that feminist critics have denounced as indicating that Rand endorses rape." I hesitatingly suggest "that feminist critics have denounced, accusing Rand of endorsing rape".
  • " Cameron was once a renowned architect, but he now gets few commissions." I would strike "he"
  • "He later gets a job in a granite quarry owned by Francon." The "later" de-emphasizes the fact that he is forced to work in the quarry because he cannot earn a living as an architect. The two are closely related, you make it distant.
  • "that he pays off Keating to divorce her," I would strike the word "off". It still means the same thing.
  • "and thus hires him." I would say "so", not "thus"
  • "Roark's past relationship with Dominique." I would change this. "Relationship" could be taken to mean the sexual encounter, which you mention is controversial. Possibly "that they met at the quarry" or "that they knew each other from the quarry" or similar.
By this point in the novel, there have been other sexual encounters between Roark and Dominique, which she initiates, so "relationship" is more accurate. This was a significant omission from the plot summary, which I've corrected instead of changing this word. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "for his influence " maybe "to use his influence"
  • "Roark returns to discover that the Cortlandt design has been changed." maybe "Roark returns to find that Keating was not able to prevent major changes from being made in Cortlandt's construction"
  • " Wynand dismisses Toohey for criticizing Roark." consider "Wynand dismisses Toohey for disobeying him and criticizing Roark". It might help to mention that Wynand uses his papers to defend Roark.
  • "Roark also wins over Dominique, who leaves Wynand for Roark." I might put it more directly: "After Wynand gives in, Dominique leaves him for Roark."
  • I might make it clearer that Wynand conceives that by allowing the denunciation of Roark to be printed, he has sullied himself from the ideal.
  • "Rand's denials have not stopped other commentators from claiming stronger connections between Wright and Roark." I might strike "other" . It's questionable whether an author is a commentator.
  • "Wright equivocated about whether he thought Roark was based on him, sometimes implying that he was, at other times denying it." The second "was" should probably be "did" as the question is Wright's belief, not whether Roark was in fact based by
  • "than follow his personal interests." I would say "desires" for "interests".
Being familiar with Rand's other writings about self-interest and how that differs from desire, I think my word choice better reflects her intent. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "By middle age, Keating's career is in decline and he is unhappy with his choices, but it is too late for him to change.[18][19]" I might say "path" for "choices". He is certainly unhappy about not painting instead of building, but to me anyway, his unhappiness otherwise seems more about the outcome.
  • "also contributed inspiration" maybe "also helped inspire"?
  • "In 1927, Rand was working as a junior screenwriter for movie producer Cecil B. DeMille when he asked to write a script for what would become the film Skyscraper." possibly a word missing, possibly "her" after "asked"?
  • "That earlier novel was based partially on people and events from Rand's experiences" a bit hard to read, perhaps "That earlier novel was based in part on people and events familiar to Rand"
  • "She did not place the quotes in the published novel," sort of repeating, maybe "In addition to redacting the quotes in the published novel," You might be able to do without "in the published novel", too. I would omit the "she" from the second half of the sentence, as not needed.
  • "Twelve other publishers (including Macmillan and Knopf) had rejected the book.[61][67][68]" This sentence might do better at the end of the previous paragraph and in the present tense. It seems out of place where it is,
  • "Second Hand Lives" You are not consistent as to whether the first two words of this title have a hyphen between them.
Interesting article. I'm glad to learn more of the background.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Thanks for reviewing. I've implemented most of your suggestions, with comments inserted above only for exceptions. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
SupportLooks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aoba47

  • The following part reads awkwardly to me (especially among political libertarians and in the field of architecture) as I feel there is something missing in front of the phrase “in the field of architecture”. It just reads a little weird to switch between saying something’s popular with a noun (i.e. political libertarians) and not using the same structure for the rest of the sentence. I think consistency is the point that makes it a little off for me.
  • I have a question about this part (several directors and writers have considered remaking the film). Do they really want to do a remake of the film, or do they really want to do a new film adaptation of the book? It seems to me that they want to do a new film adaptation of the book and not necessarily a remake of the past film itself.
  • In the following phrase (Rand viewed as wrong ideas:), should the colon be a period? I am not sure of the purpose of the colon in this context.
  • I would add the year in which Skyscraper was released (i.e. 1928).
 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For this first phrase (following the completion in 1934 of her first novel, We the Living), I would change it to the following (following the completion of her first novel, We the Living, in 1934) as it reads smoother to me.
  • Add the year in which Journals of Ayn Rand was released. Same goes for Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and For the New Intellectual and Atlas Shrugged.
  • I am not sure the thesaurus link is entirely necessary.

