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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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



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

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

This article is about the fourth studio album by American rock group Marilyn Manson (band). I've edited the article significantly since it was last nominated here [it's been nominated a total of 6 times since 2011], and I believe it meets the FA criteria. This would be my second FA, after The Pale Emperor. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Damn. I've accidentally created an eighth archive. Can an admin please delete it? Sorry. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

M-1 (Michigan highway)

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

Pacific blue-eye

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the second fish I caught and the first I kept in a fish tank. A common and hardy little critter. It's as complete as I can make it. Anyway, have at it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird

I'm very close to supporting this outright, just a few quibbles:

  • from a specimen collected in Sydney and taken to Vienna by the SMS Novara in 1858. You need to make it clear that the date 1858 was for the collection and not the taking to Vienna - presumably it didn't reach Vienna till the Novara Expedition finished in 1859. It might be worth briefly mentioning that it was colected on that expedition.
duly tweaked - the Novara Expedition is unfortunately a redirect Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You're usually very thorough, but I'll check - any information about its closest relatives in its genus?
Cant' find anything - we have infraspecific analysis but no infrageneric.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I figured if there was you would have included it, but I had to ask. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Alternative names include southern blue-eye and northern blue-eye.[7] - why not make it explicit which subspecies goes with which common name - it is obvious but it would fill out a very short paragraph. Otherwise maybe move common names to after where you introduce the trinomials
Here's the (annoying) thing. I can't find a ref that explicitly states which name goes with what. Also, the species itself is the southernmost so the name "southern blue-eye" I cannot exclude being used for the species as a whole. I might have to try some offline sources.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • noxious introduced eastern mosquitofish I can find no evidence that this species is poisonous.
By noxious I mean highly invasive and deleterious to local species (which it is).... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise all good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Support. Happy with those answers (well, I still think noxious means poisonous). Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, term "noxious" meaning "destructive" applied to Tilapia fish Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Metallurgical Laboratory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerome, Arizona

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the boom and bust town of Jerome, Arizona, site of two of the richest copper deposits ever discovered. William A. Clark, one of the Copper Kings of Montana, owned the first, and James Douglas, Jr., a friend of Georges Clemenceau, owned the second. Both men financed mines, railroads, smelters, and company towns (Clarksville and Clemenceau) in or near Jerome. When the mines played out, the workers left, and Jerome's population shrank from about 5,000 in 1930 to about 250 in 1960. Today the town is home to about 450 people who rely mainly on a tourist economy. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: in light of this RfC, some additional sourcing will be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That RfC, which I had never seen before, squares with what I think about trivia sections. I have eliminated the "In popular culture" section entirely. Finetooth (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Another editor has reverted my deletion, and I have written to him here to explain the section deletion and to ask him to reconsider. Finetooth (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a case you may not have heard of if you are not an American lawyer. If you have, and you hear the name of this case, very likely you will respond with "the package exploded" or "the scales hit her" or similar, because it did and they did and this is a case you remember. I've tried to be sensitive to recent commentary on the case and give due attention to the people of Palsgraf.Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Smurrayinchester

What an odd case! From a modern perspective, the fact that no-one seems to have cared much about the guy who actually brought live explosives to a busy rail station seems very strange. A few comments:

  • In the intro, "assail" seems like too violent a word (although maybe it's normal in legal commentary).
  • "But in the process, the man lost the package, which dropped and exploded, apparently containing fireworks." Sentence seems to have got mangled in editing. The "apparently containing fireworks" should be earlier in the sentence, and presumably it fell and exploded.
  • "She testified to trembling for several days, and then the stammering started." As written, it sounds like the stammering started after the testifying.
  • "The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Benjamin N. Cardozo, was a judge who was greatly respected; he would end his life on the U.S. Supreme Court, the second Jew to serve there." "End his life there" sounds like he committed suicide there. "he would serve on the U.S. Supreme Court until his death" would be clearer. "The second Jew to serve there" is a dangling modifier (in general, I find the article's repeated mentions of the ethnic background of the judges odd, since it doesn't seem relevant to the case, but I guess it's no less relevant than the rest of their biographical history).
I felt Cardozo's Judaism was relevant and so mentioned it, I did not mention it in the case of Lazansky.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Another editor has cut it. I'm not putting it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Though some state courts outside New York approved it, others did not, sometimes feeling that foreseeability was a jury question." This feels like legalese that may not be clear to lay readers - it's not clear to me what a "jury question" means here.
Hope these are useful. Smurrayinchester 11:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, and images need alt text. Smurrayinchester 11:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I've dealt with those. I agree it is an odd case.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Smurrayinchester 08:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Seal_of_the_New_York_Court_of_Appeals.svg should include a copyright tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I've dealt with that. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

  • Support subject to quibbles. A most interesting and informative account, and not just for lawyers. I have, as ever, a few minor points relating to style and presentation, and for many of these it's a question of personal preference.
  • The semicolon in line 1 of para 2 looks to me to be at a natural sentence-end, and should therefore be replaced with (what we Brits call) a full stop.
  • In the same para I feel that the penultimate sentence (beginning "Cardozo wrote...") might benefit from a split.
  • Some of the detail appears at first sight to be rather trivial and irrelevant. e.g. "on a warm summer's day"; Helen Palsgraf's exact address (why do we need to know this?): "having paid the necessary fare" – this presumably to establish that she was a bona fide customer of the railway but the casual reader might not pick this up. Later in the article we are told the office addresses of the respective lawyers Wood and Keany (the latter of whom is a purely nominal figure in the case) – again, why do we need to know where they had their offices? I also think that the information regarding Palsgraf's separation from her tinsmith husband would be better placed when you first introduce her into the narrative, rather than tagged on to the end of this paragraph.
It's to emphasize the point made by Noonan and his school, that Palsgraf has been dealt with by the legal community without regard to the human beings involved. Although Palsgraf comes on as fascinating to each new year of law students, it rests on a mudsill of very real human tragedy to Mrs. Palsgraf. Keany is purely nominal, but he is listed as counsel for the LIRR in the court's opinion, and I felt I had to treat him briefly even though he apparently did not personally appear. Such things are usual in the law, I tried cases for years against the County Attorney's office but never in court against the County Attorney himself, who was always listed as counsel of record. The warm day is needed as it is a possible reason the train was running with doors open, and also there is a legend that the day was very hot, which it wasn't. As for the paying for the ticket, Cardozo mentions it and he's pared down the statement of facts to the essentials (possibly not even that) so like any good lawyer, I cite precedent.
  • "...the Gerhardts also sued the railroad, with Wood as their counsel": since you mention this, it might be worth adding a brief note summarising the outcome of this action.
The source doesn't say but I doubt they had much luck. The 'decision in Palsgraf would have defeated their case. Any injury to Mrs. Gerhardt would be even more remote than the injury to Mrs. Palsgraf.
  • Perhaps clarify that Judge Posner's opinion is not contemporary with the case, but was expressed much later. I also wonder what particular status he had/has, which makes his comment particularly significant?
He is prominent enough that most lawyers would be on a "heard of him" basis, and I see this article primarily aimed at lawyers and law students. Who else would've heard of Palsgraf? And there's a link. I've made it clear he's later.
Initial appeal
  • The first para begins: "The case was then heard before the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, for the Second Department..."; the second paragraph begins: "The case was argued before the Appellate Division in Brooklyn on October 21, 1927." Are these two sentences describing the same process, or two different stages of the process? If the former, I suggest you move the date to the earlier sentence and perhaps ditch the second sentence altogether. Otherwise, a little more clarification of a two-stage process is needed.
"Heard" is a fairly broad term in the law, equivalent to "considered". I've rephrased
  • In the second paragraph the information that the court affirmed the lower court's verdict appears at the beginnong and at the end. The second mention is redundant.
Cardozo's majority opinion
  • Who is "Professor Walter O. Weyrauch"?
Holding and discussion
  • I find this heading a little cryptic. I assume that the word "holding" is legalspeak for the establishment of some point in law, as in "It was held that...", but the term is a strange one to us non-lawyers and I wonder if it could be phrased more demotically.

Otherwise, congratulations on a fascinating article. I'll add a sources review later, unless someone else gets in first. Brianboulton (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and support. I've made those changes or at least played with it, except as noted.

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoriaearle

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

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

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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

Support Comments from Cas Liber

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

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

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

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

Comments from Johnbod

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

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

Re the images - am intending to redo tonight per your suggestion. Re the lead; see comments above; also on my radar! Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any good reproductions to crop from. This is always an issue with the Groeningemuseum. Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

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


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


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


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


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


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

Style and format

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


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


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

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

Cheers Gerda, glad you like the painting. Will be getting to these very helpful points this evening. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

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

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


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

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

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester

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

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Bach cantata, again, his very original approach to set the Magnificat by using the German, partly paraphrased version and quoting the Gregorian chant tune, - the only time he did such a thing: write a "chorale fantasia" not on a rhymed hymn but the chant. He did so at the beginning of his most ambitious project, the chorale cantata cycle, of which the work is the fifth cantata. I took the liberty to expand a bit on that beginning, as I compiled the chorale cantatas on Luther's hymns for the previous FAC, Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125. (Other "featured" Bach cantatas have included BWV 172 and BWV 165.) Expanding the article was another attempt to focus on 500 years Reformation in 2017. The article received a recent GA review by The Rambling Man. Much more could be said in an article, such as comparing it to Bach's Latin Magnificat, and about the movements, - the sources are there, but I feel it might be too much detail for general readers. I am open to discussion. Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

  • Oppose promotion to FA: too many idiosyncracies, and edit-warring forum shopping has begun to keep them in ([1]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    I live on voluntary 1RR, and began a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    Please keep discussions in one place: I raised the issue here, please don't open the same discussion at another forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't. I opened it before I even saw your comment here, and I believe that Classical music is the better forum than FAC. It concerns all Bach works, and it has nothing to do with FA criteria. All previous FAs on Bach's cantatas have BWV bold. It's approved quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    But you agree I opened this discussion before yours, so there's no problem in closing discussions in the two other places with a link to here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    Gerda now opened the same discussion in a fourth venue (which I promptly closed). @Gerda Arendt: please stop the forum shopping / disallowed canvassing: how many times have I linked to that guidance? How much did you learn since? Not much, apparently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    On the content and layout of the lead paragraph (which we still seem to be discussing in several places at the same time) I'd propose something in this vein:
    Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, based on Luther's German Magnificat. Consequently, the cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He composed it for the Feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724, which was the fifth occasion for a cantata of his second year in Leipzig. Like most of the other cantatas of his second year in Leipzig it was composed as a chorale cantata. In principle such a cantata is based on a specific Lutheran chorale. Luther's German Magnificat is however not a chorale: its melody is a psalm tone, and thus lacks the metre and harmonic structure which are typical for chorales. Nonetheless, the process with which Bach adopted text and melody of Luther's German Magnificat into his Meine Seel erhebt den Herren cantata was the same as the one he used for adopting chorales into the other cantatas of his chorale cantata cycle.
    Advantages of this approach:
    • Less cluttered lead sentence:
      • The translation of the text incipit is not copyrighted – it is a standard English translation of the opening sentence of the Magnificat (like the opening sentence of the cantata is a standard German translation of the same), e.g. Wikipedia uses it without reference or copyright notice in the lead sentence of the Magnificat article (hence I linked to that article from the English translation for those who are unaware of the cultural reference of this English sentence): that translation has been around way before Dellal put it on her website in 2012, so the first numbered footnote with the reference to that website can be omitted from the lead sentence (it can be put in the section that talks about the text of the cantata if it isn't already there).
      • Less boldface (less frequently used synonyms don't necessarily need boldface)
      • No explanatory footnote: such footnote can (and should per WP:ACRO) be replaced by a wikilink for the first occurrence of the BWV acronym
      • Luther (i.e. last name only) would be clear to most readers in the context, and if not the first name (Martin) would probably not help much for those readers who don't know who this person is (link would need to be clicked anyway).
    • Luther(an) context clear from first sentence (which over-all, apart from the music being composed by Bach, is probably the most significant general aspect of the context of this cantata)
    • Next I'd talk about the occasion (Visitation) and the chorale cantata format (will try something that is better organised and readable than the current lead paragraph if nobody else does so with a solution I can sympathise with) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    In a FAC, with several people commenting and making changes, you will never be able to maintain one position. The disadvantages of your lead sentence that I see are:
    • It is not consistent with other articles on Bach cantatas, FA, GA, and others.
    • Specifically: it lacks an early mentioning of time and place, for me the minimum service an article should give a reader.
    • Also specifically: It lacks BWV 10 in bold, which is 1) part of the article title, 2) an incoming link, 3) something not German, 4) distinguishing this article from Luther's.
    • I don't see the "consequently" sourced in the article, and met the term German Magnificat in none of the sources I used, so believe it's not even needed to mention it in the lead, and if mentioned, no need to bold it.
    Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Re. " will never be able to maintain one position" – of course this is something I welcome.
    I completed my first draft of the intro rewrite proposal now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for your suggestion. The points above, worded earlier for only its first sentence, still apply. Please see also below that the article reads too technical. A previous FAC demanded that we don't surprise the reader with the "Easter egg" church cantata (going to the highly specialized Church cantata (Bach)), but establish Bach cantata first. A random reader should be told early that we deal with Leipzig in 1724, - we can't take knowledge about where Bach did what when for granted. I'd hesitate to mention Magnificat before clarifying Visitation. Please read how strange the term Magnificat is for some of our readers, on this Magnificat talk. I'd also prefer a sense of chronology: nobody at Bach's time would have talked about a "German Magnificat", therefore I'd mention it much later, and probably not bold. That term doesn't appear in books by Dürr, Wolff and Jones, but yes in the preface by Großpietsch. To me, it looks like an attempt to set this German Magnificat apart from the Latin one, and perhaps where that is mentioned in the article would be a good position to mention the term. The greatest difference seems to be that the Latin was repeated for high holidays, and revised, while the German seems restricted to Visitation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Other suggestions:
      1. The article doesn't explain very clearly why Luther's German Magnificat isn't a chorale (it being in a bible translation is hardly the reason). FYI: Metre (hymn) explains that a hymn (or chorale) has a metre: Luther's German Magnificat has no such metre for the text, nor has the melody to which it is sung a metre in the musical sense. Hence the melody also has no Zahn number, while it is in fact a reciting tone (reciting tones have no metrical structure). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        This point needs attention: the intro has been changed twice now regarding this (change 1comment 1; change 2comment 2)... I suppose these changes without understanding what this is about will keep recurring until the explanation in the body of the article is updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      2. Language should be clearer in the article: Luther's German Magnificat is called a chorale throughout, apart from the single sentence that says it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        Good idea, I used now "reciting tone", alternatively with "psalm tone" (which was already there), and placed "chorale" in quotation marks to indicate it's not strictly a chorale. Do you have a suggestion for saying that Bach (of course) gave the psalm tone a meter? Can we still say "chorale fantasia"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        Another point: while the English "chorale" seems not to include Luther's German Magnificat, the German Choral does, just compare Gregorianischer Choral (de), Choralbuch (de), Choralschola etc. That is the the culture in which Bach composed. Could that be explained? If yes, the lead seems not the right place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        Zahn classified what he called "Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder", giving each a number. Luther's German Magnificat (and its melody) is not included in that classification. So one can safely say that it is not a "deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied", in other words (while it is certainly "deutsch" and "evangelisch"), not a chorale. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
        Do you realize that the German word Choral is not restricted to "German Protestant Hymn" (Deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied) but includes Latin chant before the Reformation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Dürr/Jones 2006, p. 32: "In ... BWV 10 ... the melody is no longer that of a hymn ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      3. I suppose Spitta discusses the cantata somewhere? Maybe a summary of such discussion or at least a page number of where he discusses it (preferably of the English edition) would be welcome? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
        Feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
        Spitta is probably the key to the (erroneous) "c. 1940" date of the LOC website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        (ec) Good point, I will use the sources you kindly provided, but not immediately (see below), - you are also welcome to do it yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        Now two sources are added, and 1740 is not mentioned in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        Spitta's erroneous chronology is at pp. 89–99, and endnote 3 (p. 285ff.) in Vol. 3 of the English edition. In both cases BWV 10 happens to be the 25th of the listed cantatas. (for clarity this is neither of the sources Gerda mentions in her comment immediately above – this history of the chronology is not yet in the Wikipedia article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      4. [2] --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        (ec) What do you think is not complete in the sentence in "A critical edition was published by Carus in 2009", which is expanded by a clause on who edited, and another that it came with a singable version + the title of that version. Feel free to improve the grammar. - It would be more transparent (generally speaking), if you'd repeat your concerns here, instead of just a diff. - "non sequitur" - I understand it, but kindly use less Latin. I don't understand what doesn't follow, though. - Also generally: I appreciate copy-edits and suggestions, but please don't put too much in one edit, again for transparency. Thank you for striking the alleged edit-warring which was about one single revert as you say yourself below. - I would normally put such information for you and only you on your talk, but that was deemed "opened the same discussion in a fourth venue" and "forum shopping / disallowed canvassing" above. Can we try to stick to content? - This weekend, I have little time, - both "my" groups sing in a mass, + I will listen to a concert tomorrow. It's not that I neglect this, but also no rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        Sorry about the Latin... {{non sequitur}} is however the English Wikipedia name of the template that seemed most appropriate to indicate the situation (see template documentation by clicking the link). The half sentence tagged with that template is however not a continuation of the "Carus"-related sentence. That previous sentence ends with a period (followed by a reference), after which the "non sequitur" half-sentence starts without a capital letter. There is no apparent relation between the half-sentence and the preceding full sentence: they speak about different publishers (Carus vs. Bärenreiter) and different editors (Großpietsch vs. Uwe Wolf). The English translation seemingly mentioned in the context of the Bärenreiter publication ("Now my soul exalts the Lord"), is also not the same as the one mentioned for the Carus publication ("Magnify the Lord, my soul") --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        Fixed, I hope. I must have inadvertently deleted the beginning of the second sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        I see in a hidden comment that you'd like more clarification. What I see is that Großpietsch is named editor of the Carus edition, which I think is no conflict to Wolf being chief editor, - the chief editor can't do everything. The later Bärenreiter clearly lists Wolf as the editor, but do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited? - Could you please raise questions here, not in a hidden comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited?" – I don't know, but it seems rather unlikely that Wolf, while being a Chief Editor at Carus, would produce a new critical edition for Carus' competitor Bärenreiter. My guess is that Bärenreiter recycled Wolf's 1995 critical edition of the score (I also don't suppose the English translation of the libretto was a new one for the 2015 publication), and published it with a new introduction (the introduction of the 2015 edition is not by Wolf), thus producing something that could be sold as "new". Now, none of this can go to Wikipedia's mainspace without references to reliable sources (the story might still be different from what I suppose it to be), but that Wolf would have produced "another" critical edition for Bärenreiter's 2015 publication, i.e. another one than the one he had produced in 1995, is currently unsourced (no reliable source seems to say that), and what reliable sources say seems to go in another direction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        I tried it differently, making it a reissue. Where would we find if the first NBA had an English version? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        NBA editions are in German exclusively (not a word in English before the NBArev sequel). Here's what usually happens: a NBA volume is, on first publication, a new critical & Urtext edition, usually containing several compositions (e.g. 4 or 5 cantatas). Shortly after that, Bärenreiter publishes (outside the "complete editions" series, so in this case outside the NBA set of publications) extracts (e.g. separate cantatas), performance parts, translations, vocal scores (i.e. voices with a piano reduction instead of the full orchestral score), etc. based on the new Urtext (they don't wait 20 years with that). I documented that for Bach's Magnificat (see Magnificat (Bach)#20th century, start of second paragraph of that section). I suspect the English translation of BWV 10 being published in the late 20th century, with maybe the only new addition to the 2015 publication being a new introduction (if such introduction contains some updates to the former critical commentary the whole publication can be sold as a "new" critical edition...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        I thought the "reissue" solved that problem, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        Yes and no: what we get now is a somewhat WP:WEASELy declaration that may or may not be correct: I "suspect" the English translation of the 2015 edition not being new at that time, but for a FA grade article I expect clear information: when was that particular English translation first published (still possible that Bärenreiter had a new English translation produced for their 2015 edition), and who was the translator? I suppose some footwork is needed, e.g. Anna-Lena Bulgrin's introduction of that edition may be enlightening (is there no way to find it in a library or so?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        I don't believe that we need the name of the translator, nor the date of translation. Nice to have, when available, but not adding much, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "hidden comment":
        1. It is not "hidden", it shows up on mouseover (one does not need to go to edit mode to read it);
        2. Sorry, was in a hurry when I wrote it
        3. Nonetheless, I'll use tags and/or comments here whatever works most efficiently to make clear what a problem is (won't write a paragraph here when I see a straightforward issue that can be made clear with a simple tag) and/or will solve the issue myself when I have time to do it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        I had no idea about the mouseover, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      5. "He performed it at least once more in the 1740s":
        1. This sentence is in the Readings, text and tune section: a first suggestion is to place this somewhere else in the article or, alternatively, update the section title while this information doesn't fit in the readings, text or tune domain. The same goes for the preceding sentence ("Bach first performed the cantata on 2 July 1724"): that information is already elsewhere in the article, with other references (so maybe this sentence can be removed from this section, and applicable references grouped with where this information is first introduced after the lead section). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          Good point, a section "Performances" might be a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          For now, the performance on 2 July 1724 is mentioned early, and no other because doubtful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
          Currently the article provides the context of the Visitation/Magnificat compositions of 1723 (period of Bach's first cantata cycle) – maybe an idea to cast that "context" net a bit wider: Magnificats and Visitation cantatas associated with Bach which were performed in Leipzig before his first cantata cycle and/or after his second cantata cycle (if solid sourcing turns up for a 1740s performance of BWV 10 that can be added to the overview):
          1. 1715 or earlier: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV Anh. 21 (Nicknamed "Little Magnificat", BDW 1329, by Bach's predecessor Melchior Hoffmann)
          2. Visitation cantata (no date): Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189 (the text of this cantata is a Magnificat paraphrase, its composer may be Bach or Hoffmann, and the cantata has audio files at Commons)
          3. Visitation 1725: Meine Seele erhebet den Herrn, BWV deest (BDW 1672, libretto extant, not certain whether Bach composed its music – if so it may belong to his third cycle)
          4. Visitation 1726: Der Herr wird ein Neues im Lande, JLB 13 (BDW 8303, performed by Bach, associated with his third cycle)
          5. Visitation 1728: Meine Seele erhebt den Herrn (libretto extant, third cantata of Bach's fourth cantata cycle)
          6. c. 1733 (Visitation?): second version of the Magnificat, BWV 243
          7. Early 1740s: Bach copies and modifies Caldara's Latin Magnificat for performance (the modified movement is BWV 1082, i.e. BDW 1268)
          8. Around 1742 Bach copies a Latin Magnificat for double SATB choir (BWV Anh. 30, BDW 1338)
          Not sure whether all of these need to be mentioned, but at least the Visitation cantatas of 1725 and 1726 seem interesting enough to mention (if we mention the Magnificat/Visitation cantatas of the preceding first cycle, seems only logical to also mention those of the ensuing third cycle). I'd only mention the early 1740s Latin Magnificats if a repeat performance of Bach's German Magnificat around the same time can be ascertained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
          Feel free to write that section, and be a conom. I thought that it was good to know what Bach had done before (not later). The readers interested can find most of the information in Church cantata (Bach) under Visitation. This article is for readers of this cantata. Again, what do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        2. Gardiner 2010, the only reference given for the 1740s performance, is a concert program (CD booklet of a concert recording?) that doesn't cite any research as basis for its assertions. I submit that a concert program or liner notes not citing any sources are insufficient WP:V-wise for this assertion (not even talking about the possible COPYVIO of the site that presents the PDF of this text linked to from Wikipedia). This ties in with "1740"-related issues probably based on obsolete 19th-century assumptions already mentioned before: sources contradict, and Wikipedia's current partial rendering of that contradicting information appears (at least) confusing to the reader and/or substandard for a FA candidate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          The information about a second performance "1740s" or "between 1740 and 1747" is found in many other sources, even distinguishing use of the CF instrument in #5 for both versions. I will look. Comment out so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          Suggesting two more sources (mentioned at the Bach Digital Work page 0012):
          • Dürr Chr 2 (i.e. "Alfred Dürr. Zur Chronologie der Leipziger Vokalwerke J. S. Bachs, 2. Auflage: Mit Anmerkungen und Nachträgen versehener Nachdruck aus Bach­-Jahrbuch 1957. Kassel, 1976"), p. 16.
          • NBA I/28.2 – Critical report (1995), p. 67
          Alas I have currently access to neither, but they may be instrumental in getting the confusion sorted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
      6. "Selected recordings" section
        1. I don't like to see the word "Selected" in a section title: a "selection" is always someone's POV, thus in most cases not compatible with the WP:NPOV content policy. Suggested title for such a section: either "Discography" or "Recordings". Neither or these titles suggests necessarily a full list of *all* recordings, but it is more open-ended for future updates. Also: what if the list of recordings happens to be "complete"? – calling it a "selection" seems silly then. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for the actual guidance of what I'm trying to explain in short with my own words here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          Selected recordings is the present title in all Bach cantata articles (including FA and GA) where the listing is not complete. Would you have a better suggestion? Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete. I'd be interested what others think. The selection here (of those listed by Bach-Cantatas) was made because a complete list seems too long. The criterion is simply that the conductor is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The more complete listing from Bach-Cantatas is easily seen and can be compared, and more added, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. "Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete" – imho your understanding is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        2. The current selection criterion for inclusion in the list (being listed "on the Bach-Cantatas website") is imho a wrong approach. Each listed recording should have its own reference, and for a FA candidate I expect more than a copy-paste (with added layout and wikilinks) of a list found elsewhere on the web. Has none of these recordings, for instance, been discussed in a magazine like Gramophone? Wikipedia should give more information than just a plain list copied from elsewhere (see e.g. the 7th point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          The section appears like that in most other articles on Bach cantatas, including FA (exception BWV 4) and GA. It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles. It would be no problem to give each line it's reference, but seems needlessly complicated. - What would a review add? Should we link to the complete cycles of some of the conductors? It's in Bach cantata, and some have their own articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. "It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles" – too much of a "let's create a WP:LINKFARM" argument to my taste. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
          Revisiting this suggestion: the situation is a bit more complicated (and worse) than I thought: a Wikipedia editor selected (without clear selection criteria) 15 recordings out of the 21 at the Bach cantatas website:
          1. It is wrong to base a selection on a single source (e.g. this webpage lists over 30: some are obviously re-issues, but the Bach-Cantatas website is not the only one listing recordings) – this is what I already wrote about above
          2. Any list should have clear inclusion criteria: "some Wikipedia editor made a selection" is the opposite of such clearly established criteria (e.g. if in 2018 there is a new recording issued an editor shouldn't have to wait until the Bach-Cantatas website is updated before they can add it to the list in Wikipedia) – for that that reason I added a tag to the article ([3] oops, made a typo in the edit summary, this is in fact additional suggestion No. 6). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
            See above: the selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor. - The listing is compatible with other FA articles. - I don't see anybody writing a PDF of that list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
            Re. "selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor":
            • These selection criteria are not clear for the reader of the article (thus falling short of the guidance on introductory paragraphs for lists)
            • Notability is not "inherited" (I): the most famous conductor does not necessarily make the most memorable recording for every work they have on their repertoire, or the other way around: the most memorable recording is not necessarily made by the conductor that is over-all most famous.
            • Notability is not "inherited" (II): this is also a Wikipedia principle regarding notability (see e.g. WP:Notability), thus this would make a bad selection criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Further, was Ton Koopman a famous conductor in the 20th century (his 1999 recording is listed) but no longer in the 21st century (his 2003 recording is not listed)? – so the criterion, besides being questionable, further also appears to have been applied subjectively... --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
            You may not like it but the way to present the recordings has a tradition of more than ten years (long before I edited), compare 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015. If you want to change it, approach the project. This article should be consistent with other articles on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
            Re. "the recordings have been listed in such a way for more than ten years" ([4]) – the rules for such lists have changed a lot in the last 10 years, so much so that until this morning a relevant policy page linked to sections in guidance which no longer exist (instead of linking to the up-to-date guidance). The discography section has to conform to current guidelines when considering a FA promotion today. Whether or not it conforms to former or outdated guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style – I don't see why one should talk to a project that declares its guidance dormant while policy- and guideline-level guidance is available) is not the assessment we're making today. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
            Several FAs are like this (I don't count, but must be more than five, some listed above, for comparison). Around 150 cantatas are like this. I talk about tradition and consistency for the reader. If we get new rules which I think are detrimental for the reader, I will question them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        3. The last column of the table ("Instr.") gives in fact additional information, not found on the Bach-Cantatas webpage. That information is however completely unreferenced (as the only reference for the entire section is to that Bach-Cantatas webpage). Hence my suggestion to give individual references per row, in which case the reference should at least cover all information of the row. However, see also my suggestion in 7.2 below if wanting to avoid footnotes in the table itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          The information about period instruments is taken from the article about the ensemble. References could be copied from there, but it seems blowing up the sourcing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Most of my line of approach above can be summarized by pointing out that the current "Selected recordings" section seems to be failing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines (e.g. " is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points", see also suggestion 7.2 below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      7. Provisions for a table-less layout: Wikipedia's PDF export function omits all tables, so it makes sense to check whether the article would work sufficiently well without them. I have two suggestions in that respect:
        1. Explanations about tables that are in the article (a table's legend, or, for instance the second paragraph of Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#Structure and scoring: "In the following table ... ") can be enveloped in an otherwise invisible table so that the table-less version of the article doesn't give an explanation about a "table" that isn't there. Here is the syntax that can be used:
          ...[table explanation goes here]...
        2. A table's content can be summarized (with adequate references) outside the table's syntax: for instance the section on recordings can have an introduction mentioning some recordings that have additional sources (that is outside being listed at the Bach-Cantatas website). This has a double advantage: the table doesn't need to be cluttered with footnotes, and in those layouts where no tables are shown at least the recordings that received most press coverage are mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      8. The reception of a piece is about more than scores (manuscripts + editions) and recordings. E.g. at the 2003 Leipzig Bach Festival Ton Koopman presented three Magnificats (BWV 10, BWV 243a and a Magnificat by Bach's predecessor Kuhnau) in a concert. A video recording of that concert was released in 2004. Both the 2003 concert (e.g. Yo Tomita) and the recording (e.g. Klassik.Com) were reviewed. The DVD is currently not selected for inclusion in Wikipedia's list. IMHO the BWV 10 article currently misses a "Reception" section where the reception topics can be treated more comprehensively than just "scores" and "recordings". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        What would be interesting would be reception of the piece when it was first performed. - The reception by Bach scholars is part of the Music section. - The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music. - No other Bach cantata article has a reception section, but feel to write one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music": the same can be said about Scheibe's 1737 review of Bach's own performance – this has nothing to do with "in our time". The topic of reception is, in part, about how taste w.r.t. a piece evolves over time. This includes whether a specific performance of the piece receives attention via independent reviews in reliable sources (a new recording that is completely ignored in the press is thus somewhat less significant for reception history, except maybe for number of copies sold). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      9. [5] – is this German version of the Gloria Patri specifically Luther's (it is not a part of Luke 1:46–55)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        I was sure that the Kleine Doxology was also translated by Luther, as so many other texts, but found no support so far. I asked an expert, User:Rabanus Flavus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      10. Navbox collapse options (one of the idiosyncrasies I had in mind in this section's OP – I'm not sure whether the topic is part of a FAC assessment, anyway here it goes): the article currently has two navboxes, {{Church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} and {{Bach cantatas}}. The first of these boxes is collapsed, the second is uncollapsed. The first lists the cantata BWV 10 in the context of Bach's second cantata cycle, so between the 4th and the 6th chorale cantata of Bach's second year in Leipzig; the second navbox lists the cantata in the context of the numerical values of the BWV catalogue, so between BWV 9 (composed a decade later) and BWV 11 (which isn't even a cantata, and also dates from much later). Currently the article goes in great detail about the first five cantatas of the second cantata cycle, linking to the four other cantatas of that series of consecutive cantatas. A reader who might be interested what Bach did next after the first five cantatas of his second cantata cycle (so the next cantata he composed after BWV 10) is not helped by the second navbox, neither is that cantata linked from the body of the article. For clarity: BWV numbers are completely random w.r.t. what happened in Bach's time and w.r.t. subgroups of cantatas by type, and moreover the latest published version of the BWV catalogue no longer collates all compositions according to their numerical value (case in point: in the latest printed edition of the BWV catalogue BWV 11, the one that follows BWV 10 in the second navbox, is now collated between BWV 249b and BWV 250 – see pp. 282–284 of the 1998 edition of the BWV catalogue – officially the number of BWV 11 has been changed to "BWV 11/249b->" to indicate its new position in the catalogue). The second navbox is probably of great use for Wikipedia editors who regularly edit articles on Bach's vocal compositions, but as far as I can assess of less use (or at least somewhat misleading in the context of current scholarship) to the average reader. My preferred option is to autocollapse both boxes. If, however, one of them should be preset to its uncollapsed state it should, imho, be the first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        There are two navboxes, right. One is in every article on a Bach cantata, permitting convenient access to the other numbers. To have it open is another item of consistency. In order to see what Bach did before and afterwards, a reader can simply click on "show" in the other navbox, or - what I would do - don't use a navbox but read an article, such as Church cantata (Bach), Chorale cantata cycle, Bach cantata, - enough possibilities. All these articles are linked from the traditional basic navbox by number (but only when it is open), - I don't use the other nabox at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        (ec) – was still updating some of the text, underlined now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "what I would do" – "I don't use ...": yes, as I said, this is about idiosyncrasies. In this case deplorable idiosyncrasies, e.g. neither Church cantata (Bach) nor Chorale cantata cycle nor Bach cantata has any significant information on the next cantata in the cycle. The first of these proposed links is particularly unhelpful for finding any information on the next cantata in the cycle: the 5th and the 6th cantata of the 2nd cycle are in entirely different sections of that very long page, separated by dozens of subsections. A non-specialist reader would have no clue where to look. Currently the presentation of the navboxes is skewed towards the specialist editor of these cantatas (i.e. an editor who knows that the BWV numbering is in no way a logical organisation of these compositions – which a non-specialist reader/editor would not know, e.g. [6]), and I propose to treat a non-specialist reader/editor at least on the same footing as a specialist (i.e. both navboxes collapsed: I don't propose to uncollapse the first – but if anything, per user-friendliness principles a non-specialist reader/editor should get precedence over a specialist editor because a specialist would find their way around anyhow while the same can not be presumed of a non-specialist, but as said, that's not what I'm proposing to implement: just treat the specialist and the non-specialist on the same footing).
        Re. "I still believe the article is better without this outlook to something created later ... under a header it doesn't fit" ([7]) – The cantata for Trinity IV of a cantata cycle which would have contained ideally over 60 cantatas, covering more than a calender year, and starting with Trinity I, is situated at the "Beginning" of the cycle. Unless you mean "by composition date" of the first cantatas that ultimately got inserted into the cycle: in that case BWV 4, composed over a decade earlier would be "beginning" of the cycle: that cantata is not mentioned, so there's nothing unusual when indicating the cantatas for Trinity I–V, and for the two feasts that usually fall in this period, as the "beginning" of the chorale cantata cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Comment: I will do a FAC review on this article when the above issue settles down, but I find the above discussion a bit of a red herring, as the "oppose" !voter made a set of substantial changes in the article and then !voted after he was reverted. Thus a clean hands problem exists. It is inappropriate for an "oppose" !vote to be made by someone who has made a substantial contribution, particularly a large set of edits right before his !vote, particularly where the same editor had only made three edits to the article prior to it going up for FAC. Here any claim of "edit warring" fails spectacularly because the party responsible for creating this problem is also trying to poison the well with his !vote --particularly in light of also removing admonishments about NPA from his talkpage. Montanabw(talk) 17:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
    ? – none of my "substantial" changes were reverted (only one of the "minor" ones). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    Poor grammar. Three minor changes way back appear to have been kept, but when your group of massive changes were reverted, then you !voted. Can't have it both ways, cannot both make a bunch of contributions and vote -- you're involved. Montanabw(talk) 11:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Montanabw: please recuse yourself from performing a FAC review on this article:
    1. You continue to contend that my "group of massive changes were [sic] reverted" (FYI: poor grammar, "group" is singular), which is not what happened – your judgement seems clouded
    2. I've shown my willingness to improve the article, and I've, for instance, received multiple "thanks", not only for the improvements I operated on the article in mainspace, but also for my suggestions for further improvements. Your indication that such improvements are not appreciated pollutes the air and stifles further work, which remains necessary to get this article to FA grade
    Until the current issues are sufficiently addressed I think I'm perfectly entitled to oppose promotion to FA, and I'll continue to collaborate positively in whatever way I can to make that promotion possible. Also, please note Gerda's invitation above: "Can we try to stick to content?", so I suggest to discontinue this discussion of whodunits, which, as you may notice, has been continued by you only in these last few days. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    Francis Schonken Your suggestion that I recuse is ridiculous; I have never edited this article, and all I pointed out is that first you made a bunch of edits to an article you had barely touched before, then when you were reverted, you !voted "oppose." That was rather WP:POINTy of you. One can edit the article, or one can review, one cannot do both. You have no neutrality in this matter, and if anyone should recuse, it is you. So, you want to close this matter, you are welcome to recuse yourself. Montanabw(talk) 05:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:Magnif.jpg: what is this being transcribed from? A previous notated version? A recording? Memory?
The text is applied to the given psalm tone, - always the same melody, just a different distribution of the syllables. It's a 2010 image I took from Tonus peregrinus, which quotes the German Magnificat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that the image is there, but how was the image produced, specifically? From what source was the specific distribution of syllables used here derived? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
We discussed the content of that image some time ago, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example. That discussion contains two external links afaics, maybe one of these (or both) could be used to demonstrate that the content of the image is correct? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In that discussion, the source was given as "Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch (de), Nr. 529. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530". Could someone who knows how add that to the commons? (I corrected Evangelisches to Evangelische.) I looked in the current EG but can't find it, only in a regional edition of Thuringia. The Catholics have a different German version, and a similar tune, but simplified (beginning with F G instead of A C, and the second line right on G without the preceding A C, - so much less joyful, and not what Bach used), GL 631/4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I just changed the "source" parameter at commons:File:Magnif.jpg from "Olorulus' personal library" to "Olorulus' personal library, from 'Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch', Nr.529. Berlin: Evangelische[s] Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530 (see wikipedia:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example)" – @Nikkimaria: does this cover all of your concerns regarding the use of this image in the FA candidate article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg was improved by Rabanus Flavus, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
PS: for clarity File:Magnif.jpg has now been replaced by File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg by Rabanus Flavus ([8]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to find a freely licensed performance that could be sampled? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Where would I look? - I guess everybody interested would be able to find YouTube versions, example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Some ideas:
  1. I performed a check of Commons as thorough as I could, not finding any audio file that would be remotely eligible for use in the article on the cantata :(
  2. scores:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)#Synthesized/MIDI has a synthesised (trumpet/organ) version of movement 5. It is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (is that compatible with the Commons licensing policies if one would want to upload the file there?) – whether or not it could be legally uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia I'm personally no fan of such synthesised audio for vocal/orchestral music. The IMSLP page where that audio file is available is linked from the article's External links section, so not sure whether we should do anything if we want to have at least one audio file on or linked from the Wikipedia article.
  3. Similarly, CPDL has a midi file of the closing chorale at choralwiki:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Johann Sebastian Bach) – copyright: "Personal"; here also the CPDL page is linked from the external links section
  4. is a page on James Kibbie's Bach Organ Works website with audio files of an organ performance of the Schübler Chorale based on the cantata's fifth movement. Maybe this page could be linked from Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#5, to give at least an aural impression (non-synthesised) of the cantata's music (otherwise at least a link from the external links section might be possible?)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    It is possible but belongs in the (linked) article on the chorales. I am sure that people who want to know how the cantata sounds will find a way outside Wikipedia. I hesitate to place external links, because it would be my biased choice. - MIDI is no alternative, awful, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Yunshui

Just a quick review of the text:

  • with the exception of verse 54 which he also kept in Luther's wording - I'd suggest " with the exception of verse 54 in which he also kept Luther's wording."
taken --GA
  • a Baroque instrumental ensemble of a trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo - maybe link continuo as I for one had to look that up... it's linked later in the text, but who reads past the TOC these days?
Then I'd also to have to link violin etc, - there are all linked in Baroque instrumental ensemble, and then Baroque violin, not any violin. Please compare other articles mentioned in the intro. --GA
Fair enough - as I mentioned, it is linked later on anyway. 雲水
  • He was employed by the town of Leipzig to this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training - "He was employed by the town of Leipzig in this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training" reads more easily to me.
It's probably something coming from German, where you'd first be employed, then have the position. Ideas? --GA
How about, "He was [offered/granted/given] this position as part of his employment by the town of Leipzig"? 雲水
Well, it was not offered, the town had hoped for a better man for the job, but their first two choices were not available. (Compare BWV 22, with details of the application. The sentence should clarify, that the term Thomaskantor could lead to the assumption that he was hired by a church, but instead he reported to the town, and was responsible for four churches. Would you have a better way to say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I think what Kirk's done in this bit is a good solution. 雲水
  • The gospel is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes, a biblical episode that is often represented in art - surely not the entire gospel; I assume this is meant to mean the Visitation?
You are right, not the whole gospel, just the passage mentioned as prescribed gospel reading for the day. I though that was clear. Ideas how to clarify? --GA
I'd just replace "gospel" with "Visitation" (and maybe include the link) - "The [[Visitation (Christianity)|the Visitation]] is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes..." 雲水
I think it's "bad enough" that Visitation links to the Feast once, then to Bach's works for it, let's not introduce a third. I tried it differently, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, just adding "reading" is enough here, I think. 雲水
  • At Bach's time, the German Magnificat was regularly sung in Leipzig in vespers - should be "In Bachs time..."
taken --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the docology - presumably that last word should be doxology?
yes --GA
  • is kept in the Library of Congress since 1948 - "has been kept" agrees better with "since".
taken --GA
  • Johann Andreas Kuhnau, the composer and Christian Gottlob Meißner. - I'd use an Oxford comma here, but that's more a matter of taste than correct punctuation (at present, it can be read to mean "the composer named Johann Andreas Kuhnau, and some guy called Christian Gottlob Meißner").
right --GA
  • The cantata was originally published in 1851 in volume 1 of he Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA) - "The cantata was originally published in 1851 in volume 1 of the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA)"
fixed --GA

Haven't checked refs, media etc, this is just looking at the text itself (which is generally pretty readable, if a bit technical in places). Yunshui  13:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for good points. Could you explain by one example what you think might be less technical? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can skimp on the technical stuff - the Movements section is a good example (lots of other articles that need looking up in order to fully understand it) but without that information there wouldn't be much point in having that section. All the things that would need to be linked are linked, but just as an example, in the Movements #1 section, I would have to look up the following terms: chorale fantasia, doubling the violin, rhythmical propulsion, measures, cantus firmus, polyphony, melismas. As a non-musician it's not a super-easy read, but I would imagine the general reader of this article would have more musical knowledge than I do anyway! Yunshui  09:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess if such things should be explained, it should happen on a higher level, such as Bach cantata and Chorale cantata, not in every individual such work (around 200 cantatas, around 40 of them on chorales). Some of the terms I think even explain themselves, such as chorale fantasia (fantasy on a chorale) and cantus firmus (firm chant), even polyphony if you know other words starting with poly- (polygon) and ending with -phony (symphony, cacophony). Some of our readers would be bored if we try to explain measure and melisma. It's one of the great ideas of the Wikipedia links that a reader who needs it can dig deeper but the one who knows already can move on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I linked "measure" now. "It is a trio of the violins and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violin, and the viola filling the harmony." that sentence tries to explain why the many instruments play a trio (three voices): the oboes double the violins, which means they play the same thing (voice) as the 2 violins, the viola plays (only) a supportive role, leaving the bass (= continuo = a group of players) for the third voice. How would you say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe something like: "It is a trio of the violins, viola and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violins, and the viola filling the harmony." That makes the three voices of the trio clear (violin, viola and continuo) and then explains why the oboes aren't included in that list and what the viola actually does.
Sorry, I was not clear: the three voices of the trio are the two violins and the bass, while the oboes play the same as the violins, and the viola has no independent melody, just fills chords. Don't support too soon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyhow, now that the above fixes have all been made, I'm happy to Support on text. Yunshui  08:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Eve (2003 TV series)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is is about ... a UPN sitcom that revolves around two sets of male and female friends attempting to navigate relationships with the opposite sex. The series was developed originally as a vehicle for Eve following the success of Brandy in another of the network's sitcoms - Moesha. Critical response to Eve was mixed; some critics praised its inclusion as a part of UPN's line-up of black sitcoms, while others felt Eve lacked charisma, and the series was inferior to other sitcoms. The show was cancelled following UPN's closure to form The CW.

I believe that the article covers all the criteria for a featured article, as it provides comprehensive information on the topic (I was pleasantly surprised to find this amount of information on this relatively obscure show). I primarily based this article on my previous work on Love, Inc., which successfully passed through the FAC process at the end of last year. I look forward to receiving feedback for this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by PanagiotisZois

Lead section
  • I'd replace "With an ensemble cast" to "Featuring an ensemble cast consisting of". Also remove the ":".
  • Seeing as the series was developed as a vehicle for Eve, and Eve did star in the series, I don't think it's necessary to say "developed originally".
  • Is there a specific reason UPN executives made Eve due to the success of Moesha? Is it cause both Eve and Brandy were/are famous singers rr was it due to both of them being black? If an explanation wasn't given then that's alright.
  • It was a little bit of both actually. I have added a small part to the lead to hopefully make this part clearer. Eve's appearance on the show also received comparisons with Queen Latifah's performance on Living Single, but I only included Brandy in the lead as that is the one primarily discussed by outside articles. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Though it was picked up by UPN". Simply say "After being picked up". Considering UPN approached Eve in the first place, it kinda makes it sound like the show was in danger of never being made. Or I might be reading way too much into this. :P
  • "The show was set in Miami, but filming took place" -> "While the show was set in Miami, filming took place".
  • When writing The WB's full name, include a capital "T".
  • Did critics deem the show inferior in regards to UPN's other black sitcoms or just sitcoms in general?
  • Revised. It should have actually said other black sitcoms so thank you for pointing this part out for me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know Aoba, I will offer additional comments; this are just for the lead section. Will move into the other sections as well pretty soon. I'm sure that once I've looked through the entire article, and any problems I find have been corrected, I will be able to support it.

  • Thank you for your initial comments. I am always the worst with the lead section (primarily because I wait to write them until I am done with the rest of the article). I believe that I have addressed all of your points and made the proper revisions. I look forward to the rest of your comments. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Premise and characters
  • Seeing as UPN's full name is used in the lead, just write UPN.
  • "with J.T., only to discover that he is afraid of commitment and has chauvinistic tendencies".
  • "but resists the temptation out of fear of ruining their friendship".
  • Is it necessary to say "of her single"?
  • Put a comma after "approached Eve".
  • Remove "serve to".
Production and filming
  • In "as one example of", does the author refers to other examples of the networks attempt to be diverse or is this the only one? In that case, it should say "as an example".
  • "Jake Austen identifies Eve as part of" not "was of".
  • Don't you mean "Bumper Robinson was originally scheduled to portray J.T."?
Critical response
  • Remove the "has" in "Eve has received".

Alrighty then, these are all the things I found in the article that need reworking. Still can't believe the main body's problems are more-or-less equal to those of the lead section. XD PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your review so far. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. I am looking forward to the rest of your review. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)|
@Aoba47: Alrighty then, after having those minor things being changed I can offer my support to this very well-written and informative article. (thumbs up) PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you as always! Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moisejp

Hi. This is generally a very well written article. Comments:
Premise and characters:

  • According to UPN, Eve revolves around "a woman whose fashion career is on the move[,] [b]ut her love life is a work in progress." It's slightly jarring to see "[,] [b]". Would "whose fashion career is on the move [but whose] love life is a work in progress" work? This would also flow more smoothly.
  • I a little bit disagree with Panagiotis, and would tend to treat each of the lead and main text as being "self-sufficient", such that I would spell out UPN's full name again in the main text. But I know it can be hard in FAC to juggle editors' conflicting requests, so I won't insist on that. But if you were to take on the "self sufficiency of main text" idea even partly, you might consider this article begins a little abruptly, as neither UPN nor Eve are introduced in the main text before we're already describing what a particular TV station is saying the show is about. But, again, it may depend how much mutual awareness you consider the lead and text are supposed to have. So if you disagree with me about this point, no worries.
  • I agree with you, and I have done this with my successful FAC for Love, Inc. so I have revised it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for adding United Paramount Network. But I think I wasn't very clear. My suggestion was supposed to have two parts. The first part was to add United Paramount Network, which you did. But I was also trying to suggest the section begins a little abruptly. My reasoning was that if one considers the main text to be "self sufficient" then the show should be first introduced at a very basic level before stating what the network says about it—and not start piggybacking from the background information of the lead. However, I don't have a specific idea of what the basic introduction in the main text should be, or how other TV FAs handle this—only that it seemed a little abrupt to me. Unless you have an idea of how to make it less abrupt, I guess my suggestion isn't actionable, in which case we could forget about it. Moisejp (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Moisejp: I see your point now. I have removed the UPN part completely from that section and moved the link down to UPN's first mention in the body of the article so that should make it better. Hopefully, the edit cleared that up for you. Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that helps. Great! Moisejp (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "seeking a college degree": I'm not sure it's clear specifically what this means. Is he applying to colleges, or already in college and working on a degree?
  • Nick is described as "extremely picky" in both this section and in Episodes, so it is a bit repetitive. Also "picky" is possibly a little colloquial, and "extremely" is very strong, and may be subjective. None of these are major issues in themselves but they kind of add up as multiple minor issues. Alternatives for the two instances could be, for example, "quite selective" and "very particular about". These are just ideas, though. "Particular about" may not even be so much less colloquial than "picky", maybe only a little. If you happen to be happy with "extremely picky", could you at least change one of the instances to avoid repetition? Moisejp (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Moisejp: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The above changes look good, thanks. More comments:

  • Minor point: "The show was initially promoted by UPN as a part of its new comedy block, one of four new comedies developed by the network." This is given importance by being mentioned in the lead, but in the main text the three other new comedies are not named, while the four returning shows are named. This is kind of counter-intuitive, as what is given the extra detail in the main text is not what is included in the lead. Suggestion: name the three other new shows in the main text, rather than the four returning ones.
  • Very good point and I am not sure how I missed that one. I have added the names of the three other new shows (All of Us, Rock Me Baby, and The Mullets) to the main article. I am looking forward to the rest of your comments. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "The supporting cast of Landry, Desselle-Reid, Hooks, and Maguire were described as "peripheral" as they were written to "servic[e] the highs and lows of the romance between Shelly and J.T." " Could you include who described it as such?
  • Added the citation. Aoba47 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Along with All of Us, Eve was the first time in which "the new network for African American adults has acquired the off-network rights to sitcoms currently airing on a broadcast network". " Did you have a special reason for quoting this rather than paraphrasing? It doesn't feel like a direction quotation is necessary here. Moisejp (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Paraphrased this part. Aoba47 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Moisejp: Just wanted to check in on the progress of the review? Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm almost done my first read-through, Aoba47. I probably will do a really quick second read-through to make sure I haven't missed anything, but I expect my points for this will be minimal.

  • "However, he did note that the series had the potential to last for several years." Is this relevant to the reviewer's critical appraisal? I don't think he's saying this is somehow an indication of quality and that it changes in any way his negative review; rather he's just saying there is a market for this kind of star vehicle regardless of quality. But this is a minor point—no worries if you feel the sentence is worthwhile to keep.
  • "Clark was critical of the episodes' titles, writing that they indicated an overuse of "outrageous clichés that boob-tube audiences would come to know and love once reality TV hit its boon". " Could you include a couple of the examples that Clark mentions? This would go a long way towards helping the reader get a feel for how the reviewer may have thought the titles to be outrageous. Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The tables in the Episodes section and Ratings section show different dates. Is the premiere/finale different from first/last aired? Moisejp (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm ready to support now, thanks for responding to all my suggestions. Please look at the three minor comments above as well. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

I support this nomination. Neat little article. It was a pretty good read. Just a couple of quick comments though:

  • "which is nearly derailed when he cries while they watch Casablanca on their first date" — How did their relationship derail by this? Just asking.
  • Revised to hopefully make it clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In the "Critical response" section, you mention it received "mixed reviews". Then in the accolades section, it says "negative reviews". Do be consistent about it. :-)

@Aoba47: That's about it from me.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No mention.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Boogeyman 2

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

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

Comments from Aoba47

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

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

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

Comments from Paleface Jack

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

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

Comments from Bluesphere

  • Use the Plainlist template where it is required in the infobox (i.e, producer, starring), and the gross should be condensed, rounded value ($4.3 million vs $4,282,637). Also, I don't think the runtime you provide is correct. The BBFC, which is the most cited reference for a film's runtime here, says it's 89 minutes. [9]
  • Alright, fixed all three points. I hope I used the right plainlist.
  • I notice that the article is not using a consistent date format. (On the one hand the inline citations use the dmy, and on the other uses mdy in the prose.) Since this is an article about an American film, dates should be formatted accordingly using the mdy format. And while we're at it, please add the publishers of those references you added.
  • Regarding the publisher, I believe I've added all of them, at least where possible. Regarding the date format, I might be confused a little but what you're saying is that while the text itself uses the MDY format, the references use DMY?
  • I took care of the date formats for you. What I meant about the publisher concern was that you separate the original work of the reference (putting it in the |work parameter), and the owner/entity of the source in the |publisher in the inline citation. For instance, ref 2 cites Bloody Disgusting which, according to its own article, says it's owned by The Collective. So Bloody Disgusting should be in the |work param while The Collective is in the |publisher. All the other ref must observe this accordingly.
  • As for the prose, everything is flawless. It's like I was enticed to watch the movie just by reading its introductory section. And I must say the same with the plot section. Bluesphere 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Glad to see I'm not the only one that's tempted to watch movies whose articles are well written. XD PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I forgot, the identifier should go "edited and directed by Jeff Betancourt" in the introductory section since he's also credited as the film editor. And unlink his name in the infobox under editor parameter. Bluesphere 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Northern England

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

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

Media review

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

Comments by Wehwalt

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

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

Peter Dinklage

Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about actor Peter Dinklage, I have worked on this article for a while and I believe it meets the FA criteria. AffeL (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JC

Oppose - I'm just going to take a look at the "Personal life" section for now, to get a feel for the article. Comments, suggestions, and questions as I read along...

  • Dinklage and Schmidt are expecting a second child. - Ideally, this would tell us when they announced that they were expecting a second child (or, failing that, "as of" the date of the source, so it's easy to tell whether this is up-to-date.)
Added when it was announced. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Dinklage face - grammar.
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • severely injured - "severely" seems like editorializing that isn't supported by the given source. I believe it's possible to sustain a large scar from an injury that falls short of "severe".
Removed "severely". - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • early 90's - per MOS:DECADE, present decades in four digits when identifying a period of time.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the scar notable at all? As far as I can tell, it hasn't really been discussed in-depth by any reliable sources, just the one interview and banal "x things you didn't know about Peter Dinklage" listicles. It just seems really trivial and out-of-place stuck at the end of a paragraph about his wife and family. If it is to stay, then you should explain how he became injured; just saying that he was in a band at the time doesn't answer any questions.
I have added how he got injured now, don't know if that's enough or if I should remove it all together? - AffeL (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which, are there any reliable sources discussing his time in the band? If so, I think that should be fleshed out a bit and moved into "Early life".
Not that I know of. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • he suggested that doubt is more needed than belief. - Really abstract and maybe not particularly important?
Removed. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Dinklage has a form of dwarfism, achondroplasia, which affects bone growth. As a result, he is 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m) tall, with a typical-sized head and torso but short limbs. - What is the source for this information? The next citation, the Today article, doesn't support any of that, and in fact lists Dinklage's height as 4'6" instead of 4'5".
Added source. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You say "Dinklage has come to accept his condition", but he is later quoted as saying in 2012, "I don't think I still am okay with it. There are days when I'm not." Has his attitude changed significantly since 2012 or is this a discrepancy?
Fixed. - AffeL (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Dinklage's wife suggested that he should say something, being that he is in a position to change the "way people look at people his size" - Say something about what? Was it his wife who suggested bringing attention to Martin Henderson?
Yes, Now fixed so it is more clear. - AffeL (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In general, the dwarfism quotes seem to ramble on without saying anything new or enlightening. I would try to boil it down to the most pertinent snippets and fit them into one paragraph. In When talking about his sense of responsibility to other people who share his condition: "The idea is to get to that level where you don't have to preach about it anymore." the quote doesn't make a lot of sense in relation to its introduction. It's also redundant given that we're already told his opinion on whether he saw himself as "a spokesman for the rights of little people" in the previous paragraph.
I removed the last quote. - AffeL (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Overall, I'm sorry to say that the section I've reviewed falls well short of FA standards. Aside from grammar and style errors, sourcing deficiencies, and unclear prose, the narrative about his dwarfism – an important part of his life, no doubt – is unfocused and underdeveloped. In fact, I believe the final paragraph may constitute plagiarism per our non-free content guidelines; the paragraph is composed almost entirely of material copied directly from one source. While quotations of non-free text are allowed, this probably falls under prohibited "extensive quotation of copyrighted text". On these grounds, I'm afraid I must oppose. Sorry, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed some redundant quotations and paraphrased others in that paragraph. Is that enough or should I trim it down a bit more? - AffeL (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Also another thing is that Dinklage happens to be a very private person, he does not do many interviews, go to any talk shows and so on. So not much is known about his personal life, making it hard to find different stuff to add for that section. - AffeL (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Juliancolton: I found this source( I know "" is not a reliable source, but this particular source has a video of Dinklage talking about him growing up. Can I use it or just the Youtube video as a source? - AffeL (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it would depend on the information it's being used to verify. Even if the stories come straight from the man himself, they may well be exaggerated or embellished for the sake of an interesting commencement speech. I would personally prefer more rigorous sourcing, but perhaps there are some uncontroversial bits which can be gleamed from the speech (it would be nice to know what he got his degree in, for instance).

The section I reviewed looks a bit better, but I still believe there are too many irrelevant quotations. The first quote in the last paragraph is very difficult to parse, and contributes very little to our understanding of the subject's life. The bit about Martin Henderson seems to have been taken out of context, as you don't discuss any impact resulting from his being mentioned. this source says the speech brought attention to the act of dwarf-tossing, which is how Henderson became injured. On a similar note, this book seems like it might have some useful facts about Dinklage's upbringing and personal life. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Juliancolton: Added where he got his degree from and removed the first quote in the last paragraph, also added the impact of Henderson name being mentioned. Much of the other quotes has either been removed or re-written in my own words. - AffeL (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@Juliancolton: How about now?, How does it look? I have removed some and paraphrased the many quotations in that section, all expect the last little quote in the second to last paragraph. - AffeL (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mymis

  • "in the 2019 Untitled Avengers film" -> capital letter not needed
Done. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Introduction could have two paragraphs instead of four.
Done. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "and appeared in NBC's 30 Rock." -> who did he play?
Added the name of the character he plays. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Dinklage plays Tyrion Lannister in HBO's Game of Thrones, an ada.." -> The paragraph needs to have some sort of date included, for instance, when he was cast and when the show premiered, or at least the year when he started playing the character.
Added dates. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In the same section there is no indication how long he's been playing the character, how many seasons there are, or when is it gonna end etc. More background of the show is certainly needed, as GOT is the highlight of his career.
Added "as of 2011" in the beginning, also added how many seasons and when it will end. You said more background is needed, I already added his salary, casting information, awards won, reception, background on when the show started and will end, also added how many seasons the show will have. Should I add more or do you believe it's enough? - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference formatting needs A LOT of work. Many missing dates, authors, publishers, wrong links (such as Telegraph), 26 November 2016 -> November 26, 2016, New York Times -> The New York Times, etc.

Mymis (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mymis: I fixed those you mentioned and others, I'm quite sure I fixed all the missing dates, authors and so on. - AffeL (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It is still unclear what the show is even about. You could add one sentence about it, and how it links to his character. Also, " George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series." -> add genre (a series of epic fantasy novels), or/and add "drama" before the show's title.
Added sentence of what the show is about and his character, also added "fantasy drama" before the shows title. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "As of 2011, Dinklage plays Tyrion Lannist" -> "Since 2011, ...."
Done. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the movie hade a modest commercial success with" -> "had". Also, there is no source to prove "modest commercial success". Just because it earned 200M, it does not mean it was commercially successful.
Fixed "hade" to "had". Also the movie earned $245 million, with a $88 million budget. That's an $157 million profit. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You need to add more timeframes in "Upcoming projects" section, for EVERY one of his upcoming role. "As of XXXX, ...", "In XXXX, ..." etc.
@Mymis: Added timeframes for all projects. - AffeL (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Kunersdorf

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

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

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

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

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

Seven Years' War

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


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


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

Turning the Russian flank

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

Cavalry attack

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

Evening action

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


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


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


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

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

Image review

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

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

250t-class torpedo boat

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The 250t-class were torpedo boats built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the lead-up to and early stages of World War I. Almost all of them saw a fair bit of action during the war, but none were lost. They were divided among the Allied nations of Yugoslavia, Portugal, Romania and Greece after the war, with some surviving to see action in World War II. The last of them didn't go out of service until the early 1960s. The World War I section of this article has been expanded in recent months thanks to a series of articles in Warship magazine that provided details of their engagements. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Dan, as always! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
  • Niehorster himself has a Ph.D in history, and has several books regarding German and US orders of battle published by Military Press (UK) and held by libraries like Oxford University and the US Air Force Academy. Used quite a bit in Featured Articles/Lists already. I've found him to be highly consistent with other sources when it comes order of battle information.
  • Smillie, John (2012). World War II Sea War, Vol 4: Germany Sends Russia to the Allies. Dayton, Ohio: is a self-publishing site - what makes this a high quality reliable source? Note the lack of library holdings also.
  • Quite so. Deleted.
  • I also note the lack of citations on a number of the notes - (a through f)
  • They were relying on the citation for the whole table, but I've added them to each note for completeness.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Flag_of_Portugal.svg needs a US PD tag and date of death for the creator
  • Date of death of the designer was already there (1929), added PD-1923 as it was officially adopted in 1910.
  • Technically, Greek flag should also include a tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the exact origins of the design are known, but the flag itself dates back to 1822 or something. Should I use a PD-1923? Thanks for taking a look, Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The name of this article might sound like a cure for insomnia but the story kind of belies it. The oldest continually operating formation in RAAF history, 1AD's heyday was before World War II, when it was not only responsible for aircraft maintenance but also for organising several pioneering survey flights in Australia and overseas. Its testing program during the war prefigured the work done by the RAAF's current research facility, ARDU. After the war 1AD got the RAAF's first jets ready for service, before losing first its airframe and then its engine maintenance responsibilities in the 1960s, and seeing out its days supporting mainly ground equipment. Thanks to everyone who participated in the recent MilHist A-Class Review, and to all who stop by here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (There was very little to do, as usual.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Tks as always, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments This is a very impressive article on what's now an obscure unit. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "when it assembled, tested and repaired aircraft ranging from Tiger Moths to Spitfires to B-17 Flying Fortresses" - perhaps indicate why this is a wide range of aircraft (eg, 'from Tiger Moth trainers to Spitfire fighters and B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bombers"
    • Fair enough, will do.
  • "the depot was organised into a headquarters controlling stores, aircraft repair, and engine repair sections" - this is a bit confusing. Do you mean "the depot was organised into a headquarters which controlled stores, aircraft repair, and engine repair sections"? (or "the depot was organised into a headquarters, controlling stores, aircraft repair, and engine repair sections"?)
    • Excellent point -- the former is correct, will tweak.
  • Given the low quality of the 'Supermarine Seagull of the Papuan Survey Flight' photo, could another option be substituted?
    • I'll see if there's anything around...
      • Nick, this and this depict Seagull A9-6, which according to The Third Brother was part of the survey flight along with A9-5, whose picture I agree is not fantastic quality -- either of those grab ya? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The first of those options looks good. The second appears to have been taken in Hobart so might be of a different period. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "By the mid-1930s, No. 1 AD comprised some 350 staff" - is it possible to compare this against the strength of the RAAF at the time? It seems to have been a fairly large chunk of the force (for instance, the ABS' Year Book Australia 1936 puts the entire strength of the RAAF at under 2000 personnel - which is also an interesting comparison to this unit's peak wartime strength!)
    • Good idea, I'll see what's in The Third Brother, otherwise perhaps could just use the ABS ref.
      • Hmm, re-checking the source for 350, it doesn't give an exact year for the figure, and according to The Third Brother the total strength went from 817 in 1934 to 1,955 in 1937, so I'm not sure how meaningful a comparison would be after all -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I guess that you could safely say that the force's strength was under 2000. It does seem useful noting this given that what sounds like a pretty obscure unit actually represented a big chunk of the air force. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Okay, had a go -- see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "After the war, No. 1 AD was responsible for introducing the first jets into RAAF service" - could more detail be provided on the unit's role here? Given its functions, am I right in thinking that the unit's aircraft assembly sub-units assembled and readied the jets after they arrived in Australia, and its Special Duties and Performance Flight then conducted trials? Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I'll see if I can find more detail... Thanks for reviewing, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Following up, per the article, by the time the jets were introduced, 1AD's Special Duties and Performance Flight had evolved into the separate Aircraft Performance Unit (ARDU from 1947) so the implication is that 1AD did assembly and/or modifications, and APU/ARDU did trials. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Those changes look good Ian, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Its dull title might make it a contender for a 1 April TFA though ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 This article is in fine shape, my only query is about whether "Wing Commander Bill Anderson" should probably be just Anderson per WP:SURNAME. Alternatively, "Anderson returned to command the depot in the rank of wing commander from..." But not a biggie. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Tks very much for review, PM, and the suggestion -- I've done something along those lines now. Cheers, 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Image and source review

  • all images are appropriately licensed
  • all sources appear to be reliable, a spot check was conducted of fn 2, 15, 31 and 32. No issues identified.

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate that, PM. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Arlington, Washington

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Arlington is a small town of 19,000 located at the edge of Seattle's metropolitan area, and as a result has seen huge population changes and suburbanization in recent decades. Despite this, it has managed to keep its small town image and boasts a pretty nice little downtown full of historic buildings. It's one of the places I can call a hometown, and I feel like I've done it justice in this article. SounderBruce 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness

This is very well-written, organized, and illustrated and appears to be comprehensive or nearly so. I made a couple dozen tiny changes; please revert any that you think are not improvements. Below are my questions and suggestions; none should be terribly difficult.
  • Paragraph 3: "seven city councilmembers" – Two words, "council members"?
  • Official city documents use "councilmember" as one word, so I opted not to split it into two.
  • OK. I see that it appears elsewhere as an acceptable dictionary variant. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 1: "while following fish runs" – Link "fish runs" to fish migration?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 2: "relocating the Stillaguamish tribe to trust lands" – What are "trust lands"?
  • Linked to term.
  • Paragraph 6: " The Great Depression of the 1930s forced all but one of the mills to close, causing unemployment to rise in Arlington and the establishment of a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp near Darrington." – The cause-effect link between the mill closings and the CCC camp is a bit tenuous. Could the connection be made more clear?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 6: Link Darrington here on first use rather than in the last paragraph of this section.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 6: "brought the U.S. Navy to Arlington, who converted the municipal airport" – "Which" rather than "who"?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 7: "The plane was being flown by Boeing test pilots who were instructing a Braniff International Airways captain, suffering from the loss of three engines..." – The captain wasn't suffering from the loss of three engines. Maybe "The plane, flown by Boeing test pilots instructing a Braniff International Airways captain, lost three engines and suffered a fire in the fourth after a dutch roll exceeded maximum bank restrictions."
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 8: "in 1999 after a lengthy court battle with Marysville, who instead claimed Lakewood to the west" – Marysville is a "which", not a "who", and probably "in 1999" would scan better at the beginning of the sentence.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 2: "Downtown Arlington is located at a bluff..." – Maybe "Downtown Arlington is along a bluff"?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 3: "During a recent eruption 13,000 years ago..." – Even though this is geologically recent, it might be less confusing to say simply, "During an eruption 13,000 years ago...".
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 3: " more than 7 feet (2.1 m) of sediment" – I would round this to 2 m since the 7 feet is approximate.
  • Done.
Subareas and neighborhoods
  • Paragraph 1:"The city of Arlington divides the urban growth area into 10 planning subareas in its comprehensive plan, which each contain neighborhoods and subdivisions of their own." – Better as "In its comprehensive plan, the city of Arlington divides the urban growth area into 10 planning subareas, each containing neighborhoods and subdivisions."?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 1: "with an average of 7 inches (180 mm) per year" – Unlike rainfall or general precipitation, snowfall is generally listed in cm rather than mm.
  • Done.
2000 Census
  • Paragraph 1: "As of the 2000 census, there were 12,750 people..." – The "Historical population" table to the right of this subsection says the 2000 population was 11,713. One or the other is mistaken, it appears.
  • Corrected the statistics based on the 2000 census data. Someone must have forgot to cross-check between the city proper and urban growth area.
  • Paragraph 1: It would probably be good to specify a year for these statistics. They will vary from year to year.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 1: "with approximately 19.3 percent, followed by manufacturing (18.5%), retail (11.3%), and food services (10.4%)." – It might make sense to round these for readability, especially since the numbers are approximate.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 1: "Only 12 percent of employed Arlington residents work within city limits..." – The fractions listed in this sentence total 51 percent; where do the other 49 percent work?
  • Mentioned "other cities", which all have under 2 percent of Arlington workers each.
  • I tweaked your entry a bit. Please check to see if you approve. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 2: "The economy of Arlington relied heavily on timber harvesting and processing from its founding..." – A bit awkward. Maybe "Arlington's early economy relied heavily on timber harvesting and processing..."?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 3: "As of 2012, the airport has 570 on-site businesses that employ 590 people, with a total output of $94.5 million annually.[72]" – The source seems to support this, but 570 seems awfully high, and it seems odd that 570 businesses would only employ a total of 590 people. In the Transportation subsection later in the article is a sentence saying, "Approximately 130 businesses are located on airport property...". This number sounds more plausible. In any case, I don't see how both numbers could be correct.
  • I mis-read the statistic as number of businesses when it was in fact number of jobs from on-site businesses. I've matched the number, but I feel that it could be redundant and repetitive.
  • I think the repetition is minor and OK. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Government and politics
  • Paragraph 4: "...50.6 percent of Arlington voters elected Republican Donald Trump, while 39.5 percent elected Democrat Hillary Clinton..." – Is "elected" the right word? Maybe "voted for"?
  • Done.
  • I tweaked the wording a bit to add variety. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Notable residents
  • "2nd Snohomish County Executive" – I'm not sure what this means. Is "2nd Executive" a title?
  • Simplified down to politician, without title.
  • Suggestion: Include only notable residents for whom separate Wikipedia articles exist. Without this limit, the list will eventually balloon out of proportion to its importance.
  • Done. I kept two that I have started writing articles for and would definitely pass notability standards. Created articles on the two remaining red links. SounderBruce 04:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3: "...but was put on hold and later cancelled..." – Ambiguous. Perhaps "but the offer was put on hold and later declined"? Or does this mean that Arlington put the offer on hold and later cancelled it?
  • Done.
  • ¶1: "which serve as the main highways to the city. State Route 9 travels north..." – Since the direction in the first sentence is "to" the city, perhaps starting the next sentence with "From Arlington, State Route 9 goes north..."?
  • Done.
  • ¶1: "a consumer-owned public utility that sources most of its electricity from the federal Bonneville Power Administration..." – What is the meaning of the word "sources" in this context? Does it mean "buys"?
  • Sourcing means both purchasing and the producer of the electricity. Reworded accordingly.
  • In the Utilities section, you might add something about Arlington's internet-service providers and telephone-service providers if reliable sources can be found.
  • Done.
  • The images need alt text.
  • Thank you for your thorough review and corrections, Finetooth. I hope I have addressed your points adequately. SounderBruce 04:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. This all looks fine to me. I made two minor changes to your changes, as noted above. Please check those two for accuracy. I'm happy to support this article on prose and comprehensiveness. Finetooth (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JC

At a glance, the article looks great. I'm doubtful Finetooth left any meat on the bones, but we'll see if I can't find some things to complain about...