Great work with this article. My focus was on the prose; I will leave everything dealing with the source reliability and use to the source reviewer. My comments are very minor as I think there is not much that requires improvement. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my own FAC. Either way, I will be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing. Another editor apparently jumped in to address one of your comments. I have made edits to address the rest. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting this promoted and have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@RL0919: I hope you don't mind my jumping in to assist, just saw an opportunity to help out in a minor way without making too many major changes (as I am unfamiliar with topic). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It was unexpected, but nothing to object to. --RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Sources in general look good. Only one query: in ref 87 the Cox essay is stated as being in "Thomas 2005", this being The Literary Art of Ayn Rand. But the source says the essay is reproduced from The Fountainhead: A Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration, published by the Atlas Society. Strictly speaking, the citation should be direct to the website since this is your source.

No other queries. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the review. I know this is terribly old-fashioned, but I have physical copy of the 2005 book The Literary Art of Ayn Rand, edited by William Thomas, which I used as a source for refs 41 and 87. The web page in ref 87 is a convenience link. I did overlook the page number for ref 87, which I've now added. In double-checking for any similar mistakes, I found two sources that I did get online that lacked access date info, so I added those also. --RL0919 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment (Support)

  • It seems to me that referring to the sexual encounter as a "rape scene" ("Responses to the rape scene", "One of the most controversial elements of the book is the rape scene") begs the question under discussion. Wikipedia has decided that it is a rape scene? Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
That is how it is most frequently referred to in sources. In some sources quote marks are used -- the "rape scene" or the "rape" scene -- and the article has had those in some versions as well. Occasionally the word alleged has been used in the article, although I don't think that phrasing has much source support. It hasn't changed with enough frequency to trigger discussion of it on the Talk page. You are welcome to suggest alternative wording. --RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aureliano Babilonia: Wanted to follow up on this since you had not replied further. After thinking about it a bit more, I came up with alternative wording for the description and the section header that avoids using the phrase "rape scene". Let me know if that looks good or if you have further feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - I do find it an improvement, and it is along the lines of what I would have suggested if I felt like pushing it, which I didn't. ;) The section name is more 'encyclopedic'-sounding now as well, vs. "responses to the rape scene". Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the article is very good, thorough, well-sourced, etc. I wasn't planning to weigh in, but I am willing to support this nomination. I would like to point out that the entire "critical reception" section uses secondary sources properly to synthesize the reception of the novel. But there is one exception, which simply points to a random(?) Village Voice review. It seems like cherry-picking in the context of a section that otherwise uses sources in a more sophisticated way. I would suggest either removing the "Village Voice" sentence or using a secondary source to state that negative reviews continue. I mean, of course they continue, I grant you that, you can find breathless takedowns of Rand all over the internet, but this particular review has been chosen essentially randomly, as far as I can see. I hope you understand my drift here. It's not a huge deal, and in fact this approach to "reception" is the norm for the huge number of articles for which there are no secondary sources about reception (other than wordless technocratic aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes etc.). However, since this novel has plenty of secondary literature, and it's going to be an FA, it's better not to choose a random review as an exemplar, IMO. Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. It took a bit of looking to find an appropriate source (many cover only the contemporary reception, or discuss recent reception for Rand in broad terms rather than specific to this novel), but I've now updated based on your suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
A great improvement - thanks! Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for expanding a book that made history. Only few comments:


  • "but turns to Roark for help with design problems", - doesn't Peter seek for help rather for technical problems?
  • There are various incidents, but often it's significantly more than technical. For example, Roark thoroughly redesigns the Cosmo-Slotnik building, even including updates to the Renaissance facade; Keating's contribution is pretty limited. Cortlandt is entirely Roark's design with Keating's name slapped on it.
  • It's probably that "Design" in German means foremost the outer appearance. How about mentioning "structural" also? Just an idea.
  • "newspaper publisher", - how about mentioning tabloid here already? (and later)
  • Done, although I think tabloid journalism is a better link; not all of Wynand's papers are tabloid format.
  • "Their relationship begins with a sexual encounter", - no, there was some relation before.
  • Fixed.


  • I miss the Temple of the Human Spirit, - it's not any building that causes the lawsuit, and I miss Dominique posing for its statue.
  • Added more specifics about that incident.
  • "Roark and Wynand become close friends, although Wynand is unaware of Roark's past relationship with Dominique." - I question the "although", it's rather "because" ;)
  • Not exactly because, but I take your point. Reworded.