  • Maybe "northwestern" instead of "northern" in the lead, for precision plus consistency with the "Geography" section?
    • The "Northern" (North County) area is more of a cultural term than strictly geographic, like northwestern. As the eastern two-thirds of the county is mountainous and mostly uninhabited, Arlington is referred to as being part of "northern Snohomish County" far more often than "northwestern".
  • Arlington was established in the 1880s by settlers - Aren't all settlements settled by... well, settlers? Perhaps I'm overlooking some nuance in that term, but if not, I'd like to see something a little more specific.
    • Changed to entrepreneurs (the initial wave, described in following sentences). Actual residents didn't arrive in significant numbers until after platting.
  • What is "street foliage"?
    • Added a link to the term.
  • making it the ninth largest city in Snohomish County. - ninth out of how many? This is a bit of a jolt for someone from the northeast, where you're lucky if your county has one city...
    • Added the total, tabulated from the same reference. Out west, suburbs are just a patchwork of small towns that grew into each other.
  • Do we really need to present the 450% population increase fact twice (not including the lede)? I don't think anything would be lost if it were removed from the "Demographics" section.
    • I think it provides context for the next sentence (about 2025's projected population) and belongs more in the demographics section than the history. It's a pretty important indication of just how much suburanization has affected Arlington since the 1980s.
  • Was there a predominate species of timber that was used for the shingle production?
    • Added mention of cedar shingles (with a reference).
  • a safe swimming area - What will make this swimming area safer than non-safe swimming areas?
    • It's common for fast-moving streams to have designated swimming areas, but I can't find the term in anything mentioned about the park specifically. Removed and replaced.
  • I'm not normally a stickler for overlinking, especially in relatively long articles, but it might be good to take a look and see where you can eliminate any truly excessive linking. Arlington School District is linked four times, for instances.
    • Took a stab at removing links that were easy to access through nearby links. Will look over with a proper tool and keep paring down the links.

I think that's about it. I'm very impressed with the quality of the article, especially in terms of comprehensiveness... every noteworthy aspect of the city is discussed in suitable proportions, and the "History" section in particular tells a clear and engaging story without going into unwanted detail. A great deal of research clearly went into the crafting of this article. I'll be happy to support once my above points have been addressed. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Juliancolton. I am uncertain on how to respond to two of your comments, but feel they can be resolved quickly with a decision from you or another editor. SounderBruce 03:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Support - Nice work, and thanks for the quick edits. I'm not concerned about the two outstanding points. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • What makes a high quality, reliable source? Also the other sources from historylink:
      • Replaced with city website
      • Replaced with Times article
      • Replaced with existing Times article
    • HistoryLink is managed and written by professional, local historians, and has been recognized by government institutions (e.g. the Washington State Historic Preservation Office), so they are locally reputable.
        • We're not just trying to meet the plain reliable standard, but it needs to be high quality. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
          • @Ealdgyth: HistoryLink was founded by two noted Pacific Northwest historians (Crowley and Dorpat), who both had close ties to The Seattle Times among other news sources and institutions, so it establishes itself as a high-quality source. The state also endorses HistoryLink, with the Senate passing a recognition of HistoryLink and Crowley in 2007. SounderBruce 18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
            • I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but ... I'm not sure that a state legislature passsing a resolution really is how we want to evaluate historical sources. The best evaluations of historical sources should come from historians. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes Hastie, Thomas P.; Batey, David; Sisson, E.A.; Graham, Albert L., eds. (1906). "Chapter VI: Cities and Towns". An Illustrated History of Skagit and Snohomish Counties a high quality reliable source? I'll just note that these are local history books produced pretty much to a template, and it's unclear how reliable the "history" of them is. The goal of them was to sell the books to local people - so they are not strictly speaking produced by anyone we'd call a historian.
    • Finding high-quality sources for local histories that isn't sourced from residents is near-impossible, especially in smaller towns like Arlington. The acknowledgements seem to indicate that the book's authors collected "accounts" from local newspapers and historians, which would be as accurate as anything you would find. Note that the book was published only 26 years after Washington had become a state (and Arlington had been established), so I consider this to be a contemporary source.
    • I can replace some of the references with a modern book (written in 2003), but it probably sources some of its information from the Illustrated History (as does a lot of local history books).
      • If the modern book is written by a historian, that would be better. They are trained to weigh sources such as these local histories and figure out what is good and what is bad in them. The point with all of these is that 1) we need high quality sources and 2) history has matured in the last 100 years or so, and we are always better off citing modern works when they are available. Much progress has been made in history in using archival documents for research. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The facts of Arlington's founding and early history have remained unchanged from the time the book was written, to the point where local libraries still point to this book as the best resource for the area's early history.
  • Same for Hunt, Herbert; Kaylor, Floyd C. (1917). Washington, West of the Cascades: Historical and Descriptive.
    • The foreword/acknowledgements seem to indicate that the book's authors sought out the Washington State Historical Society for assistance, as well as local newspapermen and the dean of the University of Washington.
    • Removed and replaced with a citation from the Washington Historical Quarterly.
  • Likewise for Prosser, William Farrand (1903). A History of the Puget Sound Country: Its Resources, Its Commerce and Its People, Volume I.
    • Written by the founder of the state's historical society, which I think counts as a professional historian of the era.
      • As I pointed out above - "of the era" is the problem. And we need "high quality" sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
      • This citation is only used to identify the first mayor, an uncontroversial fact that is backed by a contemporary newspaper article (though missing his first name and his occupation), which I argue is a lesser quality source. SounderBruce 18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Since this one is only being used to verify the first mayor, I can consider removing it entirely.
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
    • Replaced with a search from the NCES and a map.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Thanks for your source review. I'm unsure if I can find suitable replacements for the books mentioned, as they themselves are a major source on the one modern book on Arlington's history (Arlington Centennial, A Pictorial History), which itself is a source for HistoryLink. SounderBruce 02:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus

Seems like everything got an ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review. The downtown image is of Olympic Avenue, the city's main street, so I feel it's appropriate. I might replace it with a better picture of Olympic shot from a hill when I have time to go shoot one. I also pared down the caption for the Lumber store to fit with the history a bit better. SounderBruce 20:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

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

Now starting review of references.

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

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

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

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

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sandbh

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

Comments from DePiep

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

As noted above (re Graeme Bartlett), I think the infobox should list the most stable isotopes as is common in all element infoboxes. I am surprised by the addition of the comment [10] about decay chains and standard atomic weight specifics, after this FAC-ing. First of all it is textual so should be in lede not infobox (and I find it very hard to understand, of course because so much info is crammed in there), but more relevant: it may be important for lead, but that does not make it infobox-worthy. Also, the second half is more describing the effects on the standard atomic weight, and about not Pb-specific situations -- even less needed in an infobox. This info should be made clear in the section #Isotopes. But as a tertiary decay info --at best-- it is not fitting the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

OK, acknowledged.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • About. Existing text: "(For this reason, the atomic weight of lead is given to only one decimal place.)[36]". While factually correct, I'd like to have this a more pleasant reading. Points:
Removing the () brackets would not disrupt anything IMO, so can be done (no need to make it a sidenote, atomic weight is quite relevant). If it is bracketed, it could be removed. If unbracketed, include it in text flow.
I like these parentheses. They are sort of editorial. I used to try to avoid parentheses in texts whenever possible but I don't anymore. This is a good tool when used right. Here, they smooth the transition from the standard atomic mass talk to the relative abundances change talk. Having them costs nothing, really.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
They have a reading effect, they make a sidenote. Then either it should be a crisp sidenote or a more complete side topic. IMO now it is neither. Always, main effort should be to do without them. If impossible, think & re-read why that is not possible: there is an editorial (write/read) issue in there. With my notes below, pls try to find an improvement for eadability. How does it feel when read aloud? -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)+
Sorry, I cannot clarify enough my points about brackets & reading, too subtle English language. I should leave it then. Maybe John could take a look. For me, it's out of my English lang league. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I've lost the parentheses.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, out. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
And btw, please do not use "standard atomic mass" (ouch) when I'm near ;-) ;-). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Prefer writing "standard atomic weight" for "atomic weight" (equally correct, but 'atomic weight' is easily confusing, while adding the word 'standard' is removing all confusion easily). Also to check: use of short 'atomic weight' elsewhere, and adequate linking.
OK, will do.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Corrected in Isotopes; the occurrence in Bulk is vague and we don't need to refer to the standard.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Question. The sentence leaves much to be researched (homework), in how the abundances make the atomic weight. Could we have a more direct explanation, for example: "For this reason, the relative atomic mass Ar [not s.a.w.! DP] is x in normal samples and y in thorium ores", "... this variation shows as a large uncertainty in the standard atomic weight: 207.2±0.1".
I need another go to think on this one.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
You may know I love making texts accessible. Accessibility is my top priority. I've tried a few times to improve it but I honestly don't see what I could improve. Pretty clear, isn't it? Anyone should be able to handle it. Bonus fact: if a reader has to think something for themselves and then solves it, they're proud of themselves and keep going on, that's what happens often. The obstacle here is not too high; anyone should be able to do it.
Yet if something is actually unclear, please could you specify what it is?--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No I can not specify. My command of English—science—explain is too low, so I drop this. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Question. The source now for this remarkable abundance is: [36] Greenwood & Earnshaw 1998, p. 368. I have no access. If G&E adds details (such as various abundance calculations), it's fine. When it mentions just the value, maybe the source be {{CIAAW2016}} or [11], which is by the defining institute IUPAC. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Checked both G&E and CIAAW2016. G&E supports the claim in its entirety; CIAAW does not. No changes are to be made.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable thinking. Will check.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
"... CIAAW does not" you say: weird. Alas, I drop it. (Sequence quest would be : what CIAAW report does G&E 1998 use, etc.). Done. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The section's isotopes table ({{Infobox lead isotopes}}) could/should contain all isotopes mentioned in the text. If so, missing are: lead-209, -111, -112, -114 (all with natural traces).
This is possible. Leaning yes here.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Added all without the decay energies (don't immediately know where to get them and I think we'll get rid of them very soon anyway because we don't use them in the text).--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: this is a full infobox, hired from isotopes of lead. If this would limit good usage here by contradicting requirements between the two articles, a dedicated table could be made for this section. IOW, using that external infobox should not require compromises when writing a FA-level section in article lead. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Isotopes in the top infobox
  • The footnote now says "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". That better be like "Isotopic abundances [do] vary significantly".
I disagree here: if they do, then how? We may go for something like "Isotopic abundances vary significantly by sample." Is it OK with you?
OK, even better. Wanted to say: no need for 'may vary': they 'do' vary. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The infobox should give a condensed resume of the article, not a copy. For this, I propose to remove isotope lead-202 from this infobox. As its mentioning shows in section Isotopes, it is an incidental fact not major for this element. (Earlier discussion here).
For the same reason, I'd ask reconsidering listing lead-205 and lead-210, though these could have better reasons to stay in there. I'd claim that having a long half-life alone is not enough (as a characteristic for Pb).
I see your point. Though if we remove all unstable isotopes, then there is no need for a table, as it is equally represented with a short one-line list of stable isotopes. Could we do it?--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If that's the outcome (four stable isotopes only), the infobox should cover it. No reason to feel restricted by this. Not the other way around. (Ask at WT:ELEM for table adjustment, see who responds). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't feel restricted. I am ready to leave only four but we need to reorganize this part of the infobox in that case; otherwise the space will be wasted irrationally. Personally, that's what I'd want to do: only leave primordial isotopes in the infobox, and list only mass numbers and abundances.
If it is something that should be agreed on at WT:ELEM, then here is not the right to raise the issue in the first place.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's simple: the main infobox should only list the main, characteristic, defining, calling isotopes. Then, if the result looks weird, we can change the look (but not the list). That look is maintained element-wide, not ad-hoc for lead. So, if the list only has 4 stable isotopes justified, its OK for this FA. And maybe we should improve the infobox — elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, done.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: until some weeks ago, this infobox had headertext "Most stable isotopes of ...", today "Main isotopes of ...". This change relieves the main infobox of the obligation to give a complete list by half-life. Today, we can restrain ourselves to list only the important ones, preferably those as described in the article section Isotopes. My opinion is to be very restrictive here while being as complete as FA-needed in the section. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The reference for standard atomic weight

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

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

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

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

Comments Support from John

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

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

Couple of chemistry queries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking good...

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Axl

  • From the lead section (pun not intended), paragraph 1: "When freshly cut, it is bluish-white; it tarnishes to a dull gray upon exposure to air." The infobox shows the default tarnished appearance, but it would also be nice to see a comparison with the cut bluish-white appearance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The sentence seems too promising. It would still be gray when freshly prepared and would only have a bluish tint. Corrected that.
For the picture, see File:Lead-2.jpg (in the text).--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the picture demonstrates "when freshly cut, it has a bluish-white tint". I don't think that the sample has been cut at all. Also, I am disappointed that the reference is a 1986 book in Russian [Polyanskiy, N. G. (1986). Fillipova, N. A, ed. Аналитическая химия элементов: Свинец]. While technically I suppose that the book meets Wikipedia's requirements as a source, it is an unhelpful reference as verification for readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The point is not that the sample must be cut; the point is that the sample must be pure, and freshly cut samples are purer until they undergo passivation in the air.
The source says, "В свежем срезе свинец является блестящим металлом серо-голубого цвета, который сохраняется в сухом воздухе, но быстро тускнеет в присутствии влаги." Google Translate translates it to "In a fresh cut, lead is a glistening gray-blue metal that persists in dry air, but quickly fades in the presence of moisture."--R8R (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the Russian citation with an English one. Sandbh (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe I did try doing this before and I generally like having English-language sources whenever possible. This is definitely sort of information that should exist in English, I just didn't get to find it (in English).--R8R (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The "new" reference ("Writers of Eminence") was written in 1880...? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, there are still many references to Polyanskiy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
From what R8R says (which accords with my experience looking for this), there may not be a good equivalent to Polyanskiy in English which is similarly comprehensive as a source. There are a great deal of good sources in other languages that languish untranslated (I am still waiting for a translation of the more recent editions of Holleman & Wiberg from German, for example), so I would be willing to make an exception for sources like this when they are very good. Double sharp (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It is a soft, malleable, and heavy metal." In this context, soft and malleable are adjectives, but "heavy" is not a simple adjective. A "heavy metal" is not a "metal that is heavy". The list sentence needs to be re-phrased to avoid the implication that "heavy" is just an adjective. My suggestion: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Good one. Unfortunately, your suggestion won't work (see WP:SEAOFBLUE). The solution I found best was to remove the reference to the heavy metals in general, though maybe other possibilities exist.--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that lead's status as a heavy metal is worth including in the lead section. "Malleable" is an English word that shouldn't necessarily need a wikilink. Moreover, "malleable" redirects to "ductility", and "ductility" is explicitly wikilinked in paragraph 4. If you are concerned about separate wikilinks in adjacent words, I suggest: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't object mentioning that lead is a heavy metal in general. As for "'malleability' is an English word": it is, but it is one that many people don't get right. Many people think "malleable" and "ductile" are synonyms, which they are not; for this reason, we even have a note in the article about this. Also, I prefer to separate the lead from the rest of the article, in counting first links etc. Many people who read the lead won't read any further and some people who want to know something in detail won't read the lead.
How about we move the reference the lead's heaviness to the paragraph on chemistry?--R8R (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe "It is soft and malleable, and is often classified as a heavy metal?
Copying the note here won't do because lead is both ductile and malleable, and mentioning both complicates the matter. Here, we only give a subtle hint the two are not the same.--R8R (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The wikilink that I refer to is in the lead section. Regarding your suggestion of "often classified", lead is one of three elements that fit all of the criteria of heavy metals. I think its status as a heavy metal is more important than being "malleable", more so given that we already say that it is soft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I can agree on having "heavy metal" back, but does it have to be on expense of mentioning its malleability? Here's a solution close to what we've had before: "It is soft, malleable, and a heavy metal." Do you think it's okay to go?--R8R (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Reworded further; please see now.--R8R (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Both the above suggestion and the current statement are fine. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Atomic", paragraph 1: "The similarity in lead is caused by the lanthanide contraction—the decrease in element radii from lanthanum (atomic number 57) to lutetium (71), and the relatively small radii of the elements after hafnium (72)." The first wikilink goes to "atomic radius", which seems fine, while the second link goes to "ionic radius". Is this intentional? If so, the sentence should use the full names of the types of radii to make the distinction clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice one! Yes, that second link doesn't belong there. Removed.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Bulk", paragraph 2: "It is the origin of the idiom to go over like a lead balloon." Shouldn't this be "to go down like a lead balloon"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
See the source: "go over" is AmE, while "go down" is BrE. We use AmE in this article, so it's "go over."--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should give both versions, though. BrE users will understand AmE spellings, but they might not know all the different AmE idioms. Normally this doesn't come up because idioms are not really used in the sort of writing found on WP, but when the idioms themselves are the things being covered, I think it is justified. Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is sort of a minor detail I wouldn't want to interrupt the text with, but I've added a note (this is a fine solution here, I believe) mentioning the British version.--R8R (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Works perfectly for me; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 3: "Their isotopic concentration in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of other elements. For example, the relative abundance of lead-208 can range from 52.4% in normal samples to 90% in thorium ores." The former sentence needs further clarification. I suppose that what is meant is that the percentages of the different lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the quantities of elements from the three decay series. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you basically got that right. Does it look okay now?--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The word "nuclides" could be referring to the isotopes of lead or to the uranium & thorium isotopes. How about this: "The concentration of lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of radionuclides from these three decay chains." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's only Th and U that matter (the rest being their daughters whose occurrence depends totally on that of their planets), so I'd just refer to them as "these thorium and uranium isotopes". Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've edited it to mention Th and U explicitly as the parents; it should be clearer now. Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 4: "Lead-214, -212, and -211 are present in the decay chains of uranium-238, thorium-232, and uranium-235, so traces of all three of these lead isotopes are found naturally." Why are these isotopes listed in descending numerical order? Also, I recommend adding "respectively" to the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure.--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", paragraph 3: "Organic acids, such as acetic acid, dissolve lead in the presence of oxygen." That's interesting. Why is oxygen required? This reference discusses humidity, but doesn't seem to mention oxygen. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the source doesn't go into any detail here. It's a very respected source, though -- it even has a template for wiki citations: {{Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}}.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "A further sesquioxide Pb2O3 can be obtained at high pressure, along with several non-stoichiometric phrases." Should this be "phases"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. This has been fixed, though, but you spotted it well.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "Many of them show defect fluorite structures in which some oxygen atoms are replaced by vacancies." Should this be "defective fluorite structures"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 1: "The most well-characterized exceptions are the purple Pb[CH(SiMe3)2]2 as well as Pb(η5-C5H5)2." Is it relevant that the former chemical is purple? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Support from Double sharp

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

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

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

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

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester

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

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

Coord notes

  • Have I missed a source review for formatting and reliability above? If we still need one you can request it at the top of WT:FAC.
  • That aside, it looks to me that we've pretty well achieved consensus to promote here but pls jump in, reviewers, if I'm speaking too soon... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I am still in the process of reviewing the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I am reviewing every source, but it will take a while. See above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Great white shark

I believe this article should be featured because it is well referenced with over 125 inline citations, was the most popular fish related article during April 2017 according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages, and the information looks pretty complete according to a scan of references from Google scholar.......I had a brief discussion with admin Casliber. The issues with the admin have been addressed......

Nominator(s): Pvmoutside (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about...The Great white shark species Pvmoutside (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

Battle of Prokhorovka

Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the largest tank battles in history, which occurred between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in July 1943, during the Second World War in the Eastern Front. It was the climax of the wider Battle of Kursk, after which the Soviets permanently gained the strategic initiative, while the Germans permanently lost the capacity to launch any more major offensives of such size in the Eastern Front.

This was nominated before but got bogged down on portrait copyright issues, and was ultimately closed due to prolonged inactivity. Image copyright issues have now been resolved with the appropriate fair use tag. EyeTruth (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Support by K.e.coffman

  • Initial comments -- this is after a quick glance, so some are more general than others.
  • There are some cases of over-citations, such as: "this is incorrect as the battle simply did not involve that many tanks.[217][218][219][220][221]". I think this impacts readability, as well as when citations break up sentences: "They eventually succeeded by the morning of 6 July,[32] but the delay in their advance kept them from protecting the east flank of the II SS-Panzer Corps.[24]" These are both cited to Clark, so I'd just combine into one citation.
Response. Some instances of over-citations are due to a decade-long history of arguments and edit wars over numbers, outcome, etc. What've I've done is to merge citations. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Side comment: It seems that the edit warring / disputes have stopped. It's been quiet at the main article (Battle of Kursk), too. Hope it stays this way. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
My general observations is that most of the recent historiography agrees on what occurred. I don't think that the content is generally controversial, so that such close citing is not needed. For example, I read both Showalter and Clark and there were no major disagreements that I could recall. I'd pick up two sources and reduce citations, randomly if needed. I think 3 citations per sentence should be an absolute max, ideally two or less.
Response. Fixed. Merged some more too.
  • From the lead: "...breaking through the third defensive belt to achieve operational freedom" -- would that not be tactical freedom? Soviets still had three belts (not as strong, but still) & plenty of reserves. I think "operational freedom", a la Blau, would be pretty generous.
Response. Need to dig around to verify if this was specifically from any source. However, the last three belts were mostly empty before 5 July, except for some garrison near Kursk itself. Also, the third belt from the front line was scantily occupied until 9/10 July when three armies moved into position. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Response. Removed mention of operational freedom from the lede. Could only find two sources that say the Germans could have achieved freedom of movement if things went as planned, i.e. they barged through the three belts in the first two or three days. EyeTruth (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
'Operational' freedom, though, comports with Glantz's writing on this. The Germans' immediate point was to break through the Soviet tactical zone into their operational depths. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@DMorpheus2: I do feel like I've read something along those lines somewhere before, which is why I had initially allowed it to stay in the article for so long. However, I'm unable to find a source that explicitly shows that the German were in the verge of breaking into a free rear on 12 July. Instead, I keep finding contrary information. EyeTruth (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This is consistent with what I read; to speak of 'operational freedom' in the face of the failure of the northern pincer would be odd. Freedom to nowhere? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From the infobox: 1st Tank Army; 6th Guards Army; 69th Army -- is their inclusion justified in the infobox? They do not appear to be discussed in the article & are mentioned only in footnotes.
Response. Only included for consistent format, because the main units (5th GTA and 5th GA) are in that format. The real focus are the subordinate corps and divisions. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. The reason that I originally asked was because the infobox was creating an impression as if the Soviets had multiple armies counter-attacking several German divisions. I still think that the infobox can be streamlined by removing, for example: 6th Guards Army[h]: 23rd Guards Rifle Corps; 69th Army: 48th Rifle Corps. Both of these corps are mentioned only once in the article. In general, I don't think that the infobox needs to provide the full ORBAT; this can be covered in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Alternatively, everything that's not under the 5th GTA and 5th GA could all get grouped together under "other units", and the bigger units they were subordinated to gets dropped. EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From the background section: "...with Field Marshal Erich von Manstein arguing for a mobile defence..."; from my reading of literature, the situation was more complex, with some German commanders arguing for, some against, while Manstein was first for Citadel, then against it, then sort of for it, etc. I think the mentioning on Manstein only is undue; he was just one of the field commanders. If anything, Kurt Zeitzler, as head of OKH, or Guderian, with whom Hitler appeared to have consulted closely (IIRC), would be more appropriate here. Alternatively, I would put a general statement in there, and not mention specific German commanders, as the situation was muddled. Along the lines of: the opinions were divided. Putting the blame for Citadel solely in Hitler's lap is not in line with what I read (for example, in Citino). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Response. Manstein did hold that view in Feb/Mar 1943. And yes the situation was complex with competing views. But Manstein is the relevant commander here: Haussar → Hoth → Manstein. Hence the focus on just him, Hoth and Hassaur, with a brief mention of Hitler. The broader details of the German planning for Citadel and their operations during the Donets Campaign are (or should be) covered in the Battle of Kursk. EyeTruth (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand now why Manstein was chosen. Still, I think it's a bit simplistic to highlight his idea in this fashion. IIRC, Citino made fun of this proposal, as in: what if the Soviets "refused to cooperate"? In his view, this idea was Wehrmacht's search for Bewegungskrieg at a time when its time has already passed. Etc.
In general, I wonder if the background section is attempting to do too much: two maps, a photo, etc. I would almost start with the section "German advance to Prokhorovka" as it was really the "prelude" to the battle. I don't advocate drastically chopping the Background section at this point, but wonder if you may get similar feedback from other reviewers. If not, then I'd stand corrected. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The article doesn't go into whether his idea would've work or not, and it doesn't strike me as something this article should cover (maybe Battle of Kursk if necessary). EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Background is definitely needed for Prokhorovka. A new reader—say they've finished watching a number of documentaries about the eastern front—should be able to read the first section and not get lost. Jumping straight into the 5th of July 1943 will beg the question of why the Germans are attacking Kursk. EyeTruth (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Thank you for addressing the above. Conditional support pending further input on the structure / scope of the Background section. I don't have further comments on the contents; sourcing and citations are solid. Nice job! K.e.coffman (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Nikkimaria

  • Scaling should generally be done with |upright= rather than fixed image size per WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Done. Only the infobox has fixed image size (because when I changed to "upright" it became toooo oversized). EyeTruth (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

This article is in fine shape. I have a few prose nitpicks and other queries:

  • what data was File:Kursk-1943-Plan-GE.svg drawn from? The original map or works consulted in creating the map is what I am getting at here. This information should be added to the description field of the image file
No clue what the map is based on. But placements of units appears to be roughly fine for 4 July, but there are still some inaccuracies (e.g. placement of 5th GTA and 10th TC). I've always felt a little iffy for the blue arrows. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
p.s. I've always wanted to remove it, but can't find a replacement that's good enough. If you know of any hidding away somewhere in Commons, please share. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • in the lead, did the "coinciding one" have a name?
No name. EyeTruth (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


  • you could probably dispense with "inside the Soviet Union"
  • I don't think you need scare quotes around "Operation Citadel", as it is already in parentheses
  • suggest linking II SS-Panzer Corps when mentioned for the first time in the body
  • suggest "Behind the first three belts were an additional three belts; these were mostly unoccupied and less fortified."
  • suggest "and the 11th Motorized Rifle Brigade"
  • suggest "anti-tank" rather than "antitank" for consistency
  • suggest "The arrival of the 5th Guards Tank Army"
Response. All done except for the first. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


  • General Paul Hausser should just be Hausser at this point per WP:SURNAME
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • in what respect was the battle manoeuvre ordered by Hausser "classic"? Because it was a left flanker?
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "was to concentrate its main effort"
Response. Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest a comma after "On the night of 11 July"
Response. Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest reducing or eliminating words like "massive" as being a bit WP:FLOWERY. Show don't tell, use the number of tanks, for example.
Response. Changed from nonspecific quantitative ("massive") to qualitative ("major"). Numbers are covered in detail in another section. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • the capitalisation of SS-panzer corps in the map caption is a little weird. I'd suggest using II SS-Panzer Corps, you'd only be repeating two more characters.
  • suggest "go over onto" is repetitive. "go over to" is all that is needed.
Response. Done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • it would be worth stating that the offensive by the Voronezh Front was on the southern side of the salient. Also, what was this offensive called?
Response. Done. Wasn't it already clear that Voronezh Front is in the southern side? May need to clarify elsewhere in the article if so. The offensive was unnamed and almost impromptu. When Stavka, on 9 July, gave the greenlight for Kutuzov, Vasilevsky (Stavka rep in the south) was also told to make sure something big happened in the southern side as well. That's part of the reason Roitmistrov didn't lose his head after losing half of his fresh tank army in less than 24 hours. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Opposing forces

  • suggest "divided Leibstandarte's area"
  • "1st SS-Panzerjäger battalion" is the title, so it should be Battalion
  • give Wittmann's rank
  • 6th SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment should be Theodor Eicke
  • "120 surviving tanks" indicates previous fighting which I don't think has been explained. I'd suggest dropping "surviving"
  • suggest "the 26th Guards Tank Brigade of that corps,"
  • suggest "The remainder of the 2nd Guards Tank Corps, supported..."
  • suggest "commit their main effort toward checking"
Response. All done. EyeTruth (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


  • personal bugbear re: "At around". "Around" is all that is needed.
  • "massive" again, also the second wave wasn't massive. Let the numbers do the talking.
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest dropping "hotly contested". No doubt it was, but we already get that from the description of the numbers opposing.
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • the italicisation of the State Farms is inconsistent, I suggest dropping them all, as they are place names
Response. Italicisation made consistent for state farm non-English names across the whole article. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • anti-tank fire is by definition direct. If it was field artillery firing direct, that is a different matter.
Response. The mentioned doesn't seem detrimental or constitute as overemphasis. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • what was the "reconnaissance group"? The 1st SS-Panzer Reconnaissance Battalion?
Response. Yes. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • is there any information about the numbers of Soviet tanks claimed by Wittmann's Tigers?
Response. Nothing for 12 July that I've seen. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "Leibstandarte tactically withdrew" It could be argued that a division could not operationally withdraw in its own right.
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "inhibited air operations over Prokhorovka"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "small number of the G-2 variant"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest breaking the sentence at "the Soviet formations. They were joined by..."
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • worth mentioning at "8 kilometres (5.0 mi) northwest of Prokhorovka" that this was in accordance with the plan
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "massed artilleries" should be "massed their artillery". While strictly speaking, artilleries is a word, it just isn't commonly used.
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "to push Totenkopf back"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "having him court-martialled"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Georgiy Zhukov should just be Zhukov per WP:SURNAME
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Following the main engagement

  • suggest "repelled by concentrated anti-tank artillery fire"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "more defensible positions"
Response. Replaced "more defendable" with "tenable". EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Field Marshal Günther von Kluge" needs commas either side
Response. Put en dashes on either side. Is that OK? EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "on the northern side"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest dropping violent from "violent house-to-house", all fighting is violent
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

  • "2672" should be "2,672"
Response. Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "German historian"
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


  • no points

Misconceptions and disputations

  • "subsequent postwar accounts"
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The historians David..."
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "immense Soviet resistance", and I'd suggest changing "immense" to significant or heavy
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "by the historian Steven"
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest replacing "Pulling from" with "Using"
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest "Other historians have supported these conclusions." Narrative is repetitive here.
Not all of Newton's stated conclusions are being corroborated. Changing to "conclusions" will require moving sentences around a little. But I gave it a shot. EyeTruth (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


  • Glantz, David (2012) needs a location
fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • there are some inconsistencies with locations, at least one has the state designator as well as USA, others don't have USA, others don't have the state designator; UK books, some have UK, others England, some nothing
all fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Licari is out of alphaorder, and what is it about Licari that makes him a reliable source?
I left it there out of respect to some editors from a long time ago. It wasn't really a citation for anything in the article. Moved to external links section. Licari was an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Northern Iowa. His article is a good start, but not completely accurate, and has absolutely no inline citations (especially for figures and historic information). EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Showalter needs an isbn
Fixed. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • what makes a reliable source?
Nothing. It's cited only for the name the VIII Fliegerkorps' commander. EyeTruth (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Structure and background

  • I believe that the structure is fine, and that the amount of detail in the Background section is necessary to set the scene for the battle. That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Kges1901

Support - My concerns have been addressed. Kges1901 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

German attack toward Prokhorovka

  • If 95th Guards Rifle Division is linked, then why is 183rd Rifle Division not linked?
Fixed. Removed wikilink. The Soviets created way too many divisions during WWII. Better to unlink, at least for now. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Disposition of Soviet forces

  • Shouldn't 42nd and 52nd Guards Rifle Divisions be linked as well? Kges1901 (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
See response above. EyeTruth (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I missed it somewhere, I think we still need a source review here. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Also, unless I'm mistaken, this would be the nominator's first FA so I'd like the usual spot-check of sourcing for close paraphrasing and accurate use. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't do a SR because K.e. Coffman said above "I don't have further comments on the contents; sourcing and citations are solid. Nice job!" ... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Please do not take my comment is as a SR; I've read some of the books being cited, so that was my general impression. It might be best to follow the standard protocol. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
OKay, I'll try to get to this tomorrow ... but we're painting. It might be Wednesday. If someone else steps up, that's not a problem. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm the nominator, so I don't know if my source review counts. I did one back when I was taking the article through A-Class review, and since then I've kept a close eyes at sources. Except for a few sources, I've verified that all the information in the article can be found in the respective citations where there are any. The few sources that I couldn't check were Bergström, Healy, Molony et al., and Overy. But for the most part, the passages they are cited for are consistent with what other sources say. EyeTruth (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@EyeTruth: Unfortunately your review does not count as you are the nominator. However, Ealdgyth has done a source review below, and there is just one issue to address. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: As we still need a spot check of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, do you have access to any of the sources used? If so, would it be possible for you to check 4 or 5 references? Some reviewers post the content of the article and the content of the source which verifies it so that other reviewers can check (for example in this current FAC) but that isn't strictly necessary. But I'd like to try and wrap this one up now. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Note G - "It is not uncommon for this formation to be portrayed as part of the 5th Guards Army during the Battle of Prokhorovka, but that is a metachronistic error." is unsourced and probably needs one as it's an opinion.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
removed that statement. EyeTruth (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Nil Battey Sannata

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 12:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 2016 Bollywood film, which was an independent production that incidently got the backing of a big distribution house. The article has been listed a GA, and was recently copy-edited by an independent user to ensure neutrality and the prose issues that might have been overlooked earlier. Looking forward to constructive comments to improve the article, thank you.

Note : As I said, this was a low-budget independent production, and bevause of the lack of coverage for such productions in the newspapers and media, the article might not be as detailed as the ones concerning some of the Bollywood blockbusters. Still it is thorough with the subject and covers all the important aspects of the film. NumerounovedantTalk 12:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. It sounds like a wonderful film. - Dank (push to talk) 16:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits Dank, and yes the film is a pure delight! I am glad you could make that out after reading this. NumerounovedantTalk 19:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I have received this note in previous FACs and even GANs, but make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use.
  • I would add the year of the release for the Tamil remake in the lead (the final sentence of the lead's final paragraph).
  • Just a clarification question, but I am assuming that not all of the characters in the film have their full names given (i.e. Dr. Diwan and Sweety). I just want to make sure that is the case.
Yes, that is just how they are addressed throughout.
  • Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be useful to link "pre-board" in the "Plot" section to the article on board examination, as this is a concept that I am unfamiliar with and readers from other parts of the world may not have a familiarity with either? This is more a question, so feel free to say no to this.
  • I am not sure what you mean by this phrase "that the subject becomes easier if it is understood well". Could you provide some clarify on this, particularly the "if it is understood well" part as it seems somewhat vague in this context? I am sure any subject would be easier if you can understand it better.
Couldn't agree more, it was really vague. I have rephrased here, and although it's practically impossible to translate what the film wanted to say about math as such into words here, I hope the wording works better.
  • It is clearer to me now; thank you for the clarification on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a nitpicky comment, but in the description "quiet and shy", I believe you could could just cut one of the two adjectives as it seems a little repetitive (you don't hear of a lot of loud shy people lol).
  • Would it be better to revise the phrase "too soon in her career" to "early in her career" just to make it more concise?
  • I would revise the sentence (Because "the story stayed in [her] mind", she agreed to the project.) to (She agree to the project because "the story stayed in [her] mind"). Something about starting with the dependent phrase in that context sounds a little off and breaks the flow of the paragraph in my opinion.
  • Did her friends provide any further reasons on why the role would be "career suicide"?
It's mostly because a household help, and mother of a 15 year old isn't the glamorous role, and if course the age difference bit had a lot of role to play. But, I chose to omit this because (a) it's mostly implied and never really quoted directly in the sources, and (b) the age difference bit will lead to repetition.
  • Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • For the phrase (Joginder Tuteja's mixed review for the Bollywood Hungama), I would revise it to (In a mixed review, Joginder Tuteja of the Bollywood Hungama) as it seems a little odd to say that the "review" did something when it was really the reviewer/writer of the review.
  • I would revise one of the instance of "first look" as you repeat it twice in close proximity to one another.
  • You say the trailer earned positive reviews from critics and viewers. Do you have any information on what exactly from the trailer earned positive reviews?
I added a tiny little "review", but i don't want to get into a whole new conversation about sources with putting a more general statement regarding what aspects were praised. I am a 100% sure that there will be no source good enough to substantiate such a claim.
  • I do not believe the "pleasant" and "catchy" quotes are necessary in the "Soundtrack and reception" section and I would cut them as there are a lot of quotes being used in the article and it is always better to go with less if possible.
  • In the sentence (While Gautaman Bhaskaran of Hindustan Times gave it 4 stars out of 5 and remarked that the film "is a powerful and honest work", Shubhra Gupta of The Indian Express noted that, "the film relies on keeping things real".), I do not believe "while" is the best start/transition as it implies that the two reviewers have contrasting ideas and I do not believe that is the case here.
  • The topic sentence for the second paragraph of the "Reception" section is about the mother-daughter relationship, but the actual content of the paragraph seems to focus more on the message of the film. I would make sure the topic sentence matches the content of the paragraph.
  • I am not sure the information about the remake belongs in the "Reception" section. Maybe make it into its own section and add any information on the comparisons between the original and remake? This is just an idea so feel free to say no to this. I can restore i, if you like the version.
That is how it was before the GA, but the reviewer was really insisted on this version. I, for one, liked it before as well.
  • I think that I will leave this up to more experienced FAC reviewers to decide. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wonderful work with this article. The film sounds very motivational and positive, which is always good to hear. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Thanks for taking out the time for the review, all your comments really improved the article. I have (hopefully) fixed everything, and left comments wherever required. Let me know if you have any more concerns. NumerounovedantTalk 20:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for responding to my comments. You have done a wonderful job with this. I will support it. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for the review. NumerounovedantTalk 06:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash

Right now I don't have anything to say, but when I do, you'll know. I'll make some minor c/e and hope they look satisfactory to you. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. NumerounovedantTalk 08:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from AffeL

Support Looks good, great job with this article. A minor problem is that their does not seem to be any sources in the cast section. - AffeL (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@AffeL: I've added one. Thank you for taking out time to review this, I really appreciate it. NumerounovedantTalk 16:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Yashthepunisher
  • At ref 38, International Business Times India --> International Business Times.
  • At ref 48, Bangalore Mirror Bureau --> Bangalore Mirror.
  • Again, I don't feel Koimoi is a reliable source, atleast for a FA-level article.
  • Remove the third external link, since its a non-RS.
  • Fix these green links.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher​: Thank you. I hope all the comments have been addressed. The TOI links seem to have no issues on my server, and i am not sure what's​wing there. Rest i corrected ask the links. NumerounovedantTalk 20:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. NumerounovedantTalk 13:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The Million Second Quiz

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I present my third attempt at bringing a game show to FA status: The Million Second Quiz. This short-lived series aired over 11 straight days in 2013. Ryan Seacrest of American Idol fame hosted the show, which only lasted for the one season. As always, all feedback is welcome; the show's criticism was largely based on the show's confusing format so please don't hesitate to ask questions. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • should not be in italics in the references. Same goes for The Futon Critic. I would go through the references to make sure what should be in italics is in italics, and what should not be in italics is not italics. For the majority, it looks good, but it is always good to double-check this.
  • Remember to avoid shouting in the reference title (reference titles should not be in all caps even it is presented that way in the source (i.e. Reference 18).
  • I have received this note in previous FACs and even GANs, but make sure that all of the works and publishers are consistently cited in all of the references, and not just for the first use.
  • I would expand on the alt text for the Ryan Seacrest image as it does not really illustrate much to the reader (saying the person’s name and occupation and the year does not exactly provide a clear description of the image at hand) if you decide to keep it (see below comment on this).
  • The “the Olympics of quiz” quote in the lead needs a citation.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph in the “Gameplay” section is lacking a citation.
  • I am a little confused by the caption for the studio as it says “original version”. Was there a revised version of the studio, a second version? Are you referencing the set used during non-primetime portions? If so, original to me sounds like this was replaced by something else and I do not believe that was the case here. Some clarification would be helpful.
  • Would it be helpful to break up the “Gameplay” section into one or two more subsections as there is a lot for a reader to take in and some guidance may be helpful (I can understand the criticism against the rules after reading through it). Maybe something for the “Winners’ Row” and “Winner’s Defense” section or something else. This is just a suggestion so feel free to disagree, as I am just trying to think of a way to make this section more approachable rather than a wall of paragraphs of text.
  • (Partly) done. Added a "bouts" section --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I think that helps a lot just to make it more approachable to a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It would seem that the image of the hourglass structure would be more appropriate for the “Production” section as that is where the structure is discussed. I know you want to keep the images of the hosts on all of the game show articles for consistency, but I believe the move would be better as I was slightly confused by the positioning of the image in a place where the gameplay is the focus rather than the picture structured, and I do not see how an image of Ryan Seacrest really illustrates anything further to a reader. This could also help with the confusion that I had with the caption possibly.
  • I will leave the decision regarding the Seacrest image to other more experienced users (i.e. FAC reviewers). I still do not see the value of it necessarily, but that is just my personal opinion and I do not want to enforce that on you or the article so I will leave that up to your personal preference and to other people who comment on here. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we know what happened to the structure after the show’s cancellation?
  • Beats me. I'm not sure what one would do with a gigantor hourglass... quite a good question actually... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I figured that there would not be much information about this, but I just wanted to make sure. My best bet is that it was disassembled/demolished after the cancellation of the program. Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Wonderful work with this article. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Hope this helps in a small way at least. Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Thanks again. I'm still keeping your FAC in mind. If it passes or gets archived before I get around to it, feel free to ask me if I can do something else for you. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for you note, and wonderful job with this article. You inspire me to work on a game show article in the future (I have a few in mind actually lol). I will leave the discussion regarding the Seacrest image to other users as it would be better to get a more experienced viewpoint on that matter. I will support this for promotion. Good luck with getting this promoted and have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Smurrayinchester

A nicely written article about a very odd gameshow (almost Touch the Truck levels of odd, in fact). There is however one fairly big gap, I think: there's not much about how the show actually worked when it wasn't being shown live. The description of prime time bouts is quite detailed, but the explanation of off-screen ones is very offhand. Did the quizzes really go on 24 hours a day? How did contestants sleep? Were there "Challenger", "Line Jumper", and "Winner's Defense" bouts outside of prime time? This needs more explanation before I can support. Smurrayinchester 12:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: Thank you for this; yes, it's quite odd....... Anyway, I don't really have the time to do much research now but I should within a few days or so. I can tell you right away that all the non-prime time bouts were all the same (no Challenger, Winner's Defense, etc) and that several contestants were unhappy with how they were treated and couldn't really get too much sleep (in hindsight, this show was a cool idea but it was horribly executed). Now to find sources for that information... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: This source seems to have some insider information...would this be an acceptable source for me to use? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Bcschneider53: My understanding of the sourcing rules is that it's OK if you make clear in the text that it's a primary source and only shows one guy's perspective. So something like "Seth Stevenson, a journalist for Slate, took part in a nighttime slot and described...". It shouldn't be used as a general citation to explain what the show was like, because it's just one guy's perspective. Smurrayinchester 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: Sounds great. Thanks again. My apologies for being so slow for a seemingly simple task. RL work always comes first...and there has been quite a lot of it recently. Still not sure when I'll have time to do this, but I haven't forgotten! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: I have done my best to expand the non-primetime part of the gameplay section, and have also added to the Reception section with the Slate article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Support Smurrayinchester 07:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

1966 New York City smog

Nominator(s): —BLZ · talk 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Last year, during an introductory lecture for a law school course on environmental policy, I listened as the professor called this smog event one of the defining moments that kickstarted America's awareness of environmental problems. Surprised to find that there was no Wikipedia page for it yet, I started to do some research. I drafted up this article just in time for it to be sit on the homepage for DYK on its 50th anniversary. Since then, it's passed GA and expanded to a point that I believe is FA-worthy. This is my first time working at length on an article about something other than music, so I enjoyed the challenge and change of pace tackling a subject matter other than music for once (and I hope any FA reviewers do, too.)

I believe I have given this topic the thorough treatment that it warrants, given its somewhat under-appreciated status as a major disaster that spurred effective political change at the national level. I believe this article meets all the FA criteria, particularly for research and comprehensiveness. Several sources are either behind the NY Times archive paywall or are law review articles that I accessed through the Westlaw database; please let me know if there are any subscription barriers that I can assist with if you have a question about a source. Most of the relevant passages of book sources are available through Google Books or Amazon preview. My sincere thanks in advance to any and all reviewers. —BLZ · talk 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88

This is a very good, extensively researched article which I have little doubt I will support. In the meantime, some comments:

  • "City health officials initially maintained that the smog had not caused any excess deaths." – "deaths" might be better than "excess deaths" here. We haven't yet reached the footnote that explains what excess deaths are. And a death caused by the smog is by definition an "excess death", so "excess" seems unnecessary anyway.
  • You are exactly right, "excess death" is just the method to measure causation of deaths and is redundant or even misleading in that sentence. Good catch.
  • "The smog served as a catalyst for greater national awareness of air pollution as a serious health problem and political issue." – I’m not sure you intend to say there was "greater national awareness of air pollution as a … political issue". Rather, air pollution simply became a bigger (however described) political issue.
  • Maybe an alternate wording would be clearer, but I think that the wording is accurate. The situation prior to 1966 wasn't that environmental issues were at the forefront of political discourse, but popular support of environmentalism happened to be low. Rather, problems like pollution were not widely conceived of as political issues—that is, problems with a political solution—at all, certainly not to the extent that it became a hot political topic in the late 60s and early 70s. So there was not only an increase in political support, but also an increase in general understanding of environmental problems as political.
  • "An estimated 220–240 people died during the six-day 1953 smog, and an estimated 300–405 people died during the two-week 1963 fog." – This sentence needs to make it clear that the numbers given are for excess deaths, not total deaths. Also, is "fog" correct?
  • Fog is definitely not correct! My mind must have been foggy when I typed that. I've reworded the sentence to describe the causal relationship more accurately.
  • "Other episodes of smog occurred in the city" – "had occurred"?... to make it clear that we are still talking about pre-1963 episodes?
  • Fixed.
  • "Starting in 1953, the city opened a laboratory to monitor pollution..." – not sure what "starting in..." is doing here. Did it not simply open in 1953?
  • I removed "starting," but kept "in 1953" at the beginning of the sentence. It could also be worded "opened in 1953" if you think that's better, I don't have a strong preference.
  • There is a sentence with two mentions of the word "corresponding", which isn’t ideal for readability.
  • Fixed.
  • "served as a poor gauge of the air across all of New York City." Is "all of" necessary?
  • I've reworded this sentence with a few changes. The relevant part now reads: "the index reflected conditions in that small area, but served as a poor gauge of overall air quality across the entire city." The phrasing "all of" was not ideal, but I think there should be wording that suggests the entire area of the city.
  • "Scientists, city officials, and the public knew that New York City had a serious air-pollution problem prior to the 1966 smog episode." – I'd suggest re-arranging this sentence so that it is clear that “prior to” attaches not to the problem but the scientists, etc, knowing about it.
  • I've reworded this, let me know if you think the newer version is better.
  • Yes - this looks good now.
  • The purpose served by the comparison with the Donora and London smogs is not entirely clear to me.
  • I'll elaborate a bit about why I included that paragraph. In the aftermath of this smog, which shocked the public (and the media) in its severity, people went in search of precedents to understand the problem. Since air pollution had not been so widely publicized before, there was no frame of reference or yardstick by which to understand the present. An alarmed public was asking, "has something like this ever happened before?" The two points of reference at hand were Donora (which occurred in a small town, but was very severe and was American) and London (which was very severe and occurred in a global metropolis). The paragraph also informs modern readers, who likely want to know how bad smog events from roughly the same era had been. Since intense episodes of smog are now rare in the English-speaking world, I think the comparison is useful for most readers.
  • "It is difficult to address a given environmental problem without affecting others. Those undesired side effects can be foreseeable or unforeseeable, and are often related to a city's limited resources." – These sentences don’t have a reference. It’s not clear whether they are expressing the views of Mayor Lindsay or are in the voice of Wikipedia.
  • I've reworded and cited that passage.
  • "Despite general awareness of the health and environmental impacts of smog, other problems took priority" – This summary of the New York Times quote that follows is unnecessary and repetitive (to the point of using largely the same words).
  • You're right; I've reworded it to chop down most of the quote, but retained the part that lists what the other priorities were.
  • The final four paragraphs of the article get progressively less relevant, in my view. The second paragraph says no more than "other things have been compared to the 1966 smog" and mentions ad hoc journalistic comparisons that aren't likely to be of much significance. The third paragraph lowers the tone of an otherwise sober, scientific article. The fourth and final paragraph places too much weight upon recent political events and reads to the cynical eye like an opportunistic way to talk about Donald Trump. The discussion in that paragraph certainly belongs in Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, but does it belong here?
  • I've responded to your comment on the legacy section at length below. I'm responding in general terms, mostly on broad POV or notability grounds since those are your concerns. If you have specific feedback about the wording in a sentence, sourcing, or another issue, I can respond again more specifically; I'm certainly open to editing the text if you think specific parts could be improved, but in the big picture I think these paragraphs are justified.

I also made some minor copy-edits. --Syek88 (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Syek88: Thank you for your prompt feedback and thorough copyediting. I've responded to all of your comments above, at length where necessary. —BLZ · talk 21:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry for taking so long to return to this. I haven't had much time available lately, and did not want to do a quick skim. I don't quite agree with the justifications for the final four paragraphs, especially the final two, but the justifications are certainly reasonable, and it would be most unreasonable for me to withhold support merely because I do not agree with them all. I am also mindful that no other reviewer has joined the issue. In these circumstances deference to the author is appropriate. Overall the article is in my opinion better than the average successful Featured Article candidate that I have seen recently. It meets the criteria. I am happy to support. Syek88 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I'm doing this offline and my some of my comments may have been cleared up already.

  • "It was the third major smog event in New York City, following smogs of similar scale in 1953 and 1963." I would lose the repetition, that is the "smogs", by substituting some synonym, or possibly "events".
  • I've reworded it to "It was the third major smog in New York City, following events of similar scale in 1953 and 1963."
  • " Today, the smog has served as a milestone" I might say, "The 1966 smog is now a milestone" as "today" feels awkward with "has served".
  • Reworded, now reads: "The 1966 smog is a milestone that has been used for comparison with . . ."
  • I would suggest re-ordering the subsections in the Background section to put the "Warnings" first. It contains basic information, such as the sources of the smog, that help the reader understand what things were like in 1966.
  • I see what you mean; I've rearranged a bit and retitled a subsection. The "basic information" parts of the "Warnings" section has been moved to the first section, which I've retitled from "Previous smogs" to "Smog before 1966". I've left "Warnings" as the last section, and now that title is more strictly accurate as a section just about specific warnings about the possibility of a disaster, not just general awareness of smog as a problem. I want to keep "Warnings" last because it keeps the Background section as a whole roughly chronological, and I think it should follow the "City air monitoring" since the warnings were only possible with the ability to measure smog.
  • "Starting in 1953, the city opened a laboratory to monitor pollution" I would omit "Starting".
  • Fixed by a prior edit responding to Syek88's review
  • "the city developed a corresponding air-pollution alert system with three stages of alert, matching increasingly severe levels of pollution with corresponding city countermeasures." I would strike the second-to-last word, "city" as not needed.
  • Agree, fixed
  • "headquartered in Columbus Circle" I would suggest "at" for "in".
  • Fixed
  • "was authorized in 1962 by New York and New Jersey to oversee air pollution issues" The state of New York or the city?
  • The state. I haven't written about New York (city or state) prior to this article, so I wasn't sure about the best way to avoid confusion between the two. I chose to always call the city "New York City" or "the city" and reserved "New York" for the state. I also tried to limit instances where using "New York" alone could be confusing, so it typically comes up in relation to other states or with other cues that indicate the sentence is about the state. In that paragraph, I intended "Interstate Sanitation Commission" and "New York and New Jersey" would clear up that it's the state.
  • "The sources of the smog were particulate and chemical matter from factories, chimneys, and vehicles" "matter" reads oddly. Can we say "pollutants"?
  • Reworded to "The material sources of the smog were particulates and chemicals from . . ." The word "pollutants" would be too general here, since that word describes what the matter does (matter that pollutes) rather than what it is (what kind of material it is).
  • "The unusually heavy smog was evident to the crowd of one million onlookers at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on November 24.[2] Tabloids and newspapers that ordinarily ran front-page stories about the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade instead carried stories about the smog." consider shortening the second Macy's etc. to "parade".
  • Fixed
  • "requesting an emergency meeting with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, New Jersey Governor Richard J. Hughes, and other regional leaders." for clarity, I would add "be held" after "meeting" and "present" at the end of the sentence.
  • Reworded
  • "for the New York metropolitan area, including areas in New Jersey and Connecticut," to avoid repetition, I would suggest "parts of" for "areas in".
  • Reworded
  • "the city asked commuters to voluntarily stop driving unless necessary, apartment buildings to stop incinerating their residents' garbage, and apartment buildings to reduce their heating to 60 °F." I might suggest, "the city asked commuters to stay home unless necessary, and apartment buildings to stop burning residents' garbage and turn heating down 60°F.".
  • Reworded (used your suggestion except "to stay home" —> "to avoid driving")
  • "New Jersey and Connecticut asked their residents to voluntarily reduce consumption of heating, electricity, and transportation." maybe "New Jersey and Connecticut asked their residents not to travel, and to use less power and heat."
  • Reworded
  • "if the wind did not come, a first-stage alert would likely remain in effect and it may become necessary to declare a second-stage alert" "may" should be "might".
  • Fixed
  • " chocked up" This seems a bit informal. Maybe "attributed"?
  • Reworded
  • "Hundreds of sanitation workers worked overtime to transport garbage to landfills in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island,[24] with the bulk going to Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island." I might simply refer to it as "Fresh Kills" to avoid the repetition. It's clear from context it was a landfill.
  • Reworded
  • "The earliest report of casualties came when President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a message delivered to Congress on January 30, 1967. " There is a redundancy problem in this sentence ("delivered" x2) Was this his State of the Union speech? If so, I would mention it as that increases the importance placed on it.
  • A "special message" from the president to Congress is formal, but is not necessarily delivered as a speech; it can just be a written letter. Such messages typically address a specific problem and request legislative action; while these messages are formal, they are less formal than State of the Union messages (which are constitutionally required and expected to be delivered as speeches) and less sweeping due to their focus on a single subject matter. There's no indication that this particular message was delivered as a speech. This source discusses LBJ's decision to deliver a voting-rights message as a speech, and helpfully notes that "[p]residents rarely deliver special messages to Congress in person to advocate for a specific bill, especially on domestic policy." In addition to removing the duplicate word, I switched out the ambiguous "delivered" (since both a speech or letter can be "delivered") and replaced it with "sent".
  • "Two major medical studies have analyzed . Leonard Greenburg — " There is a stray space before the period, but also "analyzed" requires something to analyze.
  • Another reviewer fixed this.
  • There is uncited matter in the "Urban Life" section.
  • I tightened up the sourcing there in response to Syek88's comments.
  • I might tighten that section a bit by citing examples from New York City of how white flight and the other urban harms affected things, if you have statistics available, and make it clearer when this was going on.
  • I wish I could! That section is a bit more general than I'd prefer, but I'm a bit limited by the sources. I have a bit of a catch-22 in that section. Any sources that discuss mid-century white flight in more depth would focus on general sociological forces other than the smog, while the sources that discuss the 1966 smog and white flight are very general. Any more detailed discussion would stray from the smog. White flight (and the roughly opposite trend, gentrification) are very complex topics with multiple overlapping causes; I doubt that any sociologists had studied the impact of this single smog, if such a study could even isolate the motivation of migrating populations to single causes. It may be that a source that discusses the smog and white flight exists in the academic literature somewhere, but if it does I haven't found it. Nevertheless, I thought it would be valuable to reflect the sources that indicate pollution, and this smog specifically, was likely among the many factors that motivated affluent residents to leave New York City around that time. If readers want more detailed discussion of white flight, they are going to have to turn elsewhere on Wikipedia or other sources. —BLZ · talk 21:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Remainder soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "back-up". I would just say "backup".
  • Fixed.
  • Can something be said about the actual steps taken by the city, what the laws required? This seems a bit glossed over in the discussion of the effects of the legislation.
  • The actual steps, other than increasing monitoring or setting limits on emissions/requiring different fuels, are not widely discussed in the sources I've found. I'm sure the laws themselves are highly technical and dense, and I didn't want to bog down too far into those details. It's a similar catch-22 as I faced with the "white flight" sources
  • Since we discuss interstate compacts in such detail, I'm wondering if the Sanitary Commission was one and if therefore interstate compacts should be mentioned when you introduce that body.
  • I chose to discuss interstate compacts in detail later for a few reasons:
  • 1) Interstate compacts are kinda a niche topic. They are somewhat unusual in American government, or at least unfamiliar, even to American readers, and even to American readers who are well-versed in politics, government, and the Constitution. Even if the concept of an interstate agency is intuitive and familiar, the underlying legislative procedure to create one is not.
  • 2) Explaining the failure of the Mid-Atlantic States Air Pollution Control Compact proposal requires an understanding of the (formidable) procedural requirements that it couldn't meet. The states couldn't just pass it themselves, they depended on the approval of the whole national Congress, even though it didn't affect the whole nation.
  • 3) I think that a general reader, with general knowledge and intuition, would probably be left wondering what stopped the states from just making the interstate compact that they wanted. But that doesn't apply to the earlier mention of the Sanitary Commission, since the existence of interstate agencies can be "taken for granted" by a reader. If I didn't feel bound to explain what an interstate compact was only by the nitty-gritty failure of one to pass, I would have avoided the details altogether.
  • I'm not sure the caption explains the relevance of the Graveshead Bay incinerator photo. Was it shut down? Is the trash waiting for its doom or is it there because the plant's been shut down?
  • It's not really directly connected, other than serving as a general illustration of an over-burdened incinerator from the same era. The section discusses the problems caused by interaction between environmentally motivated actions and other duties of a city. The smog did cause some specific examples of those problems, but more importantly, it prompted general thinking about those undesired interactions as a general principle of city management. I thought using an era-appropriate (but not directly historically connected) photo as an illustration would work, because it complements the sort of general, textbook-like ideas of that section. However, if you think it doesn't work I'm open to that too, I was just brainstorming other free images I could use to dress up the page a bit more.
  • " but further action was opposed by members of congress" Congress is capped. In this case, I'd cut the last two words anyway, it's clear where this debate is taking place.
  • Fixed the capitalization, but I left "members of Congress" intact. You're right that it's clear "where" it's taking place, but the phrase is really about "who". It is important to clarify the opposition was from members of Congress, not members of the public, industry representatives, or some other group that can exert influence on Congress. As for the wording: using "members" by itself is sort of awkward, and "members of Congress" rolls off the tongue even if it looks repetitive (substituting the non-gender-neutral synonym, "congressmen," also shows this).
  • I don't think it's a good idea for the first sentence of a "Legacy" section to start off with a sentence that does not mention the subject of the article. Start more strongly. Maybe start by saying the smog was recalled after 9/11 and served as a basis of comparison. Is there any chance of beginning the section with a short paragraph on the "big picture" legacy of the smog, perhaps with a quote or two? Because the items listed all seem not hugely significant.
  • I drafted a brief introductory paragraph; let me know if you think it works. "Legacy" as a word, though technically accurate, connotes something different than I wanted, it has a vibe that is too "grand". The word "legacy" is usually used for an influence that has increased over time (for example an album's "legacy" would be, quintessentially, a The Velvet Underground & Nico-esque snowballing from toiling obscurity to ubiquitous recognition of genius and clout) or come to be recognized more and more over time (an individual politician's contributions may have been misunderstood or under-estimated in their own time). The word certainly primes a reader to expect something more than a list of, I'll admit, "not hugely significant" recollections, but I don't know what other word to use. This smog's real "legacy" is what resulted immediately (deaths and politics) rather than any "significance" or "influence" that appreciated in value/increased over time, and by the end of the article I've already exhausted all the analysis and quotes about the real long-term significance. The "legacy" section is really more of a list of "when this smog does get mentioned decades later (outside of strictly historical recounting), this is how and why it has been remembered." Maybe there's a better title, something that would set up reader expectations better? I just don't know what alternate word would work.
  • " his administration's environmental policy" maybe "proposals" for "policy", especially as you use "Trump's policies" a little later.
  • Reworded.
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I've edited in response to all of the above, let me know what you think. I've also added a bit more text in light of sources I had not come across until now and only found through happenstance. —BLZ · talk 02:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Support Looks good enough for me. I was in Beijing last fall, hope it wasn't as bad as that. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

First read-through:

  • "Open topography and favorable wind conditions prevented New York City's smog from concentrating to an uninhabitable extent." This sentence does not seem to flow well with what what comes before and after it, which talk about how New York's smog was a problem. In fact, the sentence seems contradictory with the whole article, which is about how for a few days New York's smog did become uninhabitable, to the point where it may have killed dozens of people.
    • I've added a few sentences to clarify what I mean. Basically, NYC polluted more than LA, but LA's pollutants concentrated while NYC's would normally escape with the wind. The air pollution didn't seem as bad as LA's because something unusual would have to happen for the smog in NYC to become dramatically visible or acutely lethal. NYC's intense episodes of smog occurred when abnormal weather prevented the usual escape of smog.

November 24: Thanksgiving Day

  • First sentence uses "close call" which sounds a little colloquial, but maybe okay. But when "close call" is repeated in footnote g, I feel the repetition pushes this to the point where one wants a more encyclopedic term. Could you replace at least the instance in the footnote?
    • I fixed this by rewording those sentences and substituting two quoted phrases from the article: "on the verge" and "very, very close"

November 25: first-stage alert declared:

  • "Thomas R. Glenn Jr., the commission's director and chief engineer, recommended the alert at 11:25 a.m. after seeing instruments in New York and New Jersey that showed carbon monoxide greater than 10 ppm and smoke greater than 7.5 ppm, both for more than four consecutive hours." I know that ppm is spelled out and wiki-linked in footnote 4, which is technically before this, but for readers who don't read the footnotes, how would you feel about also wiki-linking here?
    • I think that makes a lot of sense, fixed.


  • The first sub-heading is "Initial estimates of health effect and casualties" and the next one is simply "Casualties". Would it be an idea to change the second sub-heading to something like "Casualties: subsequent estimates" or "Subsequent estimates of casualties" to distinguish the topic more clearly from the first section?
    • Agreed, I went with "Subsequent estimates of casualties"

National attention:

  • Third paragraph: two sentences in a row beginning with "According to".
    • Reworded.

That's all for the first read-through. The reviewers above already caught a couple of other points I was going to mention. I'll try to have a second read-through soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've addressed your points above and I look forward to your second run-through. —BLZ · talk 01:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Second read-through:
Just a few more comments. Address these and I will support.

  • I don't have a strong opinion about this, but have you considered including conversions to Celsius throughout the article? This could make the information more understandable to English-speaking readers around the world living in countries where Fahrenheit is not used. For reference, the lead of Global warming is one place that uses such conversion templates.
  • Great idea, I've added conversions (although I did them manually).

November 24: Thanksgiving Day:

  • "Representative William Fitts Ryan of Manhattan sent a telegram to Secretary of Health and Human Services John W. Gardner requesting an emergency meeting be held with New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, New Jersey Governor Richard J. Hughes, and other regional leaders present." It's not clear to me where the other regional leaders were "present".
  • I'm not sure what you mean. I reworded the sentence slightly, let me know if that got at what you thought was confusing.
  • That fixed my concern, great. What I had meant was that "present" implies being present in a particular place, but I couldn't figure out what specifically that place was supposed to be. Moisejp (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Subsequent estimates of casualties:

  • "Pollution experts estimated that if a smog as strong as the Donora smog occurred in the much more populous New York City, the death toll could have been as high as 11,000 with four million ill." Should this possibly be "Pollution experts estimated that if a smog as strong as the Donora smog had occurred in the much more populous New York City, the death toll could have been as high as 11,000 with four million ill." Or "Pollution experts estimated that if a smog as strong as the Donora smog occurred in the much more populous New York City, the death toll could be as high as 11,000 with four million ill." Those would be the regular patterns of the 3rd and 2nd conditional. The first would be talking about a hypothetical past event, and the second about a hypothetical future event (in relation to the experts saying this). As it is now, it's not clear whether the hypothetical event is meant to be in the past or future.
  • I think the former is closer to the sentence structure in the source; I've reworded it to that. Or, maybe, "Pollution experts estimated that if a smog as strong as the Donora smog were to occur in the much more populous New York City, the death toll could be as high as 11,000 with four million ill."


  • "The New York City-based indie pop band Vampire Weekend used a photograph of the smog over the city skyline, taken by Neal Boenzi and originally published in The New York Times, for the cover of their 2013 album Modern Vampires of the City." I don't know what is best for this, but did you consider explicitly stating that this is the same photo (or not) shown in the infobox at the beginning of the article? Perceptive readers may see from the infobox's caption that this photo was also taken by Neal Boenzi, and may wonder whether it is the same one. Moisejp (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I did consider this, but it seemed too obvious. I figure that if people know the album already, they will probably recognize it when they click the link; and if readers have gotten that far in the article and are interested in seeing the cover, it should click for them if they click through to the VW album article. —BLZ · talk 07:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose. All of my concerns are addressed. This is a really, really nice article. Moisejp (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The ed17

  • Support on sourcing - looks really good overall; only random thoughts and one optional recommendation from me. Note that I haven't assessed the content. This article, written from scratch about an event that checks just about every box in our systemic bias (not a criticism!), is proof that Wikipedia is not finished.
    • Not a fan of how {{citation}} handles dates with vs without authors (why one uses parenthesis and one doesn't is beyond me). Not something in your control.
    • Bibliography does not include publisher locations, but those are marked as optional over at WP:HOWCITE.
    • Getting your hands on an original copy of Wise would be useful, as iUniverse is a self-publishing house.
    • Love the use of the subscription lock icons. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support!
    • I added the publisher locations to the bibliography section; it was a good exercise to double-check each of the references and make sure all the information was thorough and accurate. I also updated all the ISBNs to the ISBN13 standards (with the dashes!), which is preferred. I found that one of my references cited an editor as an author and that two had the wrong year (one because there was a second edition, the other probably a typo).
    • I will look into Wise. My school's online catalog says our library has a copy, so I should be able to check on that tomorrow.
    • I'm a big fan of the subscription lock icons too. I never knew they existed until midway through writing this article. I relied extensively on NY Times' archive and initially cited the old print articles without links, since most readers wouldn't be able to access the articles anyway. I updated those sources with links later when I realized the subscription lock could indicate that they were behind a paywall. —BLZ · talk 01:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @The ed17: I was able to get my hands on the print edition of Wise; the source now reflects the first edition, and I was able to draw a little more from the book than what I had been able to find online. —BLZ · talk 02:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Brilliant on all counts! I'm glad you were able to get more info—pretty nice bonus. Truly great work on this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Meteorology pedantry from JC

Echoing the previous comments that the article appears to be in great shape overall. Anyone who knows me could have guessed that I'd be immediately drawn to the weather maps, and I did notice a few things in the meteorological narrative that could stand to be clarified.