Other adaptations

  • Any way (by description or quoting a review) to make us understand how such a vast topic can be brought to a stage?
  • I don't have info on how they handled the plot, but I added some detail about the staging.

That's all. Thank you again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the review. Replies on all points above; let me know if you have further concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Common loon

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak (talk) and Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

This article yet another FAC on a bird species! We think it up in close range of getting a shiny star, and it has also undergone copy-editing from the Guild of Copy Editors. We hope you enjoy reading the article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

  • link mantle both in lead and in body
Linked! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • mention in the lead that the sexes are alike
Mentioned. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


  • "Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..." - I prefer the inclusion of the article: "The Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..."
I think it looks better without it. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why Brunnich and not Brünnich with the umlaut as in the Wikipedia article?
Replaced. Good catch! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "as Gavia immer in his Ornithologia Borealis." This is incorrect - Brünnich used Colymbus immer. I've added a cite to his book in the article. The cite to "Assembly, New York (State) Legislature (1910)" is a weird choice. I suggest:
    • Mayr, Ernst; Cottrell, G. William, eds. (1979). Check-list of Birds of the World. Volume 1 (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology. pp. 138–139. 
Fixed. Also, for consistency, removed the reference's location. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

  • Perhaps worth mentioning the winter site fidelity and citing:
Paruk, J.D.; et al. (2015). "Winter site fidelity and winter movements in Common Loons (Gavia immer) across North America". Condor. 117 (4): 485–493. doi:10.1650/CONDOR-15-6.1Freely accessible. 


  • "or early June within one week" and later in third paragraph there is "After a week of construction in late spring," repetition of a week and the time of year.
  • "nesting success" - How is "success" defined? All eggs hatch and nestlings fledge or at least one nestling fledging, or ...?
  • "and both the male and female parents take turns..." -> "and both parents take turns..."
  • "Incubation takes 26 to 31 days,[32]" Your often cited Carboneras et al reference has c. 24-25. Why did you choose the Michigan numbers?
  • "The eggs are laid in late May or June." - oddly placed - and previous paragraph on nest building has "in May or early June". perhaps delete here. I assume that the eggs are laid soon after completion of the nest.
  • "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old." I would write "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks of age." or "typically fly when 10 to 11 weeks old."
  • Tweaked (Removed it due to repetition). Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old.[42] Fledging takes 70 to 77 days." fledging lasts until they fly so this appears to be repeating the same information.
  • perhaps give the maximum recorded age as 29 years 10 months and cite
"Longevity Records Of North American Birds". U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved 12 September 2017. 
  • When does the common loon moult - and which feathers are replaced?

- Aa77zz (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Does the pair bond last from one breeding season to the next?
  • "They are capable of diving underwater in the next few days and can typically fly at 10 to 11 weeks old.[42]" where ref 42 is: Laycock, George (1970). The Wilderness Bird. Boy Scouts of America, Inc. p. 69. This is not a suitable reference for this information.