  • An anticyclonic thermal inversion[28] — in other words, a stationary, warm mass of air – Perhaps it could be clarified that this warm mass of air is located above the ground/atop a cooler airmass.
  • Reworded.
  • Inversions can act like a lid, preventing the usual process of lower, warm air rising. Such weather events are common, and they are usually followed by a cold front that blows them away. – This seems to misrepresent the source material slightly. Cold fronts can actually help strengthen thermal inversions, so the hope would have been for the front to "blow away" the smog near the ground instead of the inversion itself.
  • Ah, I misunderstood the source originally. Let me know if the new wording makes sense.
  • Surface weather analysis maps showing wind at a height of 18,000 feet – Surface weather maps show the weather at the surface; data from above the ground, as in these illustrations, are plotted on an upper air map/chart. It might also be worth clarifying that the height level is "approximately" 18,000 feet, since the geopotential height is dynamic and can vary by thousands of feet across a continent.
  • Reworded.
  • Shortly after 9 a.m. the wind arrived, moving mostly from the northeast between 5–6 miles per hour and bringing cooler temperatures in the 50s °F (10–15 °C). – A few questions: first, cooler relative to what? In looking at the daily records for KJFK, the temperature had not reached 60°F since November 11. Second, it might be worth noting that winds increased to a more formidable 15 mph sustained by midday (source). Finally, I can't access the cited NYT article, but in a cold front passage the winds wouldn't be mainly out of the northeast; they'd shift from southwesterly to northwestern (which is what the actual wind observations from JFK generally show).
  • This is the passage that I relied on from the NYT source (this paragraph begins on the second page of the story under the subheading "Winds Fairly Gentle," for anyone with access who would want to check):
  • "Actually, the wind that cleared out the smog never became too strong, and the temperature did not fall too much. The wind, mostly from the northeast, varied between 6 and 10 miles and hour, as compared with the sluggish atmosphere of Friday that was sometimes a dead calm. The temperature was generally in the fifties, whereas on Friday it had reached 64, a record for the date."
  • To answer your questions in turn: "cooler" means cooler relative to the claimed record high of 64 on that Friday, the 25th. The NYT doesn't precisely attribute the statement above, but I would presume that it was the city's health/pollution officials since they are the prevailing source for this article and others about the smog. I requested NOAA climate records for New York City from November 1–30, and most of the recording stations put it in about the same ranges, even if the "cooler" difference may be a matter of only a few degrees: most recording stations put the high for the 25th somewhere above 62, and most stations put the high for the 26th at or below 59. I corrected the wind speed based on the source to 5–10 mph rather than 5–6 mph (typo on my part). Finally, though it may be strange, the NYT reported that the wind was "mostly from the northeast".
  • Just as a suggestion – feel free to disregard – it may be helpful to include a chart like this (probably qualifies under {{PD-ineligible}}) which shows the inversion conditions in the northeast. That particular graph is for Albany as I can only find raw data for NYC, but it would look quite similar. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That link doesn't work right now, so I don't know what kind of chart it is or what data it shows :(. I'd love to include more weather data, but I'm woefully under-qualified to determine what data (and data visualizations) would actually be useful. Can the NOAA data I requested above be used?
  • @Juliancolton: Your review is very appreciated. Meteoreology pedantry is just what the doctor ordered. It was the subject matter I felt the most shaky about while writing this article. I'd considered going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones for assistance since I knew hurricanes were pretty well represented at FA, but never got around to it; by some luck, a hurricane contributor ended up helping me anyway. Thank you! Let me know if you have any further questions, and I'd be happy to incorporate more weather data or images if there's some data set in particular that you think I can use or adapt. —BLZ · talk 02:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes

I think we still need a couple of checks:

  • Firstly, an image review.
  • Secondly, given it looks like it's been several years since your last FAC, Brandt, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

You can post requests for both at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

I'll do a source spotcheck. Just give me a day or two, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I've started looking at the sources. I may be busy in the next couple of days but will try to wrap up the spotcheck very soon. Moisejp (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at two random sources so far. The second one seems probably mostly good, and I will wait until my next time at the keyboard to comment on it. But I have some concerns with the first source I spotchecked, which is Goklany 1999, p. 24 (available on Google Books)—ref #8. Some of the statements seem mostly OK, but I have larger concerns with other ones.

  • "Smog is the name of a type of air pollution commonly found in urban and industrialized areas." If one removes "urban", I think this is pretty much encompassed in the following statement from the source, and should be OK: "In the early 1940s, Los Angeles began experiencing a new kind of smog quite unlike the traditional smoke problem experienced elsewhere in the industrialized world."
  • Supplemented by Wise 176 to reinforce that smog is common to urban areas. This was implied but not stated directly in Goklany 24, so good catch.
  • "b. Smog is the product of "secondary" pollutants (ozone, oxidants) that form when hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides react together in sunlight." / "A combination of several distinct chemical pollutants,[b] smog arrived in modern cities in the 1940s and 1950s with the popularization of motor vehicles and development of new power plants." Here the source discusses these things in terms of experts accepting them to be true about the smog in Los Angeles in the 1950s. I just looked at the source quickly, but I'm not sure that the source supports that these facts are globally true of all cases of smog.
  • "Although smog is a chronic condition, unfavorable weather conditions and excessive pollutants can cause intense concentrations of smog that can cause acute illness and death; because of their unusual visibility and lethality, these intense smog events are often publicized in the media and are typically described as disasters." This is all there at the bottom of page 24, except for the concept of disaster, which in good faith I will assume is in one or more of the other three sources cited together with this one.
  • Two of the other sources, Freeman and Fensterstock & Fankhauser, reinforce the concept of intense smog episodes resulting in heightened publicity. Although I don't have a copy of the Wise book with me at the moment and I don't believe the earlier pages are available online, I know that that the concept of these smogs "as disasters" is contained in those pages and that I relied on it for that idea. The title of the book itself is Killer Smog: The World's Worst Air Pollution Disaster. I've split where the references appear in the sentence so that it is more clear which sources are used for which ideas. I've also added Popkin p. 27, which is available online, for additional support for the notion that these episodes were/are commonly understood as disasters. Popkin p. 27 twice uses the word "disaster," once to refer to the 1948 Donora smog ("This episode was recognized immediately as a disaster") and once for the 1953 NYC smog ("... less than six weeks before the disaster").
  • "Even before the 1966 smog episode in New York City, it was known by scientists, city officials, and the public that the city—and most major American cities—had a serious air-pollution problem." Unfortunately, I'm really not sure what on page 24 is meant to support this statement.
  • The other two sources are more significant here.
  • Wise gives an overview of smog in America and lists several American cities that had been known to have pervasive air pollution problems (including NYC); the sentences that follow contain this evidence, and more quotes backing up this idea are cited from the same pages in the "Warnings" subsection. This primarily supports the awareness among scientists. I believe Wise also refers to city officials, but I've added a source from NYT that reinforces that idea (the fact that this section is followed by an entire section on the monitoring system developed by the city should also suffice to support that idea). I believe, but am not certain at the moment, that some of the text in Wise would support the idea of awareness among the general public.
  • The Life editorial (accessible via Google Books) summarizes the state of scientific knowledge about the dangers and extent of air and water pollution in the United States, including in New York City, and urges public action to address the problem. I take the publication of an editorial in Life, a magazine with a weekly circulation of millions of copies and a general readership (i.e. nonspecialized, intended to be read by a general audience), as constructive evidence that there was pre-existing awareness of the problem among "the general public". The fact that there were laws on the books about pollution also supports some pre-existing awareness among the public. Journalistic publications and political bodies are quintessential "public institutions".
  • The Goklany source here mainly works as backup for two already-supported ideas: that scientists were aware of the problem of smog, and that the public had some awareness of it as well. I thought the source was useful for support because it describes the genesis of scientific study of the newer photochemical smog in American cities, which began in LA. Not only does it state that there is scientific awareness, but it traces a meaningful starting point for a phase of deeper scientific study of the topic. This sentence on that page (indirectly) supports the idea of public awareness: "Third, a series of air pollution episodes occurred in which excess deaths and sicknesses were noted and covered almost immediately by newspapers."
  • I found text on page 25 of Goklany that more explicitly supports the notion of pre-existing public awareness, a paragraph which ends with "... increasing affluence made the general public more desirous of a better quality of life and less tolerant of pollution". I peeked at Goklany's source, a book called Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985 by Samuel P Hays, through Amazon. Hays, on the pages cited by Goklany, describes a trend of increasing environmental awareness/intolerance of pollution from the 19th century into the early 20th century, which the author notes rose concurrently with the transition to a "consumer" economy. Hays does not connect that general awareness/economic trend to the specific problem of air pollution... But Goklany does. He uses it to explain why smog episodes were being noticed with increasing frequency, which strongly supports the ideas of public and scientific awareness. I've now amended the citation to include 24–25 and the quotes I relied on.

BLZ, please let me know if I have possibly missed context or other passages in the text in my spotchecking of this page. Moisejp (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've responded above and made some changes. The last change I'm going to make is to the definition of smog: you're right that the definition of "smog" offered is slightly misleading because it's a little too narrow. What I describe there is "photochemical smog," a type of smog that is usually just called "smog," which (as you noted) is quintessentially an LA-style smog. The word "smog" is also used to refer to a "smokier" smog, or London-style smog. The New York smog was a little bit of both in terms of the composition of the chemical pollutants at work, so I think defining the scope of the term warrants a slightly more thorough treatment than I've given so far. I've already rounded up a few sources that I think are helpful to unpack what "smog" means for the purposes of this article, without going overboard and doing some of the work that might be better suited for the main Smog article. I'll draft that bit later today, and also respond to your second spotcheck below —BLZ · talk 20:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The second source I've spotchecked is ref #28—Anderson 1999, p. 472. There is just part of a paragraph at the bottom of the page about the 1966 New York smog, and the first, third, and fourth statements for ref #28 are all clearly stated in the source, but I couldn't find info about the second statement. The next page (473) is not available to me in Google Books, but I wonder whether the second statement may be covered later in the paragraph (i.e., on page 473)? Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:1966 NYC smog by Neal Boenzi NYT.jpg: NFCR seems fine, as is use. Wondering whether there are any images of that smog that are freely licensed. Is there a reason why "cloud" does not appear in the search function of the source that backs up the second part of the caption?
  • I went searching in vain for a free 1966 smog image, but I don't believe (to the best of my combing through flickr and various public domain archives) that any exist. In fact, that same copyrighted NYT image used to be on Commons because a user at Flickr is falsely claiming it as their own free image, and I requested that it be deleted. The reason that the search function couldn't find it is because that link was using EPA's very wonky and antiquated document reader, which requires that you go to a new URL every time you turn to a new page of a PDF. Therefore, I linked to the first page of the sourced article (page 27), even though the source for that particular information was on page 28. I recently discovered how to actually access the PDF files themselves, but hadn't yet fixed it so the URL for that source pointed to the PDF; I have now done so. You should be able to find the caption that I used for that quote in the caption at the top-right hand corner of page 28, and the caption refers to their reprint of the image on page 29.
  • Chiming in here (BLZ was the one replying above)—I would keep this even if a freely licensed alternative is found. It's a historically significant image that has garnered commentary in its own right. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    @The ed17: Enough commentary to merit its own page? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@The ed17: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I agree with The ed17; if a sufficient free image were found, I would still argue for the inclusion of the NYT image (but not in the infobox, it would have to appear later in the piece, probably within the timeline section on the corresponding day). I'm pretty familiar with the fair use doctrine as applied on Wikipedia and I wanted to really establish that this particular image has more value than "merely" illustrating the smog in the absence of free options. For that purpose alone it would be, at least theoretically, replaceable if a free image turns up. But whether that happens or not, I wanted to include the kind of substantive, third-party commentary that would generally support the importance of a copyrighted photo as a unique historic photo in its own right. Even independent of our circumstantial reliance on it as one of the few available images to show the smog, this photo has some independent notability. I'm glad that The ed17 picked up on that in the caption and article. All that said, I don't think there's a strong chance of a free image (much less a high-quality one) turning up out of the blue anyway, so this is all a bit speculative. —BLZ · talk 20:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not enough for an article, no, but quoting from NFC: "Two of the most common circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are: ... where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article ..." :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The source of the caption is also the exact source of the maps (which I arranged into a grid and labeled myself) and their corresponding captions that describe their contents.
  • You're the second person to comment on this image seeming slightly non-germane. I have no strong feeling about including it. I included it in the first placebecause it illustrates the general problem of trash management in NYC and is from roughly the same era; I wouldn't defend it as specifically related to "environmental problems + trash problems" (it's just illustrating trash problems) or tightly contemporaneous (it is years apart from the 1966 smog). If you think it should go, I'm happy to take this one out.
  • Source should be fixed for this one as well.
  • File:Rockefeller and Johnson.jpg: Use of image seems fine. Regarding the caption, I am not sure if the "became a major policy objective" text in the caption gels with the "already a priority" of the article. Source link broken.
  • I didn't upload this image or the image below; is retrieval of those links (through or other means) necessary to complete the image review?'
  • Regarding the caption and the article body: I wrote "already a priority" because it had been something Johnson had spoken about several times, and it would be misleading to suggest that his post-1966 statements and actions on air pollution were a completely newfound revelation on the issue. That said, with the wind of Congress behind him he was certainly newly empowered to act, and so it "became a major policy objective" at that time. It would be like if Obama had been able to sign major gun-control legislation after his fifth or so speech commemorating victims of a massacre and calling for increased gun control; in that fantasy world, it would be misleading to represent that Obama had never or hardly seen gun control as a priority (since he would have already talked about it five or so times by then), but it would also be accurate to say that (while it had "already" been a priority) it still became a "major" priority after the massacre. I could tweak the wording from "became a major policy objective" to "more pressing" or "more urgent policy objective," if you think that one of those or another alternate would express the idea better.
  • Same question as above on broken source link.

None of the images is currently using ALT text seems like. Some captions sourced to offline sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: thank you for the review; I've responded to your concerns, and have questions on the broken links, all outlined above. —BLZ · talk 06:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    Most stuff now seems to check out. About the broken links, are there archived versions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I figured out what was wrong with the broken links. The photo gallery page is a searchable database, but each individual photo doesn't have (at least, doesn't seem to have so far as I can tell) a unique permalink of its own. What I've done is find those photos within the gallery and then include their unique serial numbers with the link in the source. Someone trying to access the photos just has to copy-paste the serial number to find it. —BLZ · talk 04:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've now added alt captions for each image. —BLZ · talk 05:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    Alright, seems like source links and ALTs check out now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Lordelliott (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets all requirements to become a featured article. Several years and hard research and dedication have gone into this article and I would like to get this through the "final" phase. Thank you. Lordelliott (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Siuenti says

  • It seems to justify the "Goddess of Pop" appellation by going out and looking for sources which call her that and adding as many as possible. Not sure that's appropriate. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Should we trim some of the sources? Lordelliott (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I think this might be arguing the case from primary sources, when I'm fairly sure you should be looking for neutral and authoritative secondary source(s) which say she is "known as" such. Compare a google news search for "known as the king of pop" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I was unable to find an authoritative secondary source stating exactly that she is "known as the Goddess of Pop". However, there are numerous reliable sources such as CNN, Time, Forbes, Money, The New York Times and Billboard calling her "the Goddess of Pop", which could easily support that she is "commonly/often referred to by the media as the Goddess of Pop" instead of "known as", which is a much stronger claim. Do you think we should remove that sentence anyway? Lordelliott (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I think probably it's better to remove it, yes. Ideally there should actually be some kind of guideline on this. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
            • I found this source stating that she is "[s]ometimes called the 'Goddess of Pop'"; is The Independent an authoritative secondary source? Lordelliott (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
              • That's exactly the kind of thing I meant, well done and thank you for finding it :) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If her Armenian-ness was enough to justify a place in the lede sentence it would be mentioned somewhere else in the lede, but it isn't. Put the Armenian in (early) Life and Career. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It already is: "Her father, John Sarkisian, was an Armenian-American truck driver with drug and gambling problems". Lordelliott (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry I wasn't clear, by "Armenian" I mean "Armenian: Սարգիսեան [sɑɾkʰəsˈjɑn]". Looks like you can link toՍարգսյան and I would also like a little superscript question mark ?link to Armenian_alphabet so I can try to figure out what letter does what.
        • Done. Thanks for the suggestions! Lordelliott (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Does Wikipedia has WP:requests for pronunciation? Red link so I guess not, anyway maybe look for someone to pronounce that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia (don't let it delay promotion but drop a note and hopefully it will get added eventually). Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the exact source for "known for her political views"? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • There isn't. In fact, although her political views have attracted much media attention, she's not exactly known for it. Corrected to: "Over the years, Cher's political views have attracted media attention, and she has been an outspoken critic of the conservative movement." Lordelliott (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Information in this quote: "By the end of 1967, they had sold 40 million records worldwide and had become, according to Time magazine's Ginia Bellafante, rock's "it" couple.[36]" could provide good context and notability in the lead. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (just a suggestion)
    • I'm thinking of putting that exact same sentence in the lead. Is it OK? Lordelliott (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Autotune "as a deliberate creative effect" needs a citation please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Another vocal sample that isn't autotuned as well, please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Assume I get most of what I ask for I endorse promotion although I might come back and nag some more. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Ip 122 says

Looks great, though I think there could be more coverage on her fashion influence, though perhaps not in this article. Something like the Lady Gaga's meat dress kind of articles, for the Black Mackie outfit worn by Cher at the 1986 Academy Awards should be feasible at least. (some sources on that outfit: Cosgrave, Bronwyn (2008). Made for each other fashion and the Academy Awards. London: Bloomsbury. ISBN 9781408820605.,,3976645 ) -- (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah mentioning that "the revealing dress attracted considerable discussion" should be feasible at least. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a British punk/alternative rock/metal band which is fronted by the Busted singer Charlie Simpson. I developed an addiction to this band over the summer and fall, and shaped up all the already decent information into a readable, reliable article. Never before had I made such expansion to an article; I took it from about 30k to now approximately 55k. It has already been copyedited for the convenience of the reviewers here. While I will be largely busy on weekdays due to tough school classes, I know I will have time to work on this on weekends because it usually takes a while to get the coordinators to close FACs. This is my first FAC, though I have had one FLC pass (Evanescence discography). I look forward to feedback! Please, please review this. The last one got ignored. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 01:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Reference 78 is dead for me, and needs to either be replaced with a different link or restored/rescued through a website archive. Just as a note for the future, I would highly recommend archiving your sources to prevent all of your hard work from being lost due to link rot or link decay.
  • Reference 85 is not working for me (it leads to a redirect/"oops" screen), and needs to either be replaced with a different link or restored/rescued through a website archive.
  • While looking through the references, I noticed website names (i.e. or and other item (i.e. AllMusic and BBC Radio 1) being represented in italics when they should not put that way. I would advise you to correct this. There are also things not in italics that should be in italics (i.e. AbsolutePunk). I am noticing this in a lot of the references so I would go through each of the references to make sure that everything is correctly cited.
That's extra annoying. They should fix that. When putting something in the publisher parameter, it doesn't italicize, but under the website, where it's not supposed to, it does by default. That's bothersome. Regardless, I will do so, but I should talk to someone about this sometime. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a note that I have received a lot in past FACs, FLCs, and even in a few GANs. Please make sure that all of your works/publishers for each individual references is linked. I think this is done so anyone can find out more information from clicking on any reference without having to go through the list of references to the first time a work/publisher was referenced and linked.
  • In the lead, you mention that they released an album of B-sides and rarities. Could you please define "rarities" in this context as it can be interpreted differently in different contexts? I could see this meaning unreleased material, album tracks that were never released as singles, or singles that were not as popular depending on the context.
From what I've known, "rarities" are almost always live performances or demos that were recorded but never released or were changed significantly before official release. Would you like something in the article changed based on this? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • For the phrase "they were viewed sceptically" in the lead, who was viewing them this way? Music critics, the general public, fans of a specific genre of music? I would advise you to clarify this.
  • I am little confused by the placement of the image in the origins subsection as the title of the image places it in 2006, which would make it belong in one of the following subsections rather than this one. This is a really minor note, but it is important to keep the timeline straight for both the text and the images. Some clarification on the use of the image would be helpful.
  • In the first paragraph of the origins subsection, I am a little confused by the switch in pronouns for Simpson's quote on venting (i.e. second sentence). It may be best to substitute the "I"s with [he] and similar pronouns to keep the pronoun usage consistent with the start "said that he had".
A bit of a point, but I don't like this solution. I removed the quote altogether and paraphrased it. Does it look okay? dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would move the first sentence of the second paragraph to the end of the first paragraph as it is pertaining to the party discussed in that paragraph. When reading for the first time, I was a little confused on whether or not it was referencing the same part or another event entirely.
  • This is just a suggestion so feel free to say no to this, but it may be more beneficial to move the audio sample down to the "Musical style and influences" section as it may help to better illustrate the band's sound.
Lol, thought this before I even got to this point of the review. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence on Fight Club should read "the EP was inspired by David Fincher's film Fight Club". Chuck Palahniuk wrote that book Fight Club, but David Fincher was the one to actually direct it. Also add in the release date for the film (1999).
  • Great job with the article. These are the major things that I have noticed while reading through it. I am not familiar with this band or type of music at all, so it was a very interesting read. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Hopefully this receives more attention in the future, specifically from more qualified users/reviewers than myself as I am rather inexperienced with Wikipedia and the FAC process as a whole. Also, feel free to let me know if you have any questions or comments for my review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time remembering how I found this band too, now that you mention it. I would expect that this would be a band that mostly British hardcore kids were familiar with, for the most part, but I'm from northwest Pennsylvania, lol. Very much appreciate the look, will get right to work. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 20:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, I've done all of these. Thanks Aoba! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing my points. You have done wonderful work with this article. I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Canadian Indian residential school system

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

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

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness

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


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

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

Driveby comments

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

Grey-necked wood rail

Nominator(s): RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a rail that can be found in Central and South America. I came across it when I was updating pages with information from a new book I bought, and I wanted to learn more about this bird. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

From JC


  • Images look good:
  • No range map?
Shoot... I forgot that. Will request one. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It is usually not found at elevations about 2,000 metres (6,600 ft) - about → above, I think.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Link for "nominate"?
Done. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • duller look - is this just in terms of coloration or are they genuinely more boring to look at?
Colouration—specified. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead comprises nearly a quarter of the readable prose in the whole article. Could stand to be shaved down a little.
Well, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole text, and, to be honest, it would be hard to shave much off without losing the representation of whole sections in the lead. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It was eventually moved, although, to the genus Aramides, - "although" not needed... I don't see any real contradiction.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is in reference to how the birds of the genus Aramides resemble those of the genus Aramus. The specific epithet, cajaneus, is in reference to the capital city of French Guiana, Cayenne. - somewhat wordy. Any way to tighten this up?
I tried to make it a bit more concise, is it good now? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a minor style comment, but it's a little unwieldy to have three consecutive links in the last sentence of the "Etymology" section. Philosopher is probably common enough that it can be unlinked.
Ok, done. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm accustomed to seeing ranges in weight and dimensions. Are these birds all 38 cm and 460 oz without much deviation?
Added range. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This moult occurs during the months from March to June. - "during the months from" → simply "from"?
I would prefer not, as otherwise there would be two choppy sentences right next to each other. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • For berries, this bird will jump high to break of clusters of this fruit. - I think that should be "off", but I'm also a little confused about the jumping business. From where does it jump and how high?
I changed "of" to "off", but the source does not say from where it jumps and how high. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • in addition to being selfish. - in what sort of behavior does this selfishness manifest?
Added RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • it is adversely affected by destruction of its habitat. - seems a little vague, as I can't imagine a species that wouldn't be adversely affected by its home being destroyed. Are the biggest threats to its habitat man-made?
Removed. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The intro says it's eaten by people in northern Brazil, but the "human interaction" section mentions both Brazil and Panama. Maybe just use "in some places" for the lead.
Done RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall, some sections seem a little light on the info... I'd have liked to know more about its habitats, behavior, interactions with people, etc., but I'm willing to accept that it just hasn't been studied or written about in much detail. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it hasn't been studied much at all. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses. I'm satisfied with how my comments so far have been dealt with (though a couple ref errors have been introduced). Bird articles (and biology in general) are a bit outside my wheelhouse, so I'd like to wait for other editors to comment before supporting, but I don't really anticipate any major problems cropping up. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry—just fixed those. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 14:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support based on my earlier review, the fact that some areas have been fleshed out a little, and the look-over from knowledgeable bird editors. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments form FunkMonk

  • I'll review this soon. Of all the images available on Commons, the current taxobox image doesn't really seem to show the bird well, neither in pose or colour. Sure there's nothing better here?[14] The article also looks empty in general, could maybe need some more images of it wading or such.[15][16] FunkMonk (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Does this look good for the infobox? [17] RileyBugzYell at me | Edits
Oh, foreshoretening perspective isn't good for showing how the animal looks, a profile view with non-tinted colours would be best. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Does this look good? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The taxonomy section looks very underdeveloped. I'm sure we know what it's closest relatives are, what family it is in, etc. I don't think the tiny subsections there are necessary either.
Well... I will add the family, but I can't find the closest relatives, oddly enough. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Have you looked at Google scholar? When I search this bird's name, the first article that comes up is called "A taxonomic review of Aramides cajaneus (Aves, Gruiformes, Rallidae) with notes on morphological variation in other species of the genus".[18] Seems like a pretty big oversight this recent source hasn't been used. I'd advise anyone to search Google scholar when writing articles here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
What? I use Google Scholar but I did not see that. That is really weird. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Seems there's a lot of stuff there that needs to be incorporated into the article (even a species split has been propsoed). Also, the ZooKeys journal is CC licenced[19], so we can actually use their media here if we want. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Does it look good now? There honestly isn't much that is useful to add. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I see a lot more info that would warrant inclusion. There are mention of other species that were once considered subspecies of this (up to nine), that there has been much historical disagreement over how to classify the species and subspecies, that it is the most widespread member of the genus, the bird was named based on an illustration, and I could go on and on. I don't see a justification not to expand the taxonomy section quite a bit, given this amount of unused information. There is also a very long list of synonyms, though only one is listed in this article. There is also detailed information about its range, plumage variation, and song variation between subspecies, which is not mentioned here, but should be. You just have to read through it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I think I'm done. I didn't get really anything from the section on vocalizations, as I am focusing on the subspecies recognized by the IOC—the nominate and avicenniae. I did mention the other subspecies of dubious validity, but otherwise, not much else. Is it good? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 16:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Anything else? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 01:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll be back soon. In the meantime, I think it could be cool to show a wading individual[20][21], as they seem to feed much on items found in water. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I will go with the former, because although the latter would likely look better, the former is more representative, as this bird feeds at night. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice, I see no indication it is night, though? FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Removed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would list the binomial names of other species mentioned in parenthesis.
See below. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It could be mentioned this is only one of several species in the genus, now you almost make it seem like it is the only member of the genus. But this may be solved if you list the names of the other species mentioned, so the reader can see they have the same genus name.
I fixed this, but without the solution suggested above, as I don't like to add the binomial names—it just makes it look cluttered, in my opinion. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "particularly large for a wood rail." But what is a wood rail? You have not defined this group until this part of the text. Is it any member of that genus? Or a family?
Clarified RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, but that should be stated in the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Moved to taxonomy section. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • " with a grey upper." Upper what?
Clarified RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "and lies east of them" What lies, the bird? Weird wording... It lives east of them?
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There are many single sentence paragraphs and sections that are left hanging, would look better if they were grouped with other paragraphs/sections. For example, why is the small sentence "This bird can be seen to perch in both shrubbery and even trees, something characteristic of the forest rails." not placed in the habitat section? Why are status and human interaction different sections instead of a section and subsection? And why is the voice section too sentences instead of one paragraph?
Done except for the sentence you mentioned. With that, I expanded the paragraph to three sentences. I am resistant to moving it to habitat because I cannot find a suitable place for it to fit in and because it is a behaviour of the rail, not a habitat. I would compare putting this in the habitat section to putting what they use to build their nest. I mean, one could make the argument that since a nest is what they inhabit, that it is part of their habitat, and that it should thus be noted what they use to build their "habitat". But, since nest building is, like perching, a behaviour, we put it in the behaviour section. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "In captivity, this wood rail is territorial." As opposed to in the wild? Seems a bit odd.
In the wild, whether it is territorial is unknown. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "slightly glossly" Glossy?
Nice catch! Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "precocial" Could be explained.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the nominate" By this point in the intro, you have not stated there are two subspecies.
Added RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The intro says "and the precocial chicks can be identified" and " The chicks that hatch are precocial." The first mention of "precocial" is not needed.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixes look good, last point I'd like to reiterate is that there seem to be a lot more synonyms that should be listed (see the taxonomy paper). Either list all or none, the current single synonym seems perplexing. If the list becomes too long, you can collapse it, like in red rail. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Done! Thanks for the review. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - alrighty, looks good to me now. The synonyms could have authorities, but it's not too important now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "This bird" is heavily overused
Fixed. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This bird's large extent of occurrence, along with other factors—In the body text the only other factor seems to be the large population, why not say that?
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Try to avoid repeating "large" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • some recognize up to nine—missing "authorities" or "authors"
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • subspecies avicenniae be split into its own species—better as split off as a full species
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Other subspecies tentatively recognized include A. c. albiventris, plumbeicollis, mexicanus, pacificus, vanrossemi, morrisoni, and latens.[5] Of these, one has become a full species, albiventris, the rufous-naped wood rail, while the others have become subspecies of it—for this to make sense it should be "formerly", not "tentatively"
Well... this is complicated. I will change the wording, but not all authorities recognize the full species mentioned. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
subspecies of it--> its subspecies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Aramus and of the Greek oidēs, "resembling". This refers to the similarity between birds of the genus Aramides and those of the genus Aramus —make it clear that Aramus is just the Limpkin. If you want an etymology Aramus is from Greek aramos, a type of heron mentioned by Hesychius, Jobling 52, same page as Aramides
Good now? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
those of the genus Aramus—I still can't see that this makes it clear that Aramus is one species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh... I see what you mean. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

—* It is found in Argentina...—new section needs a subject

Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Threats" —either say why these are threats or change heading to "Parasites"
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
We're nearly there, just a couple of minor tweaks indicated above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
No other queries, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Ref 6 ("Rails, gallinules..." IOC World Bird List) lacks a publisher
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:41, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Decide if you're going to include publication location or not - some of the books have them, some of them don't. It needs to be consistent
Fixed—I decided to keep them. The more information the better. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No need to link publication locations in the references - it's overlinking there. (see ref 17 (Emery))
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Done! Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird

  • Intro is a touch choppy. It lives primarily in forests and mangroves of Central and South America. It also lives in swamps might be more elegantly stated It ranges from Central through South America, where it is found primarily in forests, mangroves and swamps. If the species is rare in swamps than the other two habitats this isn't clear from the main article.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It is usually not found at elevations above 2,000 metres (6,600 ft), although some have been recorded at 2,300 metres (7,500 ft) above sea level. For the lead it would be better to state it is found from sea-level to XXXX metres, and sometimes above this.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This bird, large for a wood rail, Maybe tell us how big it is or compare it to something like a chicken?
I (or maybe Cas) actually reworded this earlier. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • precocial chicks can be identified through their black - their precociality doesn't need to be mentioned here, hatchling will suffice. Also, can they truly be identified by those markings? Most rail chicks look very similar to my eye. Maybe just say that they look like x rather than can be identified by x?
Same thing as above. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the question "can they be identified." Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: Oh, I see. Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is IUCN status at the end of the first paragraph in the lead and end of the article?
Because of the fact that the status and breeding don't go well together, and because there isn't enough of an article for 4 lead paragraphs, in my opinion. Additionally, I would likely have to split the breeding and status paragraphs anyways, since the breeding paragraph is just long enough, in my opinion. Thus, we would be left with 2 short lead paragraphs—the first one, and the fourth one. So, combining them is the best idea, in my opinion. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm thoroughly confused by the taxonomy section - why is another species described as other subspecies tentatively recognized? Tentatively recognised subspecies is wording you'd use for a subspecies not widely accepted as a distinct taxon, not one doubtfully placed here. These are valid subspecies, not tentative ones. Also the sentence Of these, one is sometimes considered to be a full species, albiventris, the rufous-naped wood rail, while the others are occasionally recognized as its subspecies. It isn't clear which its is being refered to here - are they recognised as subspecies of the rufous naped or gray naped?
Well, a good amount of authorities recognize all of the subspecies mentioned as being subspecies of the grey-necked wood rail. Thus, "tentatively recognized" until more authorities switch over. To clarify this, I added "by some authorities". I clarified the next sentence. Is that all good? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, still reads wrong. In fact Other subspecies tentatively by some authorities recognized include is almost yoda-like, why has the verb shifted to the end of the sentence? But again, recognised in this context would mean that the subspecies is considered valid. You must explicitly state that the tentativeness (and I wouldn't use that term) refers to the placement here, not the taxonomic validity. Example Other subspecies sometimes placed with this species include . Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I changed the wording to your most recent suggestion. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this is unfair but he subspecies epithet avicenniae honours the Persian philosopher Avicenna. do we know why it honours that philosopher? The paper is recent it should be possible to check. It's an odd person to honour for no reason.
Well, HBW honestly gives no clues on this one. Is it ok with you if I just keep it as is, or should I possibly add "who translated the works of Aristotle"? To what language, I don't know, so that might not be a good idea. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I think what is meant is that Stotz, 1992, where the bird was named, should be checked. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Lower end of altitudinal range needed in distribution and habitat as well.
Done RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The subspecies avicenniae is found in Coastal Brazil, São Paulo, south to Panama If you go south from Sao Paulo you don't reach Panama!
Oh, damn. Well, I certainly should update on my geography. :P RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This bird can be seen to perch in both shrubbery and trees.[12] Not clear what this adds. Is this roosting?
Well, the source said "and even trees", so I thought that it must be important. For me, at least, it seems odd that a rail would perch. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sentence starting The grey-necked wood rail's nests might be better The grey-necked wood rail's nests are situated in trees and bushes, usually 1 to 3 metres (3.3 to 9.8 ft) off the ground, built on flat branches or in thickets.
Done. Also, with this, I combined the next sentence with it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the species territorial?
I can only find that it is territorial in captivity. Otherwise, I don't know. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: And I'm done! Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: I replied to your reply. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 04:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: Is everything good now? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

A further comment: In the lead Of the two subspecies, A. c. avicenniae is found in the southeastern portion of the range, - contrast with The subspecies avicenniae is found in Panama, south to Coastal Brazil, São Paulo. Given that Panama is in the extreme north west of the range of the species, the lead's statement looks very inaccurate. I take it that the subspecies is exclusively coastal, but I deduced this from the habitat requirements, not an explicit statement thereof. Also, coastal shouldn't be capped. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Oops. Replaced "southeastern portion" with a more exact description of the range and carried out your other suggestion. Thanks! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I still think that The subspecies avicenniae is found in Panama, south to coastal Brazil, São Paulo. should make it more explicit that its referring to the coast. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: Actually, I just had to edit for source consistency—the bird only lives in southeastern coastal Brazil. I changed the lead and the distribution section to reflect this. Is it good? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I made a slight change to your edit. Also, I'm still not entirely happy with this whole section: Other subspecies sometimes placed within this species include A. c. albiventris, plumbeicollis, mexicanus, pacificus, vanrossemi, morrisoni, and latens.[7] Of these, one is sometimes considered to be a full species, albiventris, the rufous-naped wood rail, with the others occasionally recognized as subspecies of the rufous-naped wood rail. My issues are twofold - one, it repeats something stated above - namely that the rufous-naped has been treated as conspecific in the past. Secondly it's still really clunky. So all it's really doing is listing the subspecies of a species formerly considered conspecific. So My first recommendation would be to throw it out entirely. If you don't, don't repeat in wishy washy ways the "may have been considered" - use more direct language when the rufous-naped wood rail is treated as conspecific other it includes the following subspecies..... But really, just don't include them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for rewording it. I reworded the subspecies part—I think that it is best to keep it, as a lot of authorities still recognize the subspecies as being subspecies of the grey-necked wood rail. I also reworded the part about the rufous-naped wood rail. I want to keep that part just to make it clear to the reader that A. c. albiventris is the rufous-napped wood rail. Hopefully how I reworded it is better than before. Also, I will likely not be able to respond to replies too quickly, as I am traveling. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 11:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Other subspecies sometimes placed within this species include A. c. albiventris, plumbeicollis, mexicanus, pacificus, vanrossemi, morrisoni, and latens.[7] Of these, albiventris is considered to be a full species, the aforementioned rufous-naped wood rail. When that wood rail is treated as a full species, the other subspecies are recognized as subspecies of it. I think this still needs rewording. Maybe The subspecies of the rufous-naped wood rail, A. c. albiventris, plumbeicollis, mexicanus, pacificus, vanrossemi, morrisoni, and latens, are treated as subspecies of the grey-naped wood rail when the two species are treated as conspecific. In this shortened form it could sit in the paragraph about the rufous naped. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I'll implement your wording, with a slight change. I won't be merging that paragraph though, as it would be odd to list the dubious subspecies before the actual ones. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: A few very minor points which I'd nevertheless like cleared up before we promote. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • We have a duplicate link for French Guiana
  • We link water snake to a DAB page, which might not be the worst thing in the world in this case but which I just want to check was the intention.
  • Two of the images really could use some alt text; I think the captions cover the others, but I'm not expert. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Done the first and third–what kind of water snake was not specified, so I will leave it as is. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I was going to delink French Guiana (shouldn't all countries be delinked?) but then I noticed this which needs fixing: The grey-necked wood rail is found in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, French Guiana, Guyana, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela.[1] The nominate subspecies is found in all of the aforementioned countries except Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. It is, although, cut off by the Andes Mountains and lives east of the range in Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Additionally, it is not found in the southeastern interior of Brazil. The subspecies avicenniae is found in coastal southeastern Brazil, around São Paulo.
If the species is found in Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago, but the nominate isn't found in those two countries, and and other subspecies is only found in Brazil, which subspecies is found In Trinidad and Tobago and Suriname? Not gonna remove my support but that needs fixing before promotion too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like that is due to the fact that some authorities recognize more subspecies than the IOC recognizes. I will remove those two countries. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
HBW has nominate race in Trinidad and Suriname. Split races of refous-naped are all Central American, not South American. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, well that was kinda stupid on my part. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Dire wolf

Nominator(s): William Harris • (talk) • 21:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Dire wolf (Canis dirus), an extinct species of the genus Canis and one of the most famous prehistoric carnivores in North America. The article has been nominated for Featured Article level because very recently it has achieved GA status, has been reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors, and has undergone Peer Review. The article receives on average almost 2,000 visitors each day, which is around half of the number received by the modern "Gray wolf" and "Coyote" articles, indicating Dire wolf's popularity. William Harris • (talk) • 21:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919

I'll be reviewing from the "I'm not an expert, but prehistoric animals are cool" perspective, which I suspect represents a high percentage of the readers for this type of article.

The article gets around 2,000 visitors each day on average. I assume most of these visitors will fall into this class. Later in the year with the final episode of "Game of Thrones", I expect that number will reach a new peak.
  • Page numbers given with the footnote numbers are sometimes prefaced with a 'p'; sometimes they are not. No preference on my part, but it should be consistent.
All references are populated using WP:CITE templates. A closer examination will show that journal articles show simply numbers, however books will show pp when referring to a range of pages or just a single p when referring to a single page. These are the correct citations as referred to in research articles.
Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm referring to the page numbers that appear next to some footnote numbers in the body, through the use of the {{rp}} template. The 'p' is added there manually in some cases. If you are varying this to match how the cite templates format p age references in the corresponding full citation, I would say that is unnecessary and distracting. --RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
The distracting "p" is unnecessary and now removed.
  • The phrase "its extinct competitor Smilodon fatalis" would be better as "its extinct competitor, the sabre-toothed cat Smilodon fatalis" or something similar. I know readers can follow the link, but a brief aside to give the common name (on first mention, not necessarily every time) would be friendlier to the many readers who don't know species names. The article does this sometimes, but not consistently. For example, Canis armbrusteri gets a parenthetical with the common name on first mention in the body, but not in the lead.
Both Actioned.
  • From the infobox, I'm guessing that Canis mississippiensis was determined to be synonymous with C. dirus. But while the other variants have this explained explicitly, this one is mentioned as a discovery with no further explanation or follow-up.
The article is nearly 90kb in size, and there is a vast amount of information for a reviewer to store in memory in the first sitting. It should be covered under "and in 1912 Merriam formally recognized all of the previously found specimens under the name of C. dirus." I have just added the words "previously found" after your prompting to help highlight that Merriam had recognized all of the earlier specimens under this name.
  • The Evolution section is a bit of a slog due to the varying theories that often involve lots of recitation of taxonomic names. No specific recommendation or request about that from me, just pointing it out; maybe someone with more experience in this type of article will have suggestions.
I concur that the Taxonomy/Evolution section is the most complex part of the article. To some readers, it will also be the most interesting. (The taxonomic history and lineage of wolves is what I do here on Wikipedia and in wolf articles I usually limit myself to just that, however in the case of the Dire wolf I thought the material provided to visitors in the rest of the article needed a serious review.)
I have made edits to the second paragraph of the Taxonomy section to help restructure, simplify and clarify it.

About halfway through so far, so posting these notes and will circle back with comments on the remainder. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the early start. William Harris • (talk) • 10:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Back at last for round two. The edits from your responses to me above and Cas Liber below all look good, so I only have a few additional comments:

  • Per the discussion with Cas below, I see a few instances of 'extant' were replaced with 'modern', including the first instance that had the link to Extant taxon. But several more instances are still in the article. I would think that either they should all be replaced, or the first remaining instance should have the link.
I have replaced extant entirely with either "modern" or "living" to make the reading a bit easier for our visitors.
  • I agree with Cas that the sentence about teeth fracture rates is a bit awkward.
Now addressed under Cas.
  • I also agree with questioning nine citations for a half sentence. Seems like citation overkill.
Now addressed under Cas.
  • There seems to be some inconsistency in the Extinction section. At the end of the first paragraph, it is "assumed" that dire wolf extinction was caused by megaherbivore extinction, but in the next paragraph, the cause of dire wolf extinction is controversial.
Now addressed under Cas.
  • Having a single sentence paragraph at the end is a little awkward. Perhaps this information could be combined with one of the other paragraphs in this section?
Now joined to the end of the preceding paragraph.

I made a couple of small edits; other than the few points above, I think the article is looking good. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and comments. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
All my concerns have been addressed, so happy to support. --RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. I was not completely happy with the Extinction section in the past but I think it really flows well now. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
Hello, the map has now been scaled up to 300px; please let me know if you believe it needs more.
  • File:Dogs,_jackals,_wolves,_and_foxes_(Plate_V).jpg is missing a description and date
Referred to the editor who uploaded it - I will follow up.
Seems the info has been added now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Canis_dirus_reconstruction.jpg: what is this based on?
Referred to the editor who uploaded it - I will follow up. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that artist is active here anymore, but per this discussion[22], you can just provide a source for something that makes it verifiable that the appearance matches known skeletal proportions and theories, even if you don't know exactly what he based it on. FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but I believe the ex-editor in the link is not the uploader, and he is addressing these issues now. I will forward your comment. I expect that he will either clarify the images or replace them. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, right, I thought it was this image[23]. Yeah, it seems a link has been provided to the skeleton photo the first one was drawn after. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
In the same way that Wang and Tedford ("Dogs:Their Fossil Relatives") had the benefit of Mauricio Antón's illustrations based on skeletal remains, the Ice Age wolf-related articles have the benefit of editor Mario Massone's illustrations. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 03:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Funkmonk

Support - I had my say at the peer review[24], so have little more to add. Just to say something new, I'm always a sucker for showing type specimens, so if an old lithograph could be found, it might be a nice addition to the taxonomy section. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chance would be a fine thing. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • One other thing I just thought of is that maybe we could have a size comparison image showing the size of the two dire wolf subspecies in relation to a human? Like the one in the description section of Smilodon? That may also help dispel the GOT myth that these wolves were somehow the size of lions... FunkMonk (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
That type of graphic is well beyond my skills and software, unfortunately. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
If you're interested, I can take a stab, we can discuss it on our talk pages if you want. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Let us do that. I think the exercise worthwhile, and because C. d. dirus has the same dimensions as the Yukon wolf - apart from weighing a third more! - the Yukon wolf would be the model and therefore the graphic could be applied to other wolf-related articles. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas liber

Taking a look now - free time is patchy so might be coming and going. Will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

We look forward to them. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 08:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I would not link extant in lead. Just say "living" in plain English.
  • In para 3 of the Taxonomy you can drop one mention of "two subspecies" - either remove There are two subspecies of C. dirus. or somehow trim the second mention.
  • A South American origin for C. dirus has been proposed. - redundant as repeated about three sentences later.
  • Attempts to extract DNA from tarpit specimens have been unsuccessful. - redundant as repeated soon after.
Agreed and addressed. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 11:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • These higher fracture rates were across all teeth but not more often the canines when compared to the modern carnivores. - reads awkwardly.
Simplified to: "These higher fracture rates were across all teeth, however the fracture rates for the canine teeth were the same as modern carnivores."
  • The extinction of the large carnivores and scavengers is thought to have been caused by the extinction of the megaherbivore prey upon which they depended - err, any reason why this sentence needs so many references?
Reduced to 2 secondary sources, and 2 primary sources by recognized "heavyweights" in this field.
  • ...but the cause remains controversial - are there other hypotheses? If not, why not just say "unclear"?
There are a few alternatives hypotheses given at the start of that sentence that I did not elaborate on as they were getting outside of the scope of the article and are general extinction subjects in themselves - links have now been added to these subjects. However, I have amended an earlier sentence to read: "One model proposed to explain the extinction of the large carnivores and scavengers is the extinction of the megaherbivore prey upon which they depended, and it is proposed that this also explains the extinction of the dire wolf in both North and South America." This now provides an introduction for the other models proposed in the following paragraph. I trust this covers it. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall, I now support on comprehensiveness and prose. It possibly has more context than I would put in but not much, and it's no dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. We have removed some unnecessary sentences and simplified the verbiage used in other sentences. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 09:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Forgive the non-specialist query, but what makes a high quality reliable source?
The "About" tab at the website gives its background. Fossilworks is the portal housed at Macquarie University (Australia) into the Paleobiology database housed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (USA). The database is supported by the US National Science Foundation and UW-Madison Dept. Geoscience. ( It is a consolidation of a number of other databases, including the Smithsonian Institution's Evolution of Terrestrial Ecosystems database and the University of Chicago's Paleogeographic Atlas Project. However, it could be removed as the only real value it provides to the article is the Range distribution, which I could get from Dundas 1999 (and I assume that is where the database took it from).
That's probably fine - like I said, not a specialist. Better to get it laid out for others... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Fossilworks references removed - they were a tertiary source and we have primary sources for the same info.
  • Current ref 36 - refers to the summary of the file page for the artwork - but that page gives no sources. So the artwork is unsourced?
This one could be solved in the way I indicated earlier, with sources on the file page that indicate what the image can be cross-checked against. In addition, the artist/uploader, Sergio de la Rosa, seems to have his works exhibited in Mexican museums.[25][26] FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Ref removed from the article. From what I am seeing on Commons the artist is the source, your advice please? (I am not too fussed about this one; it could be simply removed from the article, but it does help highlight that we do not know what dirus looked like and we are not completely clear on its origin.)
I would think we'd want a source besides just the artist, unless he's a specialist in this sort of reconstruction of fossil animals? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
That I do not know - artwork now removed.
  • Something's borked in ref 59 (Fox-Dobbs). I'm not seeing the link - just link syntax
The University of California - Santa Cruz appears to have just moved its website, leading to this. Now addressed with accessdate= added.
  • Same link syntax problem with ref 65 (Leonard)
As above.
  • Same link syntax problem with ref 89 (Brannick)
Sadly, that entire volume has been moved off-line. Link removed.
  • Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the review of the references. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

I went to the article with a view to perhaps tweaking the odd word before promoting but found I wanted to perform a slightly more extensive copyedit than I usually do before closing a nom, plus I have a couple of queries, so I think best I recuse coord duties on this one...

  • I haven't read every word by any means but rather have spotchecked the prose and copyedited accordingly -- pls let me know if I've altered meaning inadvertently or if you disagree with my changes.
Thanks for the amendments; you know we South Australians speak our own language down here......
  • The second sentence begins "It is perhaps one of the most famous prehistoric carnivores in North America..." -- "It is perhaps the most famous..." or "It is one of the most famous..." are both pretty common expressions but "perhaps one of" sounds a bit weak...
I borrowed the phrase from the article Smilodon. Both articles now amended!
  • That said, I didn't spot where "most famous" was mentioned/cited in the main body, only "most common", which is not quite the same thing (or did I miss something?)
Good find, from Wang 2008, now amended.
  • Following up on the previous point, under Behavior, we have "C. d. guildayi and Smilodon are the two most common carnivorans from La Brea, with C. d. guildayi the most common" -- I can't help thinking this could be expressed better, avoiding the "the most common" repetition among other things, although I admit nothing comes to me right now...
Much rationalized now.
  • The following paragraph you say "Smilodon and C. d. guildayi are the two most common carnivorans found at La Brea", which repeats what's already been said, per the point above.
Restated, no repeating.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; issues now all addressed. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I've taken a while to return... Tks for those changes, I just tweaked a couple of bits. I still haven't been able to go through the entire article so wouldn't feel comfortable giving outright support, but no objections to promotion from a prose perspective.
That said, and putting my coord hat back on for a second, I think we'd probably want to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing if, as I'm assuming, this is your first FAC nom. I'd have a go myself but I'm not sure how useful I'd be wading through some of these scientific journals... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ian, there is no rush on this undertaking. Based on the useful contributions given above by the participants, the longer it sits here the greater the opportunity for additional comments. Regarding paraphrasing, editor Ealdgyth (above) has run "Earwig" over it (another tool that I never knew existed and now added to my collection) and appears to be happy with it. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, that helps, tks -- I'm happy to leave to Sarastro1, as coord, to decide if that suffices. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I'd still like to see a spot check for accurate use of sources, which Earwig does not really do. I think we are clear on close paraphrasing though. I also noted that not all of the references are in numerical order; I'd just like to clarify that this is deliberate as I know some people prefer to put the references in the order that they appear in the sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow your meaning: "not all of the references are in numerical order...I know some people prefer to put the references in the order that they appear in the sentence". Could you provide me with one of these sentences to help illustate this, please? Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Butting in, here's one -- there may be others: "the dire wolf m1 was much larger and had more shearing ability.[23][48][11]". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyonge (2006) on page 313 says "the lower carnassial (M1).......the M1 of Ca. dirus had a greater shearing ability as it was much larger than that of Ca. lupus, especially the trigonid (Merriam, 1912; Kurte´n & Anderson 1980)" [Note that Anyonge uses the term "lower M1" - generally in dentition articles on wolves the lower carnassial is referred to as the m1, with the upper jaw M1 being just another upper molar.] Kurten (1980) figures appear in the table of the article titled "Canis lupus and Canis dirus compared by mean mandible tooth measurements (millimeters)", refer rows "m1 length" and "m1 trigonid length" showing dirus larger than lupus. Merriam (1912) page 223 "Upper and lower carnassials relatively large and massive", and page 230 "In M1, the trigonid portion of the tooth is generally relatively long and massive, or the heel region is relatively short compared with the large Recent wolves of North America." [Merriam also uses the term lower "M1" for the lower carnassial.] In the table, we have a link to the trigonid - it is used for shearing. In summary, all 3 writers have stated that the dirus m1 (lower carnassial) is larger than lupus and especially the trigonid (which is used for shearing flesh, flesh shearing is mentioned in the 3rd sentence under "Dentition and biteforce".
There would be some benefit in adding to the sentence "...and the dire wolf m1 was much larger and had more shearing ability due to its longer trigonid." We might even elaborate on that to aid readers understanding with "...its longer, blade-like trigonid". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm being slightly dense in understanding your answer, I think you've misunderstood slightly. The issue in Ian's example is not about content, it is that the references are not in numerical order: 23, 48 and 11 rather than the more customary 11, 23 then 48. Most articles follow the practice of placing refs in ascending numerical order throughout. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we are all talking at crossed purposes. I thought that Ian wanted to know which citations relates to the m1 being larger, and which relate to shearing ability - in this case all three citations relate to both items.
If the numerical sequence of the citations is an issue, then in scientific articles I always believed that the first researcher to say something should be cited first, followed by the second etc. However, I have had my work changed many times by others using automated editing processes who believe the latest work should come first to indicate currency. Therefore, most of my "multiple citations" follow this concept instead of my preference. Perhaps you could advise me if there is a WP:MOS on this. NB: The section Ian pointed out is not in sequence under either regime. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Eight edits now made. I assume at FA standard the article will be well-defended. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Fallout 4: Far Harbor

Nominator(s): Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, this is the second Featured Article nomination for this article. Since the previous nomination, the article has gone through a few small expansions, and been proof-read multiple times by a couple of editors. I think it's at the standard of an FA, though I'd love to hear the opinions of everyone else. If you've got any ideas for the article, please list them! Recently, I've received a bit of FAC mentoring from HJ Mitchell, who also helped with the final stretch. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • As mentioned, I've been helping Anarchyte with some of the preparation and advising on FAC. It's the first time I've "mentored" another nominator, so please let me know if I've missed something. I'll watchlist this review and offer input if I think it might be useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, support. I've been through this thoroughly looking for the sorts of thing I've seen hold up FACs before and and I left some detailed comments on the peer review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
Addressed comments from Aoba47
  • I think the infobox image should have an ALT description/text (I have heard some uncertainty about the value of ALT text, but I would still recommend it for the time being). I would also make sure that all of the images have appropriate ALT text.
  • In the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph, the repetition of "Commonwealth" makes the sentence read a little awkwardly. I would suggest revising this to avoid the repetition.
  • Avoid contractions, such "wasn't" in the lead, by spelling it out completely.
  • Something about this sentence reads a little awkwardly to me (The development team also noticed players' interest in expansions that added large amounts of explorable territory, and, due to the size of Far Harbor, the price of Fallout 4's season pass was increased). I understand why you put these two ideas together, but something about the way it is currently pulled together seems a little off to me and does not mesh these two ideas together as strongly as it could be.
  • Is the "fog" in this expansion pack similar to the gameplay mechanic the "fog of war". If so, do you think it would be useful to link "fog" to "fog of war" (especially since the "fog of war" article includes a section on its use in video games)? I could be over-thinking this though.
It's just fog.
  • What do you mean by "Unlike the previous iterations in the Fallout series,"? Did the previous game include more factions/fewer factions? I would make this part a little clearer to those unfamiliar with the series.
    I removed that preface as it's a tad unnecessary.
  • Add a citation for the last portion of the first paragraph in the "Setting and characters" subsection. Same goes for the end of the second paragraph in the same subsection.
    Don't synopsis/plot sections not need sources at all, or is it different when talking about the settings or characters?
    Oh, duh! Sorry for missing that. For some reason, I did not read that as synopsis/plot. You are correct with your comment that they do not need sources. I apologize for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but should titles of quests from the game be put in italics or quotations? I am referencing the reference to Brain Dead in the "Similarities with Autumn Leaves" subsection. Just wanted to make sure.
    I'm not sure. I put them there just to be safe.
    Cool, just wanted to check about this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Great work with this article. It is a very interesting read, and it is cool to read an article about downloadable content. A majority of comments are rather minor and nitpicky. I will support this nomination once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the input, Aoba47 I've addressed all of your concerns, though I left two replies which you might want to look at. I've collapsed what I believe to be complete, if that's okay with you. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I can definitely support this. I would greatly appreciate any comments for current FAC. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Misc. from Czar
  • There is a lot of weight put on the setting/endings (if not the plot too)—it's longer than the other sourced sections... I can't imagine why it shouldn't be shorter. Also are there really no sources available for these unsourced parts? Plot doesn't need to be sourced, but it should be verifiable in text if it can. Even a player's guide for the endings, if one's available, would work. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 18:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I've shortened both sections and added a few sources. IMO the length isn't undue, it only talks about what is necessary. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Haven't read through (still deciding whether I want to spoil the ending) but sources like "Fallout 4: Far Harbor DLC – how to get the best ending" are exactly what I had in mind, so should be good. Those sources also make make the section a good example of how to source plot. A few other cursory points: I'd remove Game Rant (unreliable). Also from what I see at a glance, check the current WT:VG thread about FAC Reception writing re: removing some of the reviewer names, combining sentences & refs, etc. (I know I've gave comments last year, but it's a brave new FAC world) czar 02:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I've removed the Game Rant source. As for the reception section, I based it off your FA Blast Corps, in a way. I'll read over the discussion you linked me and I'll attempt to make the section more stream-lined. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Okay, I've gone through and tried to streamline some of the contents. I've also bundled up the references to be at the end of the sentence if it mentions two different websites, unless there's a quotation. Opinion? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The combinations look good but I'd go further and crunch the sentences to remove the reviewer names. However, it's fine to wait and see what other readers would think first. Even as someone familiar with games, I hate carrying the reviewer name in my head when the individual is not necessarily important to understanding the statement. The sentiment is more that one reliable reviewer made a claim, and perhaps that reviewer is associated with a publication (hence why the Blast Corps Reception is light on reviewer names—notice that Donkey Kong 64's Reception is even lighter). So I hesitate at giving a strong prescription on those points, but I do think it's easier to read the fog paragraph, for instance, when I'm not juggling reviewer names and am instead focusing on how it annoyed one reviewer, was complimented by another, and was deemed manageable by yet another. (It's also unclear whether "atmosphere" is referring to the game's ambiance or the literal foggy atmosphere, based on the paragraph.) czar 16:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I see where you're coming from, but if we remove who said what doesn't it become an issue of "reviewers[who?] thought that x was good but y was bad"? I'll see what other's opinions are first. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. To answer the question, not necessarily. If the answer is to replace reviewers with two surnames that mean nothing to the reader, it both doesn't illuminate new information while simultaneously making the prose worse (heat without light, etc.) And if "reviewers" is too summative or creates bias, "some reviewers thought" or a variation is an alternative. It's easy to tell which from the references. The point is to explain the game's reception when no source sums it up for us, not necessarily to give an accounting of who thought what. czar 06:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Famous Hobo
Addressed comments from Famous Hobo


  • Why do we need to know when Far Harbor was announced? This isn't information the reader needs to know immediately. Just list the release date, what systems it was released for, and then move on.
  • The end of the first paragraph feels a bit clunky. For example, you don't mention the game's nuclear fallout setting, which is rather crucial to the game as a whole. I would write something like "The game is set in the year 2287, in the aftermath of a nuclear fallout that destroys most of the United States. In the expansion, the player character is recruited by a detective agency to investigate the disappearance of a young girl living in a remote area." Other things to note: We don't need to know the name of the detective agency right off the bat; we also don't need to know where the detective agency operates, especially if most of the expansion doesn't take place in the Commonwealth.
    I copied your example verbatim, is that fine?
  • The player controls the protagonist throughout their investigation on the Island, a landmass off the coast of Maine where the town of Far Harbor is situated. Perhaps remove the bit about the city of Far Harbor, since you haven't introduced the reader to the city yet.
  • Do you only receive bottle caps and experience points from side quests? Having played Fallout 4, I don't think that's right. Also, delink sidequest and link the first use of quest (the sidequest link just goes to the quest article anyway).
    Changed to simply say quests.
  • There is no mention of the Autumn Leaves debacle in the lead.
    Added one sentence.


  • I don't like the current screenshot. It's too dark and could be hard for a casual reader to make out what's going on. Try and find a screenshot that's better lit, but still shows the fog effects.
    @Famous Hobo: The three in this article are good, personally, I like the sunny one on the shoreline because it's easy to view and the fog is still visible. The first one is still dark, though it shows off the fog better. What do you think?
  • Fallout 4 is the fifth installment in the Fallout series and takes place after the events in Fallout 3[2] and is set 210 years after "The Great War", which resulted in the nuclear devastation across the United States. No need to mention its connection to Fallout 3, as it has no relevance to this article. Also, do you really need to link United States? I think everyone knows what the US is.
  • Puzzle sections were not featured in the base game and thus were a new feature. No need to mention they are a new feature. If they weren't in the game originally, then of course its new content.
  • Again with only receiving money and points after completing sidequests and not main quests. I may be wrong though, I don't remember exactly.
    I've changed it to simply say quests, as even if some of them are sidequests, they're still technically quests.


  • There are three major conflicting factions present in the expansion, all residing in separate areas: the Harbormen of Far Harbor; the synth colony of Acadia; and the Church of the Children of Atom. I know what a synth is, but I don't think the reader will.
    Added a short description.
  • The expansion starts after the player completes the "Getting a Clue" quest, in which the Sole Survivor meets private detective Nick Valentine, who offers him employment.[19] This entire sentence needs to go. Feels like WP:GAMEGUIDE.


  • Far Harbor was developed by Bethesda Game Studios and was announced three months after the official release of Fallout 4—alongside Automatron, Wasteland Workshop, and teasers of other upcoming expansions—in a blog post on February 16, 2016.[24] The expansion was released on May 19, 2016 for Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. For the release date, just say May 19. Don't include 2016, as you already mentioned the year in the previous date. If events occurred in the same year, then you can just say the year for the first date.
  • On June 2, 2016, two weeks after the expansion's official release... Drop the date, as just saying two weeks after its release is enough information.


  • I won't get into this section too much, as it seems you're doing some cleanup with the suggestions Czar gave, but I will say that you mention that reviewers disliked the puzzle sections in both the first and second paragraphs.
    I'm using the first paragraph somewhat like a lead for the rest of the reception. I've already reworded the first paragraph's mention, so IMO it's fine. Also, what's your opinion on the removal of reviewer's names (per the conversation with Czar)? Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That should be a good first read through. Looks promising so far. The article seems to be in better condition then when it was first nominated, and I think it's almost there. Famous Hobo (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Thanks for the review! I've left a few replies above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Famous Hobo: I've collapsed the issues that I've fixed, if you believe they're not solved, feel free to remove them from the template. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, good work so far. Here's another batch of comments.

  • The box art has alt text, but the three other images also need alt text.
Added some alt text, no idea how to check if it works though.
  • The reception section has some issues in regards to the listed websites. For example, Post Arcade links to The Financial Post, which folded nearly 20 years ago. Instead, you should link it to the National Post, like you do later in the reception section. Also, decide whether to use GameCentral or Metro, as Game Central redirects to Metro, and you interchange the publications throughout the reception section. Finally there is some overlinking of the websites (Destructoid and PC Gamer from what I saw). While your at it, Minecraft should also be delinked, as this was linked in the gameplay section.
    Is it better now?
  • The external links seem to be freaking out, but from I've noticed, you've archived all the sources, so good for you.
Seems like that tool doesn't like, which is what all of those blue highlighted links were.
  • As for whether the prose in the reception section is good, honestly, this has always been difficult for me to decide. Before Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward was promoted, IDV and I had to completely rewrite the reception section twice, because neither of us were that good at it. If you want an expert review on the reception section, I recommend asking Czar to take a look at it again, or politely invite PresN to take a look at it. As for what I think, honestly I think it does its job. It discusses what reviewers liked and disliked, and I felt it was a smooth read. Also, I could go either way when it comes to including reviewer names, but I guess if I had to choose, I prefer at least having the reviewers last name mentioned. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    I agree in that the reception does the job well, and I'd rather leave it as is with the occasional last name and so-on because that's what I'm used to writing. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Famous Hobo: Cheers for the new points. I've left replies above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Alright, we're getting really close, just a few more things I need to bring up.

  • This is my fault since I edited this bit, but I just noticed the definition of nuclear fallout doesn't accurately describe the Fallout setting. Perhaps instead include nuclear war? It doesn't roll off the tongue as well, but the change should be made.
  • Regarding the screenshot, the Geek article has some good ones, but none of them show the HUD, which a vital aspect of the game. One of my friends owns Far Harbor, and I can get a better lit screenshot if you'd like showing the HUD, but at this point, I don't think the screenshot as is will be an issue.
I don't mind changing the screenshot, but I believe the current one portrays the content well enough. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A really small nitpick, but in the external links section, their is no Far Harbor website. It simply links to the Fallout 4 website. Perhaps change it to Official Fallout 4 website.
  • I noticed the Vice article on the talk page. Were you going to use that at some point? By the looks of it, it seems to be just a review, and the reception section is already solid. Unless it brings up any new points, I don't think you need to include it.
Yeah, I normally just throw sites on there that I think I might get around to using, but I didn't need it. I've removed it from the page.

Once those points are addressed, I'll support. BTW, you can check alt text with the handy dandy altviewer. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Cheers for the analysis, I've fixed up all the issues and left replies above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll stop pestering you about the screenshot, as it does it's job. Since all of my comments have been addressed, I'll Support. Good job, and I hope everything goes well from here on out. I know the struggle of working on an FAC. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Well, it's been open for a while and it hasn't received any more comments, opinions? Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FAC is a bit of a waiting game. A month to six weeks is not unusual but I doubt the FAC coordinators would consider this to have had sufficient input yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar
Addressed comments from Jaguar
  • All three paragraphs of the lead begin with "Far Harbor"; I'd recommend mixing it up once
  • "The player controls the protagonist throughout their investigation on the Island" - shouldn't 'The' be capitalised her as per how it's stylised throughout the rest of the article?
  • " but some had mixed opinions on the atmosphere and expansion's use of fog" - how about but some had mixed opinions on the expansion's atmosphere and its use of fog
  • "for the action role-playing single-player video game Fallout 4. Fallout 4 is the fifth installment in the Fallout series" - I think there's a repetition of Fallout 4 in too much of a close proximity here. Perhaps change it to It is the fifth installment or The game is the fifth installment? Feel free to ignore if you disagree
  • "The player's character also gains experience points" - not 'player character'?
  • "The expansion took influence from the player's feedback regarding the dialogue system in Fallout 4, and how it "didn't work as well as other features"" - I think you can safely lose the quotes here and paraphrase this
I think this is fine as-is.
  • Refs 38 and 39 are lacking publishers (the publisher is Ziff Davis)

Those were all of the minor nitpicks I could find during my first read through this article. Overall it is comprehensive, well written and engaging. I noticed a couple of refs are missing publishers but that's minor. Once all of the above are out of the way then I'll take another look at this and will most likely support! JAGUAR  10:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for the review, Jaguar. I've fixed up everything. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! I'll happily lend my support now. Quite impressed with the reception section too—it reads as cohesive prose rather than a list of reviewers themselves. Definitely preferable for a FA in my opinion. JAGUAR  14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I was looking at this with a view to promotion but hit a few issues in the lead. I think I'd like a few more eyes on the prose before we promote this.

  • "There are a variety of puzzles, some utilize lasers and others allow building using blocks." Something not right here.
How about now?
  • "Far Harbor was announced three months after the release of Fallout 4...": Maybe this is video game speak, but saying that the game was announced does not seem to work; perhaps something like "the release of Far Harbor was announced"?
I didn't see too much wrong with what it was originally, but is it better now?
  • "...and was influenced by player feedback on the base game's dialogue system, and how it was believed that it was not as successful as the other mechanics" And this makes the sentence very long, with two "and"s.
Is it better now?
  • "The development team also noticed players' interest in expansions that added large amounts of explorable territory.": I can't quite see the link between this sentence and the ones around it.
Is it better now?
  • "Due to the size of Far Harbor, the price of Fallout 4's season pass was increased": Can we say why? (I appreciate it's quite obvious, but it would be nice to spell it out)
Is it better now?
  • "The PlayStation 4 version was re-released in June 2016 to fix performance issues.": Another sentence seeming a little disconnected from the ones around it.
I couldn't think of any way to replace this, so I've removed it for now.

Nothing major, but I'd like someone to take another look just to be sure. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Cheers for the pointers. I've tried to fix them up. What's your opinion now? Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: In case you forgot. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Kalākaua coinage

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC), Maile66 (talk)

This article is about... four of five of Hawaii's official coins, so liked for their beauty they were incorporated into spoons, cuff links and the like, but which caused a monetary crisis when issued to refill Hawaii's treasury. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that. --Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moisejp

I think what I spotted is mostly minor stuff:

  • It's specified in three places that a dime is a ten-cent piece (in the lead, the third paragraph of Preparation, and at the end of Design). The lead and the third one (which also ties in with the Hawaiian phrase) seem worthwhile. It's not a big deal, but is the second one possibly too much?
  • "Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono" is mentioned and wiki-linked twice, but different information is given for each mention ("The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in Righteousness" and "words spoken by Kamehameha following a time of distress"). The description for the second occurrence feels kind of like it's giving new information without acknowledging the reader has already been presented the term in a different context.
  • Again , minor but: "The dollar, half dollar and quarter dollar bear the royal arms, set forth most elaborately on the dollar". In editing you and I went back and forth a bit with this sentence, and now I understand what you mean. But the first time I read it, I interpreted "most" in its less common usage meaning "very"—that's why I initially thought it was a peacocky usage. How about if you used "the most", then there is definitely no confusion. But if you disagree, I won't insist.
  • The Mintages table has a Net Distribution of $176,165.70. That doesn't quite match the $185,000 mentioned in the main text. I see these are from different sources, but would it be worthwhile to explicitly say that different sources do not agree on the exact figure? (Or is my understanding wrong, and those numbers aren't talking about the same thing?)
  • I went back and took a look at the source, Part II of Adler's article, and he cites that to the Report of the Governor of Hawaii in 1907, which is online here. It looks to me like coins were still coming in, though the exchange period had ended. So I don't think Adler had the final figures, and I'll delete his number figure. Nice catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I might have had one or two other small comments or copy-edits to make. I'll have to read through the article again to remember. Anyway, this is all for now. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Also, it looks like the images need alt text. Moisejp (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Marvin suggested a more appropriate choice as national mantle than the fur would be the famous feather cloak worn by Kamehameha the Great." Should this be "would have been"? He reported on the coins in 1883 after they were already complete? Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Rephrased to avoid the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

My concerns are all addressed and now support. Moisejp (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from KAVEBEAR

This is going to be sporadic comments as read the article for the first time:

  • Can you link Hawaiian dollar and Coins of the Hawaiian dollar either in the text or as a main article template in Background?
  • Why not mention the use of nails as currency during the early barter economy period at post-contact?
Medcalf mentions that more as a trade item without a set rate of exchange. Is there some online source you can recommend on this?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure. I just remember that nails were an important trade currency at this period base on past readings. . I can look into it a bit to see what I find specifically. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I found a good citation in this: "Money of Hawaii Including a Preliminary Check List of Hawaiian Currency, Coins, Patterns, Scrip and Tokens* by Donald Billam-Walker in the Forty-eighth annual report of the Hawaiian Historical Society for the year 1939. Can you include this source for the sake of thoroughness and comprehensiveness in the references and add anything new (if any) it may provide to this article? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is inconsistency of kingdom vs Kingdom as a stand alone noun without "of Hawaii".
  • ...A number of businessmen, including Sanford B. Dole, objected" – Dole was a lawyer and government official not a businessman. The source seems to list him as the spokesman for the business community.
I've adjusted those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Norwich War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The next in my series on war memorials by Sir Edwin Lutyens for those following along at home, this number six, and about halfway through the English memorials with FA potential. The previous two were both in York; this one is a long way further south and slightly further east. Sadly neglected in the early 21st century, it has since been restored to its full glory. Although not a large memorial dominating its surroundings, it's nonetheless quite an impressive one in my opinion. It was unveiled by a disabled ex-serviceman; that the committee had no trouble finding a wounded soldier for the duty speaks to the profound effect the First World War had on Norwich, which of course is a microcosm of Britain as whole.