- Aa77zz (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments

  • mention that no subspecies are recognised
  • the article should mention sexual dimorphism - the male is significantly heavier than female. See Gray et al 2014, Evers 2004 pp.4-5, Tischler 2011 p.2, Piper et al 2008.
Gray, C.E.; et al. (2014). "Body mass in Common Loons (Gavia immer) strongly associated with migration distance". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 64–75. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp109. 
Evers, David C. (2004). Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in North America (PDF) (Report). Hadley, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Tischler, Keren B. (September 2011). Species Conservation Assessment for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in the Upper Great Lakes (PDF) (Report). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. 
Piper, W.H.; Walcott, C.; Mager, J.N.; Spilker, F.J. (2008). "Nestsite selection by male loons leads to sex-biased site familiarity". Journal of Animal Ecology. 77: 205–210. JSTOR 20143178. 
  • "and the pair bond lasts for about five years." this is text added in response to my comment above. It appears that territory is all important and it is probably inaccurate to state that the pair-bond continues from one year to the next. Evers 2004 has "Pair bonds do not persist beyond the breeding season" but has "High site fidelity by both sexes assures regular pairing of same individuals as the previous year." For a discussion see Piper et al 2000
Piper, W.H.; Tischler, K.B.; Klich, M. (2000). "Territory acquisition in loons: the importance of take-over". Animal Behaviour. 59: 385–394. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1295. 
  • should mention that pairs do not migrate together and do not winter together
  • perhaps add more detail on predation and separate chicks and eggs. In particular racoons can be important predators of eggs. Mentioned in Piper et al 2008
  • "Loons' nests are usually placed on islands" - not supported by source and doubtful.
Radomski, P.J.; Carlson, K.; Woizeschke, K. (2014). "Common Loon (Gavia immer) Nesting habitat models for North-Central Minnesota Lakes". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 102–107. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp113. 
  • Moved it to the breeding section, and cited it!
  • perhaps add a second picture to the taxbox showing the non-breeding plumage
  • There an extensive literature on the common loon, much quite recent, and I don't think that the most reliable sources have been cited in the article. Some seem poor or unsuitable. By far the best review article is the Birds of North America article by Evers et al 2010. It is long, very detailed, well illustrated and cites the primary literature (up to 2010):
Evers, D.C.; Paruk, J.D.; McIntyre, J.W.; Barr, J.F. (2010). Rodewald, P.G., ed. "Common Loon (Gavia immer)". The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (Subscription required (help)). 
I haven't gone through the list of reference cited in the wiki article systematically but noticed:
22 Garfield, Eagle - What is this? Why is there no link? I've looked here without success:
Removed.Restored. This is the reference Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
41 Audubon - short web page with no author
Replaced. Adityavagarwal (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
50 animal diversity web - more scholarly source needed
59 Staff, Bowker - what is this?
64 Alward, Brian Floyd (2007) - Masters degree thesis not suitable
66 Watch, Wisconsin Project Loon (1984) - is this needed
I'm surprised by the number of field guides cited: 16 Ryan; 18 Dunne; 19 Icenoggle; 21 Kaufman; 26 Rappole; 27 Peterson; 65 Stallcup; 32 Eastman. Usually field guides are general tertiary sources that lack cites to the primary literature. If you have difficulty accessing any article, please email me. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Reduced the number of field guides. I think it should be acceptable within its scope. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Add a couple more comments:

  • HBW is archived - this is silly as the archive is only the entry page for those without a subscription.
  • "and very rarely in Scotland, to the east, and in Alaska to the west.[15]" This is ambiguous as it could be understood that they very rarely breed in Alaska when in fact Alaska has the largest breeding pop of any US state. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Another comment

  • Status and conservation : "In addition, it also has a large population size." How large is the population and how is it distributed both when breeding during the summer and then during the winter? - Aa77zz (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Aa77zz Hopefully, all the comments have been addressed! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

More sources comments

Some of the above comments appear to relate to sources, although this is not specified. I've done a basic sources review, testing that all links are working, and checking formats, etc. Just a couple of points:

  • Ref 5: The "imprimatur" (i.e. publisher) is shown as "J.C. Kall". This should be added, together with publisher location
  • Added! For consistency with other references, did not add the publisher location. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 46: The title of the source article appears to be "Loon vocalizations: what you are hearing and what does it mean?", rather than the title that's showing.

Otherwise, from my perspective all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton Thanks a bunch for your comments! Hopefully, the two issues have been fixed. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Brianboulton Do you have any more comments? Thanks! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
You've dealt with the two points I raised, so sources are clear so far as links and formats are concerned. That is what I checked; I have no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon, first some image comments. When an image is very long vertically, like the drawing of the egg here, it is a good idea to add the "upright" parameter, it will make the image smaller, so it doesn't take so much space and clash with the other images. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking closer at that picture, only the bottom egg is of this species, so it should be extracted as a new file and replace the image in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this photo of an adult with chicks[39] is of better quality than the one currently in the article.
  • Maybe it would be nice to show the immature bird.[40]
  • "It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" So what happened to this species name? Who coined it and when?
  • I've re-written this section, Colymbus was the original name, clearer now?. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The " It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" seems out of place since you follow this by " first described the common loon in 1764". Better for flow if the information is chronological, so you start with original description, then go on to synonyms.
  • The photo under Distribution and habitat is quite frankly boring, and is basically the same as the one in the taxobox. Why not a photo like this[41], or video like this[42]?
  • "The underparts are pure white, but has some black" Plural, so "have".
  • "and the webs are flesh coloured" I would add "the webs between the toes" or some such.
  • "duration of about one minute" Could be converted.
  • "and has a stable population trend that does warrant a vulnerable rating" Does not?
  • "Norway (Svalbard and mainland Norway)" Why do we need the part in parenthesis? Svalbard belongs to Norway.
  • "The common loon has faced a decline in breeding range primarily due to hunting, predation, human destruction of habitat, contaminant exposure, and water-level fluctuations, or flooding. Some environmentalists attempt to increase nesting success by mitigating the effects of some of these threats, namely terrestrial predation and water-level fluctuations, through the deployment of rafts and artificial nesting islands in the loon's breeding territories.[44]" This seems it belongs under conservation rather than breeding, and you also have similar text there.
  • " Onomatopoeic names representing the bird's call" No examples? Also seems grammatically wrong in context of the full sentence.
  • A random sentence break seems to have crept in, fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "eaten in the Scottish island" Islands?
  • "The common loon appears on Canadian currency, including the one-dollar "loonie" coin and the previous series of $20 bills.[73] It is the provincial bird of Ontario.[74] It was designated the state bird of Minnesota in 1961" Non-Americans might think Minnesota is also in Canada, sicne you start by mentioning Canada and Canadian places, but then jump straight to a US state without mentioning the country.
  • Any reason why the article listed under Further reading isn't used as a source?
  • Removed, I think this non-specialist publication adds little, a hangover from earlier versions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "(another former name, great northern loon, was a compromise proposed by the International Ornithological Committee)" This long elaboration should be given in the article body, not the intro. All common names should also be listed in the article body.
  • The bill is described as black, but it looks grey in most photos, even in summer plumage?
  • FunkMonk Grey in non-breeding plumage. Maybe the summer pale black bill appears greyish? Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The description in the intro seems a bit too short.
  • Seems you go into way much detail about conservation systems in the intro, most of it isn't really needed. Yet you don't mention cultural issues at all, though the intro should summarise the entire article.
  • Reduced status and added cultural part in lead. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems there is only one point left unanswered before I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, lol, FunkMonk the remaining comments (including one of yours) are a bit difficult to address for me, so having a much closer look at them! :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - alright, everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