This is a relatively short but comprehensive article, and as ever, all feedback is gratefully received. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I know Norwich quite well, and I'm pleased to see this article here. I made a very minor edit to insert what appeared to be a missing word, otherwise all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll support this shortly. Few small things....
  • Lead: Would prefer abandoned to "abortive".
  • Makes no odds to me, so done.
  • Norwich's war dead and by 1926 - comma or punctuation of some sort needed (imo)
  • Done.
  • an empty tomb (cenotaph) - remove the cenotaph clarifier - mentioned and linked already above
  • I think this is worthwhile as cenotaph isn't necessarily a widely understood term and Norwich's doesn't resemble Lutyens' other cenotaphs (which tend to be raised high on pylons, and many people think the pylon itself is [part of] the cenotaph). It's actually the reason I had the link there rather than on the first mention. I'm open to better ways of doing this if you can think of any.
  • Fine with either or. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Never heard of a flambeaux before, link pls. Also, it is how it sounds, no need to say "at either end can burn gas to emit a flame" - works from burning gas or sumfink.
  • and the City Hall in 1938. In 2004... Can you rephrase so the two years are not placed so close together.
  • Yep.
  • at the same time all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed - I don't understand this. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Gone.
  • These are trivial points you are free to ignore.
  • I have spot checked 4 refs; (9, 17, 18, 21). All ok, no issues. Ceoil (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much Ceoil! Happy to talk some more about cenotaphs and flambeaux if you want. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Have only ready half the article so far, but cenotaphs are in my area of interest, if you have more. Flambeaux is my new favourite word. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • which was initially deployed - I have a real problem with the way 'initially' is used on Wikipedia, though more on music articles than in this instance. 'Originally', or 'at first'
  • Norwich, the county town - The city of?
  • Sorry, I don't follow. You're suggesting "the city of Norwhich, the..."? Or something else?
Say "the city (or town) of Norwich" rather than Norwich, the county town Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I can add "the city" if you think it would help, but I wanted to keep the county town link to make clear the relationship between Norfolk and Norwich. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Norwich, the county town" is not a great construct. Not something I'd go to the mattresses over however. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Approximately 33,000 men served overseas with the Norfolks, though many more joined other regiments. Norfolk men presumably, rather than men in general
  • Indeed.
  • Thousands of war memorials were built across Britain after the war.
  • Sorry, not sure what you're suggesting here either.
Ok. In the aftermath of the war and its unprecedented casualties is fine on 2nd reading. Ceoil (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London - In rather than on? maybe in Whitehall, London, though yes that's an Americanism.
    • Well, Whitehall's the street and the Cenotaph is in the middle of it so "on" seems appropriate.
Ok. But can you say Whitehall street or road, as I assumed it was an area. Ceoil (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It's just called "Whitehall" (I know, that's Londoners for you!); Does linking it help? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
A link perfectly solves. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
These are very picky, yes. Ceoil (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm running out of things to say, a good sign, so Support from me. This a very fine, worthy and interesting article. Well done Harry.

Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! If cenotaphs are your thing, you'll like what I have in store next. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support comments by auntieruth
  • almost ready to support.
  • question on this sentence Withers was selected at random from among the city's ex-servicemen who were natives of Norwich, had enlisted prior to the implementation of conscription in 1916, had served overseas, and had been permanently disabled as a result of their service I think I understand it. He was selected from a pool of the exservicemen who had all been natives had enlisted prior to conscription, and had...yadayada....? I had to read it several times though. auntieruth (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose per MOSCAP violations. Also the total cost was £2,700 (1927); it'd be nice to have a conversion to modern value. Other than that I think it looks ok. --John (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

moscap violations? are you referring to the caps of the on the inscription? ....?auntieruth (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it either. Wot. Ceoil (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that the issues are
* "The Royal British Legion " should be "the Royal British Legion";
* " Its place in the Memorial garden " > " Its place in the memorial garden ";
* " between the new City Hall and the castle." > "new city hall";
* "(on the Stone itself)" > "stone";
* "the Guildhall " > "guildhall".
NB "Market Place" is presumably the proper street name, as opposed to "a market place". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Market Place is indeed the street name. RBL cap the "t" but I've de-capped it anyway, likewise memorial garden. City Hall is a proper noun (it's the name of the building), as are Stone of Remembrance and Guildhall. But I think John's issue is with the inscriptions. Still, the inscriptions are in allcaps on the memorial itself, and they're quoted in allcaps in every single one of the sources (some inline like I've done, some as a blockquote). Personally I think it would be silly to make Wikipedia the sole exception, and sticking to the sources is a higher priority—the MoS is, after all, supposed to be a guide and no guide can cover every possible scenario. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, I still think that "on the Stone itself" should be lower case - the "Stone of Remembrance" is a proper noun, but "the stone" isn't - for comparison, one would say "in Norwich Castle", but "in the castle". MOS:INSTITUTIONS, part of WP:Capital, would seem to prefer "the guildhall"/"the city hall" or "the Norwich Guildhall"/"the Norwich City Hall"... I don't have a strong opinion on the inscription issue, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Re inscription, if it is similar to proclamations, the instructions here do say not to capitalize it. And since the opposer left no instructions, what can we do?
I think if a building is named the Guildhall, it should be in cap. If it's called Fort Knox, our Guildhall, that would be incorrect. Go to the guildhall building, and turn left, not caps. Go to the Guildhall and turn left. yes. auntieruth (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about Stone, so I've decapped it. I believe a strict reading of the MoS would disallow the use of allcaps for the inscription, but the MoS is a guide (the tag at the top says best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply) and I believe this is a small and reasonable exception where following the sources is preferable to following the letter of the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Nice work on the caps, and I take your point on the inscriptions. What did you think about my other point on the currency conversion? John (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, my oppose still stands. I tried to see how this could be a valid exception to the MoS but it just isn't. MoS says not to do the ALLCAPS thing and MoS compliance is a FA criterion. --John (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I respect your oppose but obviously I disagree with it. The MoS is guidance, not scripture, as it says itself. It would be impossible to write a style guide for every set of circumstances and every article. In this case I'm following the style used by the sources and I don't think the article would be improved by following the letter of the MoS. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support; I reviewed at A Class and was impressed by the piece then. A further reading, with the FA criteria in mind, confirms that for me this fulfils the FA requirements. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 07:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Sources look good.
  • Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: As John has opposed on an MoS issue, I'd like to hear a few thoughts from other reviewers on this, if we can't find any other way around it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

  • we commented above. A lot of us did. He's using the source, and this is what the source says. He left no instructions on what kinds of caps he opposes--the caps for the inscription, or the caps for the names of buildings. The caps guideline says "common sense and occasional exceptions may apply." Not sure what else we can say about this. As the editor says, the inscriptions themselves are in all caps, as if they were a proclamation, and all the sources referring to the inscriptions use all caps. I'm wondering if we could put the inscription in all caps in a box and refer to it in the text? Would that be a work around? auntieruth (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Recusing from coord duties to comment on this point (I may also be able to go through the whole article this weekend), following MOS is indeed part of the FAC criteria, but MOS is, as Harry and Ruth suggest, a guideline that may occasionally be honoured in the breach. In this case I would not be opposing over the allcaps inscriptions, but I would offer a suggestion/compromise, namely to make the caps small (and without quote marks), which has been employed for inscriptions on some FA-level coin articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Support -- lightly copyedited now; not an overly detailed article but I didn't notice any obvious omissions; structure seems logical; happy to take Nikki's image review and Ealdgyth's source review as read; my only suggestion is the one above re. inscriptions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The Seventh Victim

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 1943 film noir-horror film The Seventh Victim, directed by Mark Robson. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • See my edit summary on my first edit today; I hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "if scenes weren't cure": ?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A quirky film, just the type FAC reviewers will like. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments -- recusing from coord duties, I don't edit or review that many film articles but I'm a sucker for the Val Lewton productions. Oddly enough this is one of the few I haven't seen, so I guess I can be pretty objective here... So far I've done a fairly quick copyedit for prose -- pls feel free to discuss any concerns. I plan to come back later to look at structure, detail and referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Drown Soda, I was considering returning to look over other aspects of the article but I'd like to see you address Sarah's points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose:, I just looked over Sarah's points and made some edits/addressed her concerns. Apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I hadn't received a notification and hadn't checked the review archive. Let me know if you see anything outstanding still and I'll try to rework it. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV

Hi Drown Soda, I've done a copy edit, but please revert anything you don't like (except the names; that did need to be changed). Some feedback:

  • The men were all surnames and the women first names (except for one sentence where all are first names). This isn't only because Mary and Jacqueline share a surname; Natalie Cortez was first name too until I changed it: "Judd [male surname] makes a second visit to Natalie." Even on first reference, Mary and Jacqueline's surnames were left out, while the men were introduced in full. I've changed some of it, but because you have to use first names for Mary and Jacqueline, you might consider using first names for everyone after the first reference.
  • The plot summary was written before you began editing the article, and it isn't that clear. Why did she marry secretly? It says she is suicidal but also that she's refusing to kill herself. Then suddenly she does. The IMDb summary is a little clearer.
  • You describe Mary as naive and mature.
  • What is the "double suicide that ends the film"?
  • "Purportedly Lewton was warned not to make a film with a message, and he replied that this film did have a message: 'Death is good.'" This is the source. It isn't clear to me that the message discussion was about this film.
  • Can you unpack what you mean about it violating the Motion Picture Production Code, and do you have a source?

SarahSV (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Re: my suggestion to use first names, I'm not sure this would work with Dr. Judd.
  • Is the school called Miss Highcliffe's? Edmund Bansak calls it Highcliffe Academy.
  • The article doesn't mention the opening line from John Donne: "I run to death, and death meets me as fast / and all my pleasures are like yesterday." It used to include it (e.g. here), but it was removed at some point. SarahSV (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The name of the private detective, Irving August, was missing, so I've added it to the plot summary, but he should also be added to the cast and characters. SarahSV (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin:, I believe I have addressed most of these concerns; specifically, the Val Lewton quote about the film's message being "death is good" had to be removed—you are correct, it does not apply to the film. I believe this was in the article before I started working on it. Per the Harvard Film Archive, that message was one Lewton had attributed to I Walk With a Zombie. Let me know if you notice other outstanding issues. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Drown Soda: apologies for the delay in responding. Regarding the double suicide, is the second one seen at the end, and if not how is it stated or implied? SarahSV (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

SarahSV (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:, I will add this to the file pages for clarification, but I have searched the 1971 Copyright Entries database at UPenn which would apply for copyrights from 1943–44 and found nothing under searches in "commercial prints" or "artwork" for the title or for RKO, who published the poster(s). As far as the trailer screenshots goes, my understanding is that trailers published in the U.S. prior to 1964 were not copyrighted (per [27] and [28]) Let me know if you see anything else and thank you for looking this over--I apologize for taking awhile to address any of these things. I didn't get a notification to check the review archive until today. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Heathenry (new religious movement)

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a new religious movement whose practitioners seek to revive the belief systems of pre-Christian Germanic Europe, including the religions of the Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, and Goths. It has been GA rated for some time and was previously at FAC between February and March; it received no opposition but at the same time attracted very little attention at all. Hopefully this time round a larger number of editors will consider reading it and offering their thoughts. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • Generally the sources seem of good quality. Normally "Hardman and Harvey Paganism Today" would raise red flags because it's self-published, but it is held by a good number of academic libraries so shouldn't be that much of an issue.
  • Thorsons is an esoteric publisher, although I did not think that it was a self-publishing platform. However, the chapters in this particular book are written by academics or people with academic training and at least one of the two editors is a professional religious studies scholar. For that reason I felt that it was an acceptable source to use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of linking Diana L. Paxson in the sources section.
  • I do find the lack of books such as Our Troth or Essential Asatru in the further reading section to be a bit surprising. Or the lack of them being used to cite practices/beliefs. It does tend to make the article look like it doesn't reflect what the actual groups actually say about themselves. Obviously we want to rely on secondary sources when possible, but totally not citing any of the actual groups for their own practices seems a bit odd. Kind of like not citing any Christian theology texts for an article on Christianity.
  • I really wanted to avoid the use of primary sources in this article. That is why it relies almost exclusively on secondary—and particularly academic—sources. Some of the authors of these academic texts are non-Heathen scholars, but others are scholar-practitioners, so there certainly is some input from 'insider'-based perspectives here. The main reason why I wanted to avoid primary sources was because they typically only present a particular viewpoint or perspective that is often not shared by other religionists. If we were dealing with a small, homogenous, religious group that has set doctrines then primary sources might be acceptable, but for a broader, heterogenous religious movement (whether Heathenry or Christianity) I think that using them causes more problems than it solves. In the case of this article, there was a big problem with an Ohio-based editor (since banned for repeated edit warring, disruptive editing, and sock puppetry) repeatedly rewriting the article using the primary sources that they favoured, thus pushing their own particular angle on what Heathenry was, or at least what it should be. By steering clear of primary sources we avoid the problem of pushing particular doctrinal differences and also do not have to deal with the problem of selecting which primary sources can be used and which can't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • But you don't even list them in the further reading section. Nor do you have any "official links" to websites. And there are some general heathenry sources that cover it for beginners without going into specific groups - at the least some of those could be listed in the further reading. It is very odd to read an article on a living religion and not have any links/books BY those practitioners at least listed in the further reading/external links section. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I see your point. I've added an "External links" section with the official webpages of a number of the larger Heathen groups, from various countries. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I've also added some primary sources to a new sub-section of "Further reading". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I will try to review the article in total later - my husband is Asatru/Troth so I happen to have some knowledge. (Note, I am NOT heathen myself, but you do learn a good bit just by being in the same household.) I'll do a spotcheck of sources then - just ordered a couple of the works through ILL.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Support from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Definition:
    • "Some Heathens also adopt ideas from the archaeological evidence of pre-Christian Northern Europe and from recorded folk tales and folklore from later periods in European history. These textual sources nevertheless.." archaeological evidence isn't a textual source, but the second sentence implies that they are. Not sure how to reword this better, but it is jarring.
      • Hmm. Difficult one. Would "The textual sources" be an improvement, in your opinion? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I think it would. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    • "Other practitioners who emphasize a hard reconstructionist approach.." probably best if you define "hard reconstructionist" above in the sentence "The ways in which Heathens use this historical and archaeological material differs; some seek to reconstruct past beliefs and practices as accurately as possible, while others openly experiment with this material and embrace new innovations."
      • I agree that there is some issue here. Given that the term "reconstructionist" has different potential meanings, I felt it best to remove "hard reconstructionist" altogether here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • "and sectors of the Heathen movement have perpetuated misconceptions about the past" ... perhaps a couple of examples in a note?
  • Gods and spirits:
    • "Since the 1970s such negative attitudes toward polytheism changed." awkward - suggest "Since the 1970s such negative attitudes towards polytheism have changed." or "Such negative attitudes towards polytheism changed after the 1970."
      • That's a good idea. I've gone with the first suggested option. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • "Heathenry is animistic,[56] with practitioners believing in nonhuman spirit persons commonly known as "wights" (vættir) that inhabit the world,[67] each of whom is believed to have its own personality."... I'm not sure that animism actually is held by all heathenry groups - I'm still getting a trickle of the article's sources in so cannot consult the works used to support this sentence yet.
  • Cosmology and afterlife:
    • Be consistent in italicizing or not italcizing "wyrd"
      • I was trying to go with a system of italicizing the word on its first appearance but then leaving it un-italicised after that, but I can see that this does generate some confusion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Morality and ethics:
    • The article constantly use the past tense to describe what scholars say, which can occasionally lead to issues. An example: "Sociologist Jennifer Snook noted that as with all religions, Heathenry was "intimately connected" to politics, with practitioners' political and religious beliefs influencing one another." By saying "Heathenry WAS..." you are implying that it is not a living religion. You can avoid these problems by putting the scholars statements into present tense.
      • I can see the concern here, but I also think that adopting present tense wording would cause new problems. Each of these scholars was operating in a particular place and a particular time, and some of their comments, although valid at the time, may no longer be. Where I think that a change to present tense won't cause problems, I have made the change.Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Rites and practices:
    • " Prospective members may undergo a probationary period before they are fully accepted and welcomed into the group, while other groups remain closed to all new members.[123] Such groups are largely independent and autonomous, although they typically network with other Heathen groups, particularly in their region." ... does the "such groups" refer to the closed groups or to ALL the groups mentioned in the preceding sentence?
      • It means all groups. I shall make this clearer in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Blot and sumbel:
    • Be consistent on italicizing "blot".
      • Italics are used when the word is first introduced and again when the text is specifically discussing the etymology of the word "blót". Other examples are left without italics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Likewise for "sumbel"
    • I got lost with this sentence "The contemporary use of runes for divinatory purposes is however found more widely than within Heathenry, with books on the subject being common in New Age bookstores." Do you mean that the use of runes for divination is practiced outside of heathenry? Or does it mean that the use of runes for divination is MORE widely practiced outside of heathenry? And did the use of runes spread from heathenry to other new age practices or did it develop in new age practices independent of heathenry?
      • I've amended this to the following: "Some non-Heathens also use runes for divinatory purposes, with books on the subject being common in New Age bookstores." I don't really know whether the divinatory use of runes within the New Age developed independently of Heathenry or not; the sources does not specify this, unfortunately. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Festivals:
    • "a tradition that they share with many contemporary Pagans." oooooh.... ouch. Wheel of the Year is very much witchcraft/wicca. LOTS of controversy in the overarching pagan community over equating "Pagan" with "Wicca/Witchcraft". Can we reword to state more clearly that other contemporary pagans do NOT share this idea of the wheel of the year.
      • I think that it is utilised be a lot of Druidic and Goddess Spirituality groups too, as well as more generic self-described 'Pagans'. However, I get your general point, so have refashioned this section of the sentence to the following: "a tradition that they share with Wiccans and a number of other contemporary Pagan groups". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • "Such festivals can be held on the same day each year..." which festivals are we talking about - the wheel of the year or ALL of the festivals mentioned before this?
      • I've amended "Such festivals" to "Heathen festivals". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Racial issues:
    • "religion of the 'Aryan race' that cannot rightly be followed" any reason you used single quotes here around "Aryan race" where you use double quotes everywhere else?
      • I think that the single quotes were used to reflect the problematic nature of the very concept of an Aryan race, but I agree that it looks a little strange so I have removed the quote marks altogether in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I spot checked a few citations to works and all were paraphrased properly and supported the information in the article.
Otherwise everything looks good. As an aside - when are you going to work on my own cultus: Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism? (no pressure! And yes, with the husband being heathen and myself being neo-Roman, it is occasionally interesting in the house!) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Ealdgyth; I am working my way through them. It would be nice to work on Roman Polytheistic Reconstructionism in future although I'm not sure that there are many academic sources dealing with it. I am currently focusing mostly on New Age, Rastafari, and Satanism, but may turn my attention back to certain modern Pagan groups in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep my eye out for sources for any of those articles. Don't worry about the scanty stuff available on RPR, when we go to bookstores, there are usually at least 10 shelving units of "religious" books. Of those units, we're lucky if more than 10 shelves are devoted to non-Christian topics. And usually it's a shelf of "wicca/new age" books. If we're lucky, we may see one book on heathenry on that one shelf. I've yet to find (outside of Amazon) any work on RPR/cultus deorum/religio romana. And of course, all the mythological books are full of Greek myths, which are not the same thing as Roman religious practices. It's like being invisible sometimes.... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

None of the images have alt text. Could you please fix this? -- (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added alt-text to all of the images, Thank you for the suggestion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! -- (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl:, is there another FA which uses the long dash to obscure author's names in the general reference list, when paired with footnotes? Were you advised to do that? I'm thinking that while this is a scholarly practice that I have definitely seen before (somewhere) in print, that it might be a bit obscure/technical for readers of WP and so might not be desirable for an article that is meant to represent Wikipedia's best work. If I'm reading the article, I have to click or tap twice to get to the source from a footnote - once to display the <ref>-based material, twice to get to the full citation from "Harvey 2007". Then I am faced with ——— (2007). Listening People, Speaking Earth: Contemporary Paganism (second ed.). London: Hurst & Company. ISBN 978-1-85065-272-4. ... It's very elegant, but a person might want to know about Heathenry who isn't au fait with academia, and the column break between Harvey 1995 and Harvey 2007 is unfortunate. I think it would be better if the long-dash was removed on all references, so the full citation is seen no matter which "Author Date" you click/tap on. -- (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. This is definitely something that I've seen in featured articles - at least, in those that I have got to featured status! (Vladimir Lenin and Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas being recent examples where I have adopted the practice). I've never had an editor raise the issue before; not that that dismisses it. Generally I think that the use of dashes does contribute to the aesthetic and organisation of the sources (it is a very common practice in academic literature) and thus would generally rather retain it. Does anyone else have any views on the matter? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe the long dash is very common across all academic disciplines at all levels and in journal articles as opposed to books, otherwise I wouldn't have had as much trouble as I did recalling its use. Not all readers of these articles will be academics. Lenin has some interest for history students at high school, for example. Even if it is an aesthetic that you're accustomed to, can you see my point about it adding difficulty for a general audience? I don't think the use of the long dash is covered in the Wikipedia manual of style, which means that displaying the authors would help to future proof the article, when in five, ten or fifteen years, there are more sources to be added by other people who aren't as deeply steeped in the discipline as you are. (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC) I can certainly see that there is the potential for some readers to get confused by the dashes. I'll remove them if you really think it important, but personally I'm not convinced that they are a particularly serious problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Some images have both a fixed px size and an upright scale factor - should be the latter only
  • File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg: should include an explicit copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg, File:Nordiska_gudabilder_vid_julgille.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • If possible, could you please give me some pointers here Nikkimaria. The artefact depicted in File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg is an exact replica of a Viking Age artefact, while File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg is an actual photograph of such an object. Given the vast age of these items, there can be no copyright restrictions on them under Swedish law. Moreover, I am a little confused about File:Nordiska_gudabilder_vid_julgille.jpg; what is it in this image that requires an additional copyright tag? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the status of the carvings pictured? For ancient objects, any of the copyright-expired tags should apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The carvings are religious objects, and I don't think that they carry any form of copyright. The photograph itself has been released as PD by the individual who took it, User:Achird, so I don't think that there is a problem here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added PD-tags and explanations for both File:Amulet_Thor's_hammer_(copy_of_find_from_Skåne)_2010-07-10.jpg and File:Detail_from_G_181.jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Support. I made some minor changes to grammar and wording, but feel free to revert anything. Woebegone (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Review by 3family6

"In claiming a sense of indigeneity, many Heathens—particularly in the United States—attempt to frame themselves as the victims of Medieval Christian colonialism and imperialism, ignoring the fact that they are primarily white, and thus members of the same ethnic community which has perpetrated and benefitted from colonial and imperial policies against indigenous communities in the Americas and elsewhere." - While I agree with this statement personally, this appears to be a statement of opinion in Wikipedia voice. I'd feel more comfortable with it if it were attributed to the source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
A very good idea. I have now reformulated this sentence to reflect that it is the view of several academics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Black metal is mentioned, but perhaps also a sentence about pagan metal, folk metal, and Viking metal?
I've added a sentence about Viking metal as I was able to find a citation to support the connection between the two. Unfortunately I've not been able to do the same for pagan metal and folk metal, but perhaps said citations will crop up in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
For pagan metal, I found these sources that you can reference: Rountree, Crafting Contemporary Pagan Identities in a Catholic Society, pages 46-47 (note that this one is about heavy metal in general, but considers Gothic metal and pagan metal the most important); Weinstein, "Pagan Metal", in Pop Pagans, pages 58-75 (is about pagan metal, also discusses Viking metal, folk metal, black metal, and other genres in the context of paganism); [Granholm, "The Metal Band Therion and the Magic Order Dragon Rouge, in Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production, pages 553-581] (primarily about the band Therion, but discusses the relationship of paganism to metal, and at one point mentions Viking and folk metal)Dostálová, "Czech Neopagan Movements and Leaders", in Modern Pagan and Native Faith Movements in Central and Eastern Europe, page 168 (explores pagan metal, black metal, and the racist influence of Varg Vikernes); Aitamurto, Paganism, Traditionalism, Nationalism, page 54 (folk metal in the context of black metal and racism in Rodnoverie); Manea, "Primal Roots", in Proceedings of IAC-SSaH 2015, pages 185-193 (paganism and heavy metal).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks 3family6; I've added some material from Weinstein and Dostálová. I was cautious about some of the other sources because although they discuss Pagan metal as a genre, they do not necessarily tie it in with Heathenry, but rather speak of modern Paganism generally or a different Pagan religion such as Rodnoverie. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I wasn't sure what you would find useful and what not, so I tried to give a variety of sources. What's in the article now looks good.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Didn't see any other issues in my review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, 3family6. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
3family6, if you are happy with my responses to you comments, would you consider giving the article your support as an FA? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Issues are resolved, I now support this article. Back to my wikibreak.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FreeKnowledgeCreator

Midnightblueowl asked me if I was interested in commenting on this article. Having just read it through in its entirety, I have a few comments. The article is well written, and there are only a few (mostly very minor) quibbles that I could make. I'll note the more important issues. In the paragraph beginning, "Various Heathen groups adopt the Norse apocalyptic myth of Ragnarök", the term "Ragnarök" is spelled both with and without an umlaut. The spelling should be consistent, unless there is some specific rationale (which I'm not seeing) for the inconsistency. The word "the" has sometimes been added before a person's background (such as sociologist or political scientist) and sometimes not. That is another inconsistency that should be dealt with.

One sentence reads, "Many practitioners avoid using the etic term "reconstructionism" to describe their practices, preferring to characterize it as an "indigenous religion" with parallels to the traditional belief systems of the world's indigenous peoples." Now "etic" is of course linked, so readers can find out easily enough what it means by clicking on the link, but the initial reaction of the large majority of readers to that sentence is still going to be a blank stare. Even most reasonably well-read readers aren't likely to have any idea what "etic" means. Technical terminology has its place, but it is still best to use language that most readers are likely to understand, where this is possible. A sentence reads, "Some seiðr-practitioners make use of entheogenic substances as part of this practice, although others explicitly oppose the use of any such mind-altering drugs"; this is better than the sentence including "etic" as it gives the reader an explanation of what the unfamiliar term "entheogenic" means without their having to turn to another article. On the issue of factual accuracy, one sentence states that, "Others adopt concepts from the world's surviving ethnic religions as well as modern polytheistic faiths such as Hinduism". That Hinduism is polytheistic is disputed, and there would be interpretations of Hinduism that do not see it that way. I realize that describing Hinduism is hardly the point of this article, but it is still as well to be aware of this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts, FreeKnowledgeCreator. Well spotted on the Ragnarök spelling; I have ensured that that is standardised. I have also ensured that "the" is included in every instance where an academic is introduced in the prose. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
With regard to the issue of "etic", I have removed the second appearance of the word and replaced it with "scholarly". I have left the first appearance of the term in situ, but have added "scholarly" after it; does this work in your view? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
As a drive-by comment: "Henotheism" might be the best descriptor in this article for Hinduism. It is an over-broad generalization of Hinduism, as that article explains, but I think it works for this article, since we're dealing with a collection of shared faiths that are devoted to particular gods but which, generally, grant that there are, or could be, other gods.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, you've modified the remaining sentence containing "etic" to read, 'Many practitioners avoid using the etic, scholarly term "reconstructionism" to describe their practices, preferring to characterize it as an "indigenous religion" with parallels to the traditional belief systems of the world's indigenous peoples.' Some explanation of "etic" is definitely desirable, though I would have preferred a slightly different wording, 'scholarly term etic' rather than 'etic, scholarly term.' The grammar of the first wording seems better. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "scholarly term etic" would work; what about "scholarly, etic term"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I was only suggesting that the former word order would seem more natural to most readers - though it may actually be incorrect, as you suggest. The point is that the sentence as it stands, 'Many practitioners avoid using the scholarly, etic term "reconstructionism" to describe their practices, preferring to characterize it as an "indigenous religion" with parallels to the traditional belief systems of the world's indigenous peoples', does not explain its unfamiliar terminology. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Would linking to wikt:etic#Adjective be better than linking to WP in this case? I'm thinking of 'apposition' in the FA Mary Wollstonecraft as an example to follow here. While we have a WP article on etic, to just get the gist of it and then return to reading the article, Wiktionary might be more appropriate. -- (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that a Wikilink to the Wiktionary entry is certainly the best course of action here. Otherwise, we end up with a situation where the text might have to be interrupted just to explain the meaning of a word, and I do not see how that could be achieved without causing something of a mess. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Glad I could provide another feasible option. Could you please address my concerns above about the long dash used in the reference list? -- (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I missed that one. Will take a look now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been about five weeks since nomination and the article has three statements of support (and none in opposition). I think that all of the concerns raised have been dealt with, so if there are no further issues (anyone?), might I suggest that the article receive its little gold star? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Habits (Stay High)

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about "Habits (Stay High)" and its remixed version, "Stay High", both tracks were successful in 2014 and made the artist Tove Lo a famous singer. I nominated the article before but it was not promoted because there were not enough reviews. It is currently a GA. Paparazzzi (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Should the first sentence read “from her debut extended play” rather than “for her debut extended play”?
  • Would it be useful to provide a link for extended play in the first sentence?
  • I am not certain about the phrasing of the second half of the second sentence (starting with “while produced by”). It just doesn’t seem to mesh back to the original subject so I would suggest inserting “while it was produced by” to make it a little cleaner in my opinion.
  • I do not think the “However” in the lead’s first paragraph is necessary as the phrase about Lo being signed to record label is enough of a transition to stand on its own.
  • Is the image of Tov Lo really necessary in the “Background and release” section? It really doesn’t add that much to the article and the reader’s understanding of the song, and the single covers already show the artist, as well as the later images.
  • In this section, I would recommend splitting the first paragraph in two as it is rather long. May with the sentence starting with “11 December 2012” as it is moving to a different topic. It may be helpful to better guide a reader’s attention throughout the material.
  • I am not certain about the name of the “Composition and inspiration” section. I have seen a majority of song-related articles be “Composition” section. Just food for thought.
  • I think you do an excellent job with quotes in this article, but there are a few stray ones that I think would be better paraphrased (i.e. “weaker songs” in the “Critical Reception” section and “most intense” in the “Composition and inspiration” section). I would just look over quotes with one or two words and see if paraphrasing would make it stronger. I do this a lot so I just want to give you food for thought on this.
  • More as a note, I have a lot of respect for you for putting the antifeminist reviews in here. It is good to be as comprehensive as possible, even though I personally hate those reviews and the reviewer’s points of views (it is sad to still these types of things written about women).
  • You should have a citation for the quote in the caption of the first music video screenshot. Same for the other screenshot.
  • You have done a wonderful job with this article. I will support this nomination after my comments are addressed. I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments, and thank you so much for your collaboration (you were the only one who commented on the past nomination, so thank you a lot for that). Regarding the antifeminist review, I included it on the article due to the lack of negative reviews for the song (the three Billboard reviews from the second paragraph come from the same source). Like you, I do not, in any way, agree with what that man thinks and says about women and the singer, I just wanted to make the article as neutral as possible. However, I was thinking about removing the review, since it feels more like an attack to the singer rather than a critical analysis of the song. But I want to have a second opinion about it. Again, thank you so much for all the support you've been giving me all this time. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Awesome job with this article; it was a very interesting read. I think that the review fits with the article in terms of neutrality and comprehensiveness, but I would definitely look into getting more feedback on whether or not it is appropriate for this article. I can definitely support this nomination, and I hope that it goes more attention this time around. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you would help me with my FAC? I understand if you do not have the time so don't feel pressured to do so. Hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

  • I miss a bit of background of the artist. It jumps straight into the song background.  Done Added
  • odd to have a semicolon here "In an interview with Coup de Main Magazine, Lo said that; " A few other cases as well later on. MOS:QUOTEMARKS suggests use of colon for multisentence quotations  Done
  • not sure if the 2 commas in this long sentence are correctly positioned: "Subsequently, the recording was re-released under the title "Habits (Stay High)" on 6 December 2013 through Universal Music,[2] as the second single from Lo's debut extended play Truth Serum as well as the lead single from her debut studio album Queen of the Clouds." I would not have one before "as the second single" and I would have one before "as well as"  Done
  • also per MOS:QUOTEMARKS the full stop is sometimes in the wrong position, e.g., here: --> in actually saying". Done
  • not sure if the link to Chorus effect is intended. I guess the first use of chorus should link to refrain.  Done
  • break up as a noun is one word "breakup", which you once already in a quotation  Done
  • "a woman with low self-esteem that" -> who instead of that, perhaps?  Done
  • "number six". Given a bit further you have "number 23", I think as per MOS:NUM about consistency in comparable numbers, it should be 6 Not done According to MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words."
True, but if you read a bit further it says: "There were 3 winners and 206 losers, even though 3 would normally be given as three; or Three won and two hundred six lost (or two hundred and six in British English), even though two hundred six would normally be given as 206); but not There were three winners and 206 losers."  Done --Paparazzzi (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • the second most-streamed song -> or the second-most-streamed song?  Done
  • It spent one week on the Euro Digital Songs, where it peaked at number 19 -> it's a weekly chart, so peaked is a little odd  Comment: Why? the word is used when talking about weekly charts, I don't know why it sounds odd
  • in that region -> country? or maybe just drop it altogether  Done changed to country

I'll stop here for now. More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: I have addressed your comments. If I missed something, let me know. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, continuing from roughly halfway:

  • "for her first UK show" and then a bit further on you spell out the UK. I think consistency is better  Done spelled it out
  • The choice of countries for both the running text and the tables is a bit odd. I assume this is because it is all the countries? I.e., not released in say the Netherlands?  Comment: I used the sources that were available at the time. I started writing this article around November 2015, almost three years after this song was originally released, so many of the links supporting its release in other countries were dead.
  • Not sure I follow this: a free digital download. However, it was later made unavailable for purchase. So was it free or not?  Comment: That means that the song was available as a free digital download for a short time through SoundCloud
  • I don't understand why some reviews are in Composition section. Miles Raymer of Entertainment Weekly doesn't really say anything about the composition. Likewise there are 2 reviews from Raver Rafting, one in Composition and one in next.  Comment: The comment of Miles is there because he expresses that the remix is "least honest" than the original version because of the omission of some lyrics, while Raver Rafting describes the remix.
  • The reviewers of Blushing Panda -> this doesn't strike me as a source we should use, sounds like crowd sourced opinion. Hard to tell because all links to sources are broken  Comment: There is the archived link
  • The Guardian's official website -> I don't think they have an unofficial website, so I'd remove official  Done
  • as "unforgettable" and wrote that: -> I'm not sure you need "that"  Done

I'll do a source spot check later. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Kragujevac massacre

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC) and 23 editor.