  • Just a quick glance-over, make sure all your ISBN's are hyphenated correctly, and the taxobox needs the parameter |synonyms_ref=   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Dunkleosteus77 Converted all ISBN 10s to ISBN 13s! Also, hyphenated them, and added synonym ref to the taxobox, to hbw. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • ref no. 4 has a free version at
  • "...a similar word surviving as modern Icelandic 'himbrimi' " this needs to be worded better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ref no. 21 has a free version at (but I'm not sure how to get it down to the correct page number)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Dunkleosteus77 for this and most subsequent, I don't think it's good practice let alone a requirement to link to Google books, given the geographical variation and temporal instability of such links. I don't think it's a good idea to link to material that isn't fully free to read anyway, since that's effectively promoting the sales of the book. In 70 FAs I've never linked to Google Books and I've never had any suggestion that it is desirable before Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • A case in point is your google link for ref 27. In the UK, I can't see any text. i suspect that will be the case for others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ref no. 23 has a free version at
  • ref no. 25 has a free version at
  • ref no. 26 has a free version at but it doesn't make any mention of the word "loon" in the entire book. On the other hand, it could be a different volume, in which case the volume has to be specified (and there's probably a version of that specific volume)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ref no. 27 isn't formatted correctly, it has a free version at and the page specified is 71 but the book only has 7 pages. More importantly, there's no mention of the word "loon" in it, it just talks about trout the entire way through, so it has to be replaced in any case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ref no. 29 has a free version at
  • ref no. 30 has a free version at
  • ref no. 31 has a free version at
  • ref no. 32 has a free version at but it doesn't support what's said in the text. On the other hand, it could be a different volume, in which case the volume has to be specified (and there's probably a free version of that specific volume)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Jim Thanks! Actually, this is the text that was cited, and the source supports it. However, it is a google book link, and would be best to not include it as a url. The page number is provided anyways, so I think the readers would not be confused as to which page is cited (This revision history might be helpful in finding the links, as the google links were there :P). Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • You mention maximum diving time but you should mention average diving time too (ref no. 24 says 42 seconds)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ref no. 36 is cited wrong, at the very bottom of the pdf it says how to cite it (under "Abstract citation")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Added author and year, but not location since that's not required in citeweb Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a paid subscription, but I went to the page without signing in and all I could see was the first section (taxonomy) and the first two lines only of subsequent sections. Not sure how you are seeing the full text without paying Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sticking to HBW, one minute (few sources say one, few say three, few even say five). So, removed the mention of three minutes. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It might be better to say that the max time is disagreed upon and then list all the possible times   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ref no. 40 has a free version at but it doesn't make any mention of the word "loon"
  • Actually, you got the source right I think, but this is the actual citation, and shows the information present in the article. I do not know why your source is not showing any mention of loon. Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Is Animal Diversity Web a reliable ref? I'm asking because I vaguely remember someone telling me that it's not   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • the doi in ref no. 43 is not hyperlinking which makes me think that it's not formatted correctly   