This article is about a massacre of nearly 2,800 men and boys carried out by the German Army in the occupied territory of Serbia during WWII. It was carried out in reprisal for the killing of 10 German soldiers and the wounding of 26 others in accordance with a set ratio of 100 hostages to be executed for each dead German soldier and 50 hostages for every wounded German soldier. Several of the generals responsible for ordering the massacre were tried after the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

  • Some great work has gone here, and I am certainly leaning towards supporting this nomination. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Yugoslavia came to share its northwestern border with the Third Reich " - this is the first mention of the Third Reich in the article. Many readers will be familiar with this term, but there will surely be some who are not. I would recommend replacing it with "Nazi Germany". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • "her neighbours" - I'm being picky here, but I'm not sure that describing Yugoslavia with female pronouns is particularly encyclopaedic. A more neutral "it" would be more appropriate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, done.
  • "Adolf Hitler began placing" - who is Adolf Hitler? I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek, of course, but I think it important that we specify "Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler" or something of that nature. There may be readers in parts of the developing world for whom Hitler does not have quite the same fame (or infamy) that he has in Europe and North America. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I went with German dictator.
  • "Two days later, a group of pro-Western, Serbian nationalist Royal Yugoslav Air Force officers deposed the country's regent, Prince Paul, in a bloodless coup d'état, placed his teenaged nephew Peter on the throne, and brought to power a "government of national unity" led by the head of the Royal Yugoslav Air Force, General Dušan Simović.[" - This is quite a lengthy sentence. How about trimming it in two? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Split.
  • Not in this case, as it was only a puppet government, and not a puppet state.
  • It might be worth restructuring the lede a little. At present the article has one rather long opening paragraph, two medium length ones, and then a short one. Generally I think it best to start with a shorter opening paragraph, or at least to keep the lede paragraphs somewhat consistent; the excellent lede over at Gudovac massacre would be one to emulate on this front. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in "Clash at Gornji Milanovac" is very lengthy. I would suggest dividing it in two at an appropriate juncture. Maybe just before "A German officer who escaped reported..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks smashing. Without doubt, this article has my Support; hopefully it will get some attention from other editors too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88

My initial comment is about the extent to which the article uses exhibits from the Nuremburg Trials as sources. For example, much of the section entitled "Round-up" is sourced to a 20 October 1941 report written by von Bischofhausen about the events of 18-20 October (pp. 981 to 983). Von Bischofhausen of course was an integral player in those events, and his report is necessarily self-serving, pinning a great deal of blame upon König. I'm not entirely sure that it is safe to rely upon contemporary accounts by involved military officers as statements of fact about what happened. They are primary, not secondary, sources.

One other point about von Bischofhausen's report: he says that the villages of Mečkovac, Maršić, Grošnica and Milatovac were "mopped up", which I'm not sure is a euphemism for "destroyed" (the word the article uses).

I have also reviewed Misha Glenny's book, which I own, and that is represented accurately. Syek88 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

There is obviously a likelihood that Von Bischofhausen's version of events is biased, but his account is only one version, it is contrasted with another one. It was also accepted by the Tribunal, so they must have given it some credence. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I have amended the text to "mopped up". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
It is still a primary source though, is it not? Aside from that point, the citation is to 'Nuremberg Military Tribunals (1950). "The Hostage Case".', which is apt to miselad, as it suggests that the citation is a judgment or document promulgated by the court rather than an exhibit of evidence written by a witness. If the exhibit is to be used as a source, and I think that is very questionable, the author in the citation should be von Bischofhausen. Syek88 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Syek88 and Ealdgyth: I think it can be used carefully as a primary source as it provides some detail not available elsewhere, but on reflection, agree it was not clarified sufficiently that it was evidence tendered at the trial. I have removed von Bischofhausen's account of the earlier operation, as Glenny is probably sufficient there, and have now made it much clearer that this is just von Bischofhausen's version of events and cited his report to him. Here are my edits. Let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that just about works. I will try to have another read-through tomorrow. Syek88 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Syek88, did you still want to add comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I apologise- I have gone almost entirely offline. Could I please have another 36 hours? Syek88 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have had one more read-through of the article and am happy to support. I have not had the chance to conduct a detailed review of the prose, but at a broad level the article reads well, I could not identify any grammatical clangers, and others have reviewed prose. A few weeks ago I was focused on sourcing, and I checked to see that Misha Glenny's book was represented accurately. The article is accurate and comprehensive. Syek88 (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
  • I agree with Syek88 - it needs to be made clearer that the "Nuremberg" source is actually von Bischofhausen's testimony, not something that the Nuremberg Court put out. The reliability of using a primary source for information in the article I leave to the other reviewers, but I note that we really should use secondary accounts when possible.
  • Otherwise sources look good.
  • Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. Great article. All of the concerns above seem to have been addressed, and I couldn't find anything else to nitpick, myself. Nice work. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth

  • wow, this looks very fine. I'll need another read through.
  • Syke above brought up a Sources, so I had a look at them. I don't have an issue with the "primary sources" because they appear to be used with some judiciousness. Certainly Bischofhausen's statements in his original report are useful statements to establish what he presented as the facts of the case to his superiors. The judgments from Nuremburg also are useful in establishing what the court ultimately believed to be the case and not, and the principal facts of conviction/acquittal. I suspect that not using these sources would raise more questions than using them does. Of course, it is preferred to use secondary sources, however, the secondary sources might also cite the same source as he's citing, so wouldn't it be better to use the original source, rather than to go through the layers of sourcing?
  • some of the authors should be linked: Pierre Bourgois, for example, and Nauman, Klaus. Both have articles of their own. auntieruth (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Ruth, did you still want another read-through? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Louis Leblanc

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Previously nominated, and closed after two months due to last-minute commentary. I've now addressed that, and everything from the previous nomination. I also have contacted the users who left comments last time to ensure they see that the changes were made. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

Hi. I'll start my review now. I see you've made some changes but my impression is that there is still a lot left unexplained or left for the reader to guess at. Here are some comments about the first section: Lead:

  • Would it be an idea to make the hierarchy of the leagues clearer?
  • "Eligible for the 2009 NHL Entry Draft, he was selected 18th overall by the Montreal Canadiens." If a reader doesn't know that the NHL is the top league, will the full context be clear that he was moving up in his career? One idea could be to "major league NHL..." or something.
  • "Leblanc spent three seasons with the Canadiens, mainly playing for their American Hockey League (AHL) affiliates, before being traded in 2014 to the Anaheim Ducks, who kept Leblanc in the AHL." Again, this wording assumes the reader knows the AHL is lower down than the NHL. I guess if they click on the wiki-link you provide for American Hockey League, that helps, but the reader should be able to get some of the context within the current article itself.
I'll address both of the above here. I feel that defining the NHL anymore here isn't necessary; it isn't something other sports-related articles do, and I feel its something that can easily be found through the NHL article itself. Regarding the AHL, while the lead doesn't specify it too much, it is the lead, and the body of the article does clarify the NHL-AHL relationship, or at least attempts to.
  • OK, for now let's assume this is all right. I may have one more think about this issue before the end of the review, but for now your reasoning makes sense. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


  • "Leblanc was selected 18th overall by the Val-d'Or Foreurs in the 2007 QMJHL Draft, but instead went to the Omaha Lancers of the United States Hockey League (USHL)" If he was selected by one team, why did he have a choice to go to another team? Readers may wonder.
Moved some words around, but not sure how to make it much clearer.
  • OK, thanks. I appreciate you're trying to make it clearer. I'm just trying to understand this part for myself: He had to be selected for the Val-d'Or Foreurs in a draft—and he rejected being picked by them—but he was able to go to the Omaha Lancers without any kind of draft process? Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
In short, there are separate junior leagues in Canada and the US, and teams can have the rights to players in their respective country, but it doesn't apply in the other. So Leblanc was drafted, and had his Canadian rights, owned by Val-d'Or, assigned in the draft, whereas he was free to sign with any US-based team (of course its more nuanced than that, but this is not the place for that discussion). Now that said, I have seen reference that there was a similar draft for player rights in the US, but I am unable to get anything resembling a source to back that. But to keep it simple, he was free to move to the US because the draft only covered his playing rights for Canadian teams. I hope that makes sense.
  • OK, we may not be able to improve this, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 00:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "At the end of the season, Leblanc was ranked by the National Hockey League (NHL) Central Scouting Bureau as a top prospect for the 2009 NHL Entry Draft;" Again, it would be nice to be clearer that the NHL is the top of the hierarchy, and what most players strive to reach.
See the first note; the reader is either going to know the status of the NHL, or the relevant article will do better explaining than anything here could.
  • All right, see above, let's leave this issue for now. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "their final list had him 13th overall among North American skaters" I guess that "skaters" simply means "players" here, and is used to add variety. But I'd like to suggest "players" might be the more encyclopedic term.
I agree, however it is a specific term used for the ranking: they are divided amongst "skaters" and "goalies," and so to use "players" would be incorrect and wrong.
  • I see. I wasn't aware of that. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Canadiens General Manager Bob Gainey also applauded Leblanc's decision to move to the United States and play in the USHL rather than stay in Quebec with the QMJHL. Gainey felt it was a more difficult choice that helped Leblanc's development as a player, and showed his good character in making such a decision." Again, it's not clear why Leblanc was able to decide this when the QMJHL had selected him. Also, I was left wondering in what way this would have been a more difficult choice.
Tried to add some context, but again without adding massive notes to this that distorts everything it becomes challenging to get specific.
  • Is there any minimal extra context that could be added in a footnote? Then it wouldn't disrupt the flow. But I'm not sure exactly how much extra explanation this would actually involve, so if you still think it's not feasible, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, it goes against the traditional narrative in hockey circles, in which it is almost hearsay to suggest a junior player go anywhere but a Canadian team. For Gainey to have said that kind of goes against the established narrative, which if I had to speculate is possibly why he said it, as Leblanc defined convention; but that isn't exactly backed by a source.
  • "On July 30, 2010, Leblanc signed a three-year contract with the Canadiens. By agreeing to an NHL contract, he forfeited his NCAA eligibility and had to leave Harvard, being considered a professional according to NCAA standards." I see that you tweaked this slightly based on my comment last time, but I still don't feel it's clear. If he signed to the Canadiens, doesn't that mean he wanted to imminently pursue a career with an NHL team? If so, saying that he "had to" leave Harvard and he "forfeited his NCAA eligibility" ("forfeited" suggests a possible sacrifice made) sounds misleading or at least confusing.
Changed wording to "professional," as that is the issue regarding NCAA eligibility.
  • It's undeniable that he was no longer eligible for the NCAA. But my point was, wasn't his dream presumably to succeed in the NHL? If so, saying he "forfeited" (which has a somewhat negative connotation) his NCAA eligibility seems to put a little emphasis where it doesn't belong. Why would anyone want to play in the NCAA when they had a chance to make it big in the NHL? Trading one's NCAA eligibility for a spot in the NHL is a positive thing, not negative. Anyway, this is minor and maybe I'm getting too hung up on semantics. If you're comfortable with this part, I won't press this any further. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean. This mainly stems from the fact that most younger players spend a few years in the minor leagues before they make the NHL, if ever. This includes playing in the NCAA, which has a four-year limit; and unlike the Canadian major junior leagues or AHL, players can not play briefly in the NHL to see how good they are and return to the NCAA, but must either remain at the university level or "turn pro" (NCAA policy regards the Canadian leagues as pro for reasons that aren't relevant here).
  • "After attending his first training camp with the Canadiens in September 2010, Leblanc was sent to the Montreal Junior Hockey Club (Montreal Juniors) of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League (QMJHL) for the 2010–11 season." We learn later that it was Chicoutimi that sent him to the Juniors. Would it be clearer to explain that now rather than saying "was sent to" here?
Changed wording, think it may better reflect the situation.
  • See below. I think I have an idea for editing this when I have a window of time. Moisejp (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the off-season the team relocated to Boisbriand, a suburb of Montreal, and were renamed the Blainville-Boisbriand Armada; the team would subsequently trade Leblanc's major junior rights to the Shawinigan Cataractes, though he never played for them." Readers may wonder why he never played for them.
  • I'd like to still think about whether there's a way the info about his various QMJHL contracts could be explained less confusedly more clearly. I'll get back to you if I have any ideas. Moisejp (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd like to clarify better what I meant for my last point. I was suddenly called away to attend to something and wasn't able to choose my words carefully. I meant that there is a lot of activity described with Leblanc changing teams lots of times in a short period of time, plus there is some jumping back and forth in the chronological time line. Confusing is a strong word, but it's less easy to follow than would be ideal. It may be that this can't be helped—these are the events that happened and the article is describing them. But what I meant to say is I'd like to give another think about whether any further tweaking can be done—for example, by adding helpful transitions to the prose, or by rearranging the order the descriptions a bit—to help the reader as much as possible. If I can't think of any specific solutions for this, then no worries. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I can see what you mean regarding the transactions, in that they don't really have a clear place to go. However I feel that as they are really inconsequential to his career, it would be disruptive to put them chronologically, as it would just be some random note in the middle of relevant things happening. That said, they are still important enough to mention, as they clearly had an effect on his career (it was why he played in Montreal and not rural Quebec, after all; and if I can speculate, that may have influenced his choice to leave Harvard, as the team was close to the Canadiens). Thus I'd feel it wrong to outright remove the information, but to plant the trades sporadically seems an equally poor choice. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think they might work in a footnote? Maybe the most important information in the main text, and then a clarification in a footnote about how he had changed QMJHL contracts a couple of times before that. Just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Possibly. Let me look at it.
  • I've got some ideas for possibly rearranging this section a bit. I'd like to give a whirl at editing it in the next couple of days when I have time. If my edits aren't an improvement, we can always revert back. Moisejp (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Please go for it, I'm interested in what you got in mind. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • See what you think: User:Moisejp/sandbox3. Unfortunately in my editing I stripped all the inline sources. I hope it wouldn't be too much of a hassle for you to add them back in. Maybe I can help with it, but I didn't want to do any work on that until I find out if you like the edit. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that looks pretty good actually, and is still clear on what happened. And its no issue regarding the sources, I can add them if you import that into the article itself. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and either changed things up or left my own opinion on some matters, and hope to hear what you think on them. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Kasier matias. I have been a bit busy the last few days, but hope to respond to your replies and continue the review as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not a problem, I can relate to a busy schedule, so take your time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll continue reviewing the next part soon, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Answered you're queries above, so let me know what you think. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kaiser matias. I have imported the text we discussed in. I hope to begin reviewing the second half of the article in the coming days. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Ultimately" is used three times in the article. Does it add any real meaning to any of the instances?
    • I got rid of two of them. The first instance I kept just because I feel when discussing his pre-draft ranking and his actual spot in the draft it makes sense.
  • "He was invited to the summer camp the following year in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, and was one of the better players at the camp." Sounds possibly subjective, though I haven't checked what the source says. Could you make it more objective by maybe saying "So-and-so said that..."
    • Changed the wording, and the link as apparently the previous one is dead now.
  • "He later notched an assist in the gold medal game, where Canada lost to Russia 5–3." "Notched" sounds fine for sports newspaper writing, but I am unsure about encyclopedia writing (it sounds a bit casual to me). How would you feel about changing it?
    • Changed

Moisejp (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose. Your changes look good. Moisejp (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking such a detailed look at the article, really glad to have someone do that and put such effort in, really makes a difference. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments – I noticed this article failing to receive much attention, so I wanted to give it a look. It make take a few days before I can come back, so please be patient with the article, coordinators.

  • United States really doesn't need the link in the lead, as it is so well-known. This is a prime example of overlinking.
  • "Leblanc joined the Montreal Canadiens later that year, who had earlier acquired his Quebec Major Junior Hockey League playing rights." For a better order in this sentence, try "Later that year Leblanc joined the Montreal Canadiens, who had...". This puts "who" right after the team name, which it is referring to.
  • Don't know if anyone has brought this up to this point, but the body jumps right into his playing career without any mention of anything that happened earlier in his life. There's a healthy paragraph in the personal life section about his early years, which would be of great help in providing some context for the playing career sections. How would you feel about splitting that paragraph into an Early life section at the start of the body? It would leave a shorter personal life section, but it would still be a whole paragraph (still long enough to be worthwhile) and the article as a whole would have a logical order.
  • Junior: NCAA should be spelled out in its first use, as is done with the other abbreviations.
  • Professional: "the overtime winner" could be seen as an example of sportswriter-type prose, which in my experience hasn't been rewarded often at FAC. A longer-but-simpler "the game-winning goal in overtime" would be more formal.
  • "for the Canadiens, where he had 5 goals and 5 assists". The Canadiens aren't a place, so we need something other than "where". Perhaps "for whom he had 5 goals and 5 assists" would work?
  • There's a similar usage after Norfolk Admirals, which could use a similar fix.
  • Remove the comma in "January, 2013".
  • International play: "and" is needed before "was one of the top scorers at the camp."
  • Reference 13 needs an access date. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Everything here's been addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – All of my concerns have been taken care of, and pending a source review, I'm reasonably confident that the article meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Pericles' reply

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

Comments by Dudley

  • There is a "clarification needed'" in the Kingship and the royal court section.
  • "The reign of Philip II (359–336 BC)" As the three dynasties are mentioned above, I think it would be helpful to specify "The reign of the Argead king Philip II (359–336 BC)"
  • "Sparta was kept isolated" This sounds POV. It was no doubt Alexander's version. The Spartans would have said that even he did not attempt to conquer them.
  • "in retaliation for the Persian invasion of Greece in the 5th century BC." This sounds more like an excuse than a reason, and I cannot see where it is supported in the main text.
  • "In the ensuing wars of Alexander the Great, Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire" The second 'Alexander' could be replaced with 'he'.
  • "the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." This appears to say that Greek civilisation started with Alexander. Maybe "a new period in Ancient Greek civilization".
  • "The Macedonian kings, who wielded absolute power and commanded state resources such as gold and silver, facilitated mining operations to mint currency, finance their armies and, by the reign of Philip II, a Macedonian navy." This is out of place as it follows discussion of the results of Alexander's conquests. I suggest moving it up to follow "subordinate to Achaemenid Persia", apart from Philip's navy, which could be added to comments about his army.
  • "the point where Macedonia enters the historical record, since very little is known about the kings before his reign." Presumably not just the kings - I would say "about the kingdom".
  • "Historian Robert Malcolm Errington posits the theory" This is too wordy. What is wrong with "suggests"?
  • "Alexander I was employed as an Achaemenid diplomat to strike a peace treaty and alliance with Athens, yet this proposal was rejected." This does not sound quite right to me. Maybe "Alexander I was employed as an Achaemenid diplomat to propose a peace treaty and alliance with Athens, but the offer was rejected."
  • "The Athenian statesman Pericles promoted colonization of the Strymon River" Why did this affect Macedonia? Was the river in Macedon?
  • "The latter was eventually besieged by Athens" Was Potidaea conquered?
  • "their capture of Therma and Beroea" I suggest "their capture of the Macedonian cities Therma and Beroea"
  • "Yet when Argos suddenly switched sides as a pro-Athenian democracy, the Athenian navy was able to form a blockade against Macedonian seaports and invade Chalcidice in 417 BC." This is an example of a stylistic quirk which I find very irritating, of the frequent inappropriate use of the word "yet", as if something surprising will follow, when there is nothing surprising about it. Another example is "Yet when Archelaus I was assassinated (perhaps following a homosexual love affair with royal pages at his court), the kingdom was plunged into chaos," It is not surprising that the assassination of the king plunged the kingdom into chaos. "Yet" is used 28 times in the article, and I think it would be helpful if you checked each one to see whether it is the right word in the context.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Reply by PericlesofAthens
  • @Dudley Miles: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. I have fixed the clarification tag and wording in that particular sentence of the royal court sub-section.
  • I added "Argead king" before "Philip II" as you've suggested.
  • I reworded "Sparta was kept isolated" to "Sparta remained defiant", which is true in any case.
  • I have removed "in retaliation for the Persian invasion of Greece in the 5th century BC" from the lead section and instead have provided an explanation of the underlying reasons for the Macedonian-led invasion of Persia in the "Rise of Macedon" sub-section.
  • Replaced that second "Alexander" with "he" as you have recommended.
  • I reworded that sentence in the lead so that it now reads as "a new period in Ancient Greek civilization".
  • I have decided not to shift the sentence about the powers of the Macedonian kings and the state resources at their disposal up to the place you have suggested (i.e. "briefly subordinate to Achaemenid Persia"), since I think it would awkwardly interrupt the narrative about Macedonia's early history. To be honest, this is the only suggestion of yours that I find strongly objectionable. Your other suggestions are superb, though. ;)
  • I have changed "about the kings" to "about the kingdom" as you've proposed for the History section.
  • I have changed "Robert Malcolm Errington posits the theory" to "Robert Malcolm Errington suggests".
  • I reworded the sentence about Alexander I serving as an Achaemenid diplomat to Athens.
  • I have clarified that the Strymon River was next to the Kingdom of Macedonia.
  • I have clarified that the Athenian siege of Potidaea was ultimately unsuccessful.
  • I have reworded the passage about the Athenian capture of Therma and Beroea.
  • I have expunged many instances of the word "yet" from this article and most certainly every extraneous use of the word. There are still instances of the word "yet", which I'm not sure will irritate you or not, but I feel as though performing a Nazi-style Holocaust of each and every "yet" is perhaps a bit much. Lol. The word "but" is obviously a fine substitute in many of these cases, so I've decided to mix things up a bit by using that conjunction a bit more often.
  • I look forward to further comments and suggestions. All the best, Pericles of AthensTalk 13:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • More comments
  • "led by Bardylis". Bardylis should be linked.
  • Chalcidian League. As you have said that the League was dissolved in 379, it would be helpful to explain that it was later re-established.
  • "The treaty stipulated that Athens would relinquish Macedonian coastal claims and Amphipolis in return for the enslaved Athenians as well as guaranteed that Philip II would not attack Athenian settlements in the Thracian Chersonese." There are several problems with this sentence. 1. I do not understand "Athens would relinquish Macedonian coastal claims". Athens could only relinquish its own claims, not Macedonian ones 2. What is meant by "coastal claims" - territory on the coast or the sea? 3. "in return for the enslaved Athenians" should be "in return for the release of the enslaved Athenians" 4. "guaranteed" should be "guarantees"
  • "Meanwhile, Phocis and Thermopylae were captured," Presumably by Philip, but it would be helpful to say so.
  • "Philip II was elected as the leader (hegemon) of its council (synedrion) and its commander-in-chief (strategos autokrator) of a forthcoming campaign to invade the Achaemenid Empire." I think this should be "the commander-in-chief"
  • "The Persian aid offered to Perinthus and Byzantion in 341–340 BC highlighted Macedonia's strategic need" As the aid has not previously been mentioned, I would say "The Persians offered aid to Perinthus and Byzantion in 341–340 BC, highlighting Macedonia's strategic need"
  • "Achaemenid encroachment, as Artaxerxes III" I suggest "Achaemenid encroachment, as the King of Persia, Artaxerxes III"
  • " the assassination of Philip II in 336 BC" The date should be in the previous paragraph.
  • "noting Philip II's choice to exclude Alexander" I would say "noting that Philip"
  • "the relegated position Alexander was given as regent of Greece" What was he relegated from and what does "regent of Greece mean?
  • "Nonetheless, Alexander III (r. 336–323 BC) was immediately proclaimed king" Why "Nonetheless"? Is there evidence that Alexander was suspected at the time?
  • "the Illyrian king Cleitus of the Dardani threatened to attack Macedonia, but Alexander took the initiative and besieged them at Pelion" The grammar is wrong here. Maybe besieged Cleitus or besieged the Dardani.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Adventure Time

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Adventure Time, an American animated television series created by Pendleton Ward that follows the adventures of Finn (a human boy) and Jake (a magical, shape-shifting dog and Finn's adoptive brother) in a post-apocalyptic world of Ooo. The show has been quite the pop culture phenomenon these last few years, and has won numerous awards, including a Peabody and several Emmys. When I first started working on the article in 2012, it looked like this. Since then, I have greatly expanded it, both in terms of size as well as coverage. I have used the highest-quality sources (all of which are archived, if applicable), and I have had it copy-edited a handful of times, both by myself as well as others. The content is solid, the prose reads well, and it is accurate. While it is currently a good article, I believe it is ready for the next step. Also, if anyone wishes to do source spot-checks, I have access to many of the books, and I'd be willing to send out scans to expedite the process.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. MCMLXXXIX 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@1989: Good catch. I have added alt text to all the images.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! -- MCMLXXXIX 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Dank

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • Replace the (rare) curly quotes with straight quotes.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A joy to read ... now I want to watch the show. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dank: Thanks for the copy-edit. I have changed all the curly quotes to straight quotes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • I am not certain about the last one-sentence paragraph of the lead. Would it be possible to integrate that information into the above paragraphs instead? It could fit in the second paragraph.
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not certain about the value of the ukulele image as it does not add that much to the reader's understanding of the material. It seems to be there more for padding/break up a large amount of text.
  • I'll go ahead and remove it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I really like the content of the "Critical reviews" section, but I would suggest trying to make this more accessible to an unfamiliar reader. I would suggest revising this section around topic as this can come across as a list of reviewer's thoughts. I would recommend looking at the following resource for help on this matter: here
  • Are there any negative reviews of the series? This is more of a clarification question. Just want to make sure to make this as comprehensive as possible.
  • I'm sure there are, but honestly, I can't really find any from major sources; most places like the show a lot. The one negative thing I did come across was from Perlmutter. I bet there is some controversy about the show's content (e.g. cartoon violence, mild language, fart jokes, etc.) so I'll look into that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. I just want to make sure that the section satisfies the "comprehensive" aspect of the FA criteria. If you cannot find anything from a reliable source, then it is fine. I just wanted to check and clarify about this in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Gen. Quon: Everything looks good. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to work on the rest tomorrow. If I forget, feel free to ping me, but I'll try not to!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries. Take as much time as you need. You have done a lot of wonderful work with this article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: the changes look great and the article is very strong. If possible, could you also help me with my FAC as well? Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Twofingered Typist

I did a major c/e of this article for the GOCE in late February. It has had dozens of edits since, most by the article's main author. I had a quick read through it today and it appears to continue to meet the WP|MOS standards. Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

ALT text seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I forgot to ping you. I fixed the issues you pointed out and also tried to improve the NFCC#8 rationale on another image.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, the text in the image is not readable and while often that is not an issue, the NFCC rationale seems to say that it is important here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Which 'text in the image' are you referring to?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Mea culpa, I missed that in my first go-through. I re-sized it so that it is now 800 × 471. How does it look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I think we still need a source review here, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. However, I would also like to see more commentary on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c as I'm not sure we have quite covered how far the article meets these yet. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I have asked for a source review at WT:FAC. I'll see if I can get some others to leave comments/suggestions.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from 97198
  • The studio approached Cartoon Network, which said it would be willing to produce a series if Ward could prove the short could be expanded into a full series while maintaining elements of the pilot. – this is cited to ref #19, which doesn't seem to support this claim.
    Good catch! An instance of a mixed-up source. I have fixed it, and the source attached to this claim is now appropriate. I think this might've gotten mixed up during a copy-edit or renovation phase.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Related to the above point, it would be useful to make it clear that the original short film is also considered the pilot episode – I was confused when I came across the first mention of the pilot before realising it referred to the short.
    This is kind of a weird thing, since it wasn't created as a pilot, merely a short. When the full series was commissioned, the short was post facto considered the pilot. How is this sentence: "Adventure Time began as a seven-minute, stand-alone animated short film of the same name (this short would later be identified as the show's pilot)."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • fans are drawn to Adventure Time because of "the show's silly humor, imaginative stories, and richly populated world" – I would add an "according to ..." in here because it's obviously a subjective opinion.
    I have done as you suggested.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In a review of season four, for instance, LeChevallier complimented the show for "growing up" with its characters. - LeChevallier needs to be introduced as he isn't mentioned before this point.
    When I was rearranging the critical reception section, I moved some stuff around, and forgot to include LeChevallier's full name and publication affiliation before he's introduced. I have corrected this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Many critics have called the show one of the best animated series that has ever been made – only two publications are named so either "many critics" needs to be reworded or more sourcing added.
    I have rewritten this as: "The series has also been included on a number of best-of lists." How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The first game based on the series Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd You Steal Our Garbage?!! – there appear to be some words missing in this sentence.
    Whoops! I have combined this with the next sentence so that it now makes sense: "The first game based on the series, Adventure Time: Hey Ice King! Why'd You Steal Our Garbage?!!, was announced by Pendleton Ward on his Twitter account in March 2012." How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On September 27, 2011, Cartoon Network released the region 1 DVD My Two Favorite People, which features a random selection of 12 episodes from the series' first two seasons. The success of this DVD led to the release of several other region-1 compilation DVDs...ref #234, to which this is cited, includes the title and release date of the DVD but doesn't appear to support the other claims.
    I removed "The success of this DVD led to..." as it was extrapolation beyond what the source supports.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see that the source supports "features a random selection of 12 episodes from the series' first two seasons". I'm sceptical about the use of "random", since I'm sure there was some level of decision making involved in choosing which episodes to include. 97198 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    @97198: I added a source that lists the episodes included. I also excised "random".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made a number of copyedits myself (mostly grammar, spelling and MOS things). I haven't checked any sources apart from the two I mentioned above, but the fact that in both of these cases there was information not supported by the references gives me pause. I don't have the time or motivation to check 238 references so I'm not sure what the solution is here unless somebody volunteers to do a full source review. 97198 (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments @97198: I have modified/corrected most of the issues that you raise. Concerning the sources, it appears that you unfortunately found a couple that did have issues, but in regards to a vast majority of the sources on this page (especially those that are book sources, or web sources), I've actually included the source that I quote/reference in the citation itself. Hopefully the ones you considered were the exception.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delayed response. Since I don't have the time to look through the sources more thoroughly, I might wait until the article passes a source review to confidently voice my support. For clarity, though, I am satisfied with the article in all other respects – I would just like some reassurance from another reviewer about the quality and use of sources. 97198 (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response. I understand. I'll look into getting someone to source check this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
    @97198: Grapple X has carried out a source-review below. Does this reassure you about the quality of the sources?--17:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments by Mymis
  • Co-Executive Producers, Supervising Producers -> No need to capitalize all words
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Cartoon Network commissioned a full-length series, which previewed on March 11, 2010 -> What does "previewed" mean? Within the article you mention the word once and in quotation marks.
    I rewrote to explain that it was effectively an advance screening that the network advertised as a "preview".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ".... has developed a strong following among children, teenagers, and adults; fans are drawn to Adventure Time because of "the show's silly humor, imaginative stories, and richly populated world"." -> whose quote is that? also, why is it worth mentioning this anyway? the section is called "Critical reviews".
    I've included who said and the pub.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "In an article for the LA Times, " -> Los Angeles Times
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Many critics have called the show one of the best animated series that has ever been made." -> "Many"? You only give one example from Entertainment Weekly, and the other one from The A.V. Club that says "currently on the air" which is not equal to "best animated series that has ever been made".
    I have rewritten this as: "The series has also been included on a number of best-of lists." How is that?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • David Perlmutter -> Who is he, and why his opinion matter?
    I have explained who he is and why he is important in regards to this article (i.e. indep. cartoon scholar and critic).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

  • @Mymis: Thank you for your comments. How does it all look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You ignored my comment about the Critical reception section. "....and has developed a strong following among children, teenagers, and adults; according to A.V. Club critic Noel Murray, fans are drawn to Adventure Time because of "the show's silly humor, imaginative stories, and richly populated world"" ---> It is out of place. The section is for critical reviews. It could be moved to "Fandom" section, or something.
    I misread your initial comment. I have moved it to the start of the "Fandom" section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, "Similarly, in a run-down of the "best animated series ever", .." does not match the reference.
    I don't understand the issue here. The article in question is called "The best animated series ever".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the need for "Industry impact" section? You only provide one vague source with no actual examples. Could be merged with "Critical reception", with shortened quote.
    I disagree. I don't really see how the source is vague (I mean, it specifically discusses how Adventure Time caused networks to rethink their hiring practices, as well as the tone of their shows). I also don't think that discussing the show's impact on the industry makes sense in a section about what critics have to say about it. I did, however, reformat the section a bit, converting the quote to a block quote, and tying it directly into the topic at hand—how Adventure Time has influenced the industry.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "a feature-length film is in development.", in the intro. Is there any update? It's been two years since that announcement.
    At this time, no.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "animation style to that of Felix the Cat" -> I believe it should be linked to Felix the Cat (TV series)
    Good catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Executive producer Fred Seibert compared the show's animation style to that of Felix the Cat and various Max Fleischer cartoons" -> This sentence is under "Writing". Could be moved to "Animation" section. Or by "show's animation style" they meant their general concept?
    I have moved this to the end of the first paragraph in the "Animation" section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mymis: Sorry that I missed a few of these. Is it looking any better?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No, it's not that I think that "Industry impact" is not an appropriate subject to include, but it's the sourcing is what I was referring to. It's merely an opinion, the section does not include any facts or actual examples. For instance, what about mentioning creators of other shows that were inspired by Adventure Time? Also, was it Adventure Time the only show that caused that gold rush? Because the article discusses many shows. Mymis (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mymis: I have reworded and expanded the section accordingly.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Source review: There are over 200 sources used here so I haven't checked them all, but I've taken a randomly-chosen representative sample to see if things check out.
    Fn 156: simple fact, present in source
    Fns 192, 193, 195: Collectively support a summary sentence
    Fn 2: Used twice to support genre classifications, both present in source
    Fn 50: Twitter source. Seems to be fine under WP:SELFSOURCE as it originates from an animator on the series discussing its animation technique.
    Fn 44: Quote present in source, as is paraphrased material.
    Fn 130: Used twice, both supporting quotes and paraphrased material. Both times accurately used.
    Fn 62: Once supports a quote, and once a summary, both times the information is present.
    Fn 112: Twice used to support quotes, both present in source and accurately used
This is just a sampling and if it is deemed not to be broad enough I can check further sources in addition to these. GRAPPLE X 17:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Final Fantasy VII. The seventh overall entry in the Final Fantasy series and the first entry for the PlayStation, it is generally hailed as one of the most important and best-remembered video games in the history of the medium. This article was delisted as a Featured Article in 2008 due to quality concerns, and has since been lingering at GA level since then. With the arrival of Final Fantasy VII Remake and the 20th anniversary of Final Fantasy VII, it was suggested and decided to make a push towards bringing this article back to its former place as an FA. Along with myself, this project has been a collaborative effort with @TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Tintor2, Jaguar, Sergecross73, Deckiller, and Brayden96: our work has included grammar work, reference maintenance, and the expansion/trimming/tidying of multiple sections. I hope they will also help bring this article through the final stages to FA status. ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. -- MCMLXXXIX 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@1989: I've added alts to all images. They can be improved if needed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! By the way, if you don't add a signature, pinging won't work. -- MCMLXXXIX 20:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "A high-definition remake is in development for the PlayStation 4.": Potentially an ASOF issue here, but I don't take a position on those.
  • "casting magical abilities": Doesn't sound right ... how can you cast an ability?
  • "planet's lifeforce": linked to Gaia hypothesis, but it's nothing like that hyphothesis. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Avalanche": For this word and maybe others, sometimes you capitalize and sometimes not. I don't have a strong feeling about this if there's a clean break from one style to the other, but some reviewers will see it as a mistake, so you probably want to fix it.
  • "storyboards": A good habit to get into is to ask yourself every time you see quote marks: why the quotes? I don't know why these quote marks are here ... were they not storyboards? Were they sort of storyboards? Unless I'm missing something, the readers won't know what you mean either.
  • "While sprites proved more popular": With the staff? What about them was more popular?
  • In Reception, there's a {{vague}} tag.
  • In Reception, the logical quotation (WP:LQ) suddenly goes all to hell. Only put a comma or period inside the quote marks if it's there in the original, and if the quote is substantial; a good rule-of-thumb is that a clause (with a verb) is substantial.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I learned a lot of video game history here, and it wasn't hard to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Dank: I've done my best with your comments, and done some further work of my own. Many thanks.
Looks good, though I haven't checked the LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. Looks pretty great, no real complaints about most of the sections. That said, A few questions, mostly on the plot / characters. Notably, I see some things sourced to Ultimania, which is always a little awkward... when Ultimania explicitly lays out something vaguely hinted at in-game, it's fine