User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • ref no. 45 has a free version at   

User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  • ref no. 48 has a free version at   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ref no. 50 has a free version at
  • ref no. 51 has a free version at
  • ref no. 52 has a free version at;jsessionid=34415B6690212049D72A044423158E0D?doi=
  • ref no. 53 has a free version at
  • remove the url from ref no. 55 since it doesn't link to a full version of the article, and it has a PMID of 28665230   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Linked to the full text now! Also, added pmid. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • the ref for the feather lice thing is from 50 years ago, is there are more recent ref you can use? It's not a problem if there isn't by the way   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • wikilink "acid rain," and has the loon's breeding range moved upward because of acid rain?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Linked to acid rain! Yeah, the range has move northward because the lakeshore habitat got polluted. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You might want to word it differently, it kind of looks like separate thoughts, like they moved northwards and also they're environment is harmed by acid rain, etc., instead of they moved northwards because of acid rain, etc.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's just the ADW ref and the fifty-year-old ref (but the second one is optional) and I can support. Also about the dive times, since there're multiple conflicting times from seemingly reputable sources, you might just want to list the 3 minute and the 5 minute dives also and say there's some controversy around it (but you don't have to)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Shyamal

  • The alternate name which redirects here is not included in the lead or marked in bold. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "... has varying levels of intensity and can be identified as type I, II, or III." This seems to be some kind of study-specific classification which makes sense if it is clarified but otherwise is uninformative. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Has different intensity values, which I did not write, as they seem to be very particular information. Removed the mention of the types. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Every male loon has a unique yodel, which changes if the loon changes territory" - Sounds contradictory but I have looked it up and it needs far more careful explanation and the main paper that looks at this in detail is worth reading, synthesizing and citing - . Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure it summarizes the results of the study - would suggest something along the lines of "...male that occupies a new territory appears to alter its yodel to be clearly distinguishable from the call of the previous territory owner." Shyamal (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "The common loon's breeding range has moved northward," ... a time scale is useful. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Heavy metals such as mercury may be partially removed from a bird's organs through excretion or deposition "... the sentence somehow suggests volition but I think this needs a rewrite with better choice of verbs which may need a little more reading/knowledge in/of general biology, especially on matters of toxicology - for instance a link to bio-magnification would make the next senten: ce a bit more easy to justify logically. Shyamal (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Thanks a ton for your review! Is there anything more you would like to suggest? Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Shyamal: If everything looks fine from your side, we could have your support. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I think this needs a re-examination by someone familiar with this species and its biology (Sorry if perhaps you are but I feel quite unsure of several aspects). I fixed a few things in the lead but there are still rather odd pieces here and there
  • This does not parse well for me - "The common loon swims gracefully on the surface, dives as well as any flying bird, and flies competently for hundreds of kilometres in migration" Shyamal (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Now just The common loon swims and dives well..., presumed comparison with penguins seems pointless even if true Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To add specifically, since it is a pursuit predator one would like to know about its vision
  • I see that points on nocturnality and diurnality are unanswered see for instance (now incorporated)
  • I have just had to research for myself that loons migrate by day - (now incorporated)
  • There are subtle differences in the use of the terms "single clutch" (a bunch of eggs) and "single brood" (a bunch of young) and for instance in the lead, one would prefer to use single brood, because, typically a clutch will be replaced if damaged.
Now fixed. Broods are not laid. Shyamal (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks a lot, Shyamal! That really helps... really tough FAC this one. Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the requirements of a tertiary source (like an encyclopaedic entry) is to lead readers to the most important primary and secondary sources ever published (and sometimes these may not be online). For instance, I have just looked at the journal entries in Google Scholar for "Gavia immer" with high citations and some of these are not cited in this article - for example this study on the pelvic musculature and doi:10.1007/FBF00023169 with 102 citations (now incorporated) - I am aware that not all reviewers have this expectation while examining FA and GA by the listed criteria. The only way this can be addressed is by making a near-complete bibliography and examining the sources.
  • I am not sure predators and parasites as a heading can accommodate other mortality sources such as disease (arguably also parasites!) - (incorporated)
  • {{I take your point, although in practice most bird FAs do include diseases under this heading. Not sure what would be better though. Adding "diseases" to the heading looks cumbersome, perhaps rename "Natural mortality", although that's out of step with other bird FAS. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • No mention of nurseries : - foot waggling :
  • "During the first , the bill shape of the young may not be as fully developed as that of the adult," - first winter?

Image review

No ALT text used anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus Good catch! The image three is actually a hbw map taking the base world map mentioned in the source section (the base map is not the actual range map, but only the normal world map on which colouring has been done). For image four, removed the "other versions" part, and also moved video! Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus Do you have any more comments on images, or is it a support image-wise? Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I do not generally explicitly support or oppose FAC nominations, consider this "no opposition" however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from MeegsC

  • The lead says nothing about its European breeding locations, referring only to its locations in North America and Iceland. Why?
Iceland is the main part of its European range, and the others are mentioned in the main text, but added them to lead also Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Can sentences 3 and 5 not be better integrated somehow?
  • I can't quite see what you are asking here. Perhaps other edits may have changed the sentence numbering? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead bounces back and forth from single (it) to multiple (breeding adults). One or the other consistently would be better.
  • I've changed to consistently plural except where the text is clearly referring to the species as such. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Least concern but special status? Tell me briefly why in the lead.
  • "The sexes appear alike." Aren't males larger? Perhaps "The sexes look alike, though males are significantly larger and heavier than females." would be more apt.
  • Is there really no dictionary available to use as sources for the etymology of "loon" and "diver" that doesn't require a subscription or a UK library card?!
  • I think it's generally accepted that OED is an authoritative source on etymology, especially first uses, and many sources like journals odon't have free access to text. What did you have in mind? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • What about the possibility of "loon" coming from Scandinavian words for "lame" or "clumsy", as suggested in HBW?
  • OED has a separate entry and etymology for "loon" to refer to a clumsy person rather than the bird, and even that doesn't support the derivation you suggest. I don't think HBW is an authoritative source for etymology Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The url for reference 10 does not go to the specified source. Was this perhaps copied from loon without checking it?
    I did find the ref at this link, but there is nothing here that backs up these sentences.
  • Guilty as charged, I'm afraid, but I think my changes in response to your next comment solve this anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • According to reference 11, the ancient usage of Gavia probably refered to terns, not smews! Again, was this just copied from loon?
  • There's a lot of confusion here, gulls being another suggested ID. I've settled for Jobling's conclusion that the species can't be identified and replaced the previous refs 10, 11 and 12 with his most authoritative book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Was the common loon really in Colymbus until the 1960s? (I doubt it; Forster created Gavia for the loons in 1788.)

More to come... MeegsC (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Of course, the fact that the genus Gavia existed then doesn't necessarily preclude some authorities using Colymbus, presumably why the ICZN felt it necessary to make a decision, intending to close a controversy centred around the generic name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) which for seventy years had divided the ornithologists of the Old World and the New, the former using this name for the Divers (Loons), the latter for the Grebes. The link to the text seems to have become truncated at some stage, so you might not have seen that, fixed now. I'll see if I have anything to illustrate late use of Colymbus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This 1947 article uses Colymbus for the loons only a few years before the ICZN ruling. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added a link to a 1951 article as a note to make it clear that this was a live issue right up to the ICZN ruling Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is generally a fine article, and a topic important enough that I would love to see it get to FAC status. In looking over some previous GA nominations by Adityavagarwal, I've raised concerns multiple times about close paraphrasing and/or references that only support part of what they are used for. Given that, I would ideally like to see a spot check of the sources here. I'm rather busy at the moment, so I'm posting this in the hope that somebody else will undertake such a check. If that does not happen, I will do my best to perform such a check soon, as I understand you may wish to wrap this up by October 31. Please understand that I've no wish to be a dampener on this process, nor am I suggesting any bad faith whatsoever: I merely wish to be certain that due care has been taken. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Craig Kieswetter

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Craig Kieswetter was one of those England cricketers who bounced in and out of the team. He had a good run in one-day cricket early in his career, and was man of the match in the final when England won the World Twenty20, the first one-day trophy won by the team. He later lost his England place to one of his Somerset team-mates. At domestic level, he was one of Somerset's star players until he was struck in the eye by the ball, ending his career prematurely.

This article underwent a GA review by Sturmvogel 66, who helped to reduce the amount of jargon used, or at least reminded me to explain it or wikilink it. Relentlessly very kindly copy-edited the article, both improving the quality of the prose, and identifying a number of areas where the referencing fell short. Crisco 1492 took a quick look at the images. The last FAC stalled a bit, but I think I have addressed all the points raised at that nomination by Dweller, and have returned for another shot. Since the last review, Kieswetter has started a career as a professional golfer, and I have added some information about that, though there is little to say so far. Harrias talk 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Recusing as coordinator on this one. A few thoughts on the lead (which I copyedited; please revert anything you don't like) to begin with, more later. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • "after qualifying for the England cricket team": Do we need to say something more about this? The general reader might struggle to understand this, but I'm not sure the lead is the place to spell it out.
  • Per the final point here as well, I've cut this from the opening paragraph. The second paragraph spells it out a bit more, and it isn't needed here too. Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "a lack of progression": Similar issue here. I think the general reader will be lost by this. Maybe lack of opportunity?
  • Yup, changed. Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, we repeat the information in the first paragraph later on in the lead. I think we could trim that first paragraph right back to a description of his role and stats. The rest is duplicated later. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You're right, I've got into a bad habit of using the opening paragraph of the lead as a "mini-lead", in which I summarise the rest of the lead. I've cut a couple of bits out, how does it seem now? Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten this, and hope to get back to it this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "he scored a relatively modest 606 first-class runs at an average of 31.89": If we are going to talk about relative success, we should be citing something which compares him, such as the Somerset averages. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:45, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Changed and added a source for this. Harrias talk 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "He played all ten matches for the Warriors, scoring 199 runs at an average of 22.11, including two half-centuries.": Apparently uncited at the end of a paragraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Added a reference. Harrias talk 09:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In the playing style section, there look to be one or two terms that would benefit from linking, such as off side and square.
  • I also wonder do we need a touch more on his wicketkeeping. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I recall him being a pretty terrible keeper. Were there any technical discussion of his keeping about why he was not the best?
  • This is an interesting one, because the little bits I've found suggest he was the best gloveman out of the list below! Want to find more on this before I put anything in though. Harrias talk 20:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sarastro1: I've looked around this a bit more, and there is really very little written. I wonder if it might be worth mentioning the "modern wicket-keeper", who is a batsman first and a wicket-keeper second; possibly referencing Gilchrist as the man who really solidified this change in attitude? Therefore it was primarily batting talent that decided his place, not keeping ability. I just don't know if that is too much to go into for an article about one person. (That isn't Gilchrist.) Harrias talk 15:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd be wary of too much Gilchrist, unless it was an article in which it discusses how he changed the role of wicketkeeping. I've certainly read something like that before, but I'll be damned if I can remember where! Ideally, it would mention Kieswetter, but if it's just on the role of the keeper, that would be fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there anything in particular about his batting technique, especially if he had problems against the moving ball?
    • @Sarastro1: I've added a bit more about his batting technique and a little about his keeping, though there is little specificity, more a comparison between him and Buttler/Bairstow, which might link to the point below slightly. Let me know what you think. Harrias talk 10:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • On the ODI keeper tangle between him, Buttler, Bairstow and Prior, is there anything else? The article looks a little light as it took quite a while to settle.
    • What I added above covered this a little, but I'm not sure how much more should be added. Articles and articles and articles were written about it, but ultimately, they all just rehashed the same things over and over, which is mostly included in the discussion about his technique above. It doesn't seem appropriate to put much about the other players technique in here, so the only avenue to add much more would seem to be talk about Kieswetter playing (or, rather, not playing) Test cricket? Harrias talk 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Other than the quotes we already have, are there any comments from colleagues/coaches about him or his effectiveness? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I can't find a great deal online for this. I'll have a look through some of the year books against for this point when I return from holiday. Harrias talk 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added a little, but most of the rest of what I can find it pretty bland stuff. Harrias talk 14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise looking OK. I'll be happy to support once these issues have been addressed. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Added a couple of simple ones; the Somerset year book will probably be the best thing for comparison, so I'll check that at home. Will look into the latter points, which require more research. Harrias talk 09:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Support: This is a very well put together summary of Kieswetter's career. Just a couple of minor nitpicks below which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I still wonder about "relatively modest"; the source is good, but I still think we need to say relative to what; his previous form? The form of his teammates?
  • "worked on his batting, which had been described by Steve James as a "frenzy at the crease, as manic as a teenager on a night out"" Would this be better as "working on his batting technique"? Otherwise I'm not quite sure it makes sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Very little at issue here. The sources apppear to be of appropriate authority and reliablility for a cricketer biography. The only nit I can find to pick is that refs 15 and 59 seem to be lacking publisher details.

Otherwise all well. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brianboulton. Not sure how I managed to omit those details; added in now. Harrias talk 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, though neither was actually dead. Harrias talk 14:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Both where dead when I checked them, odd. Oh well... (tJosve05a (c) 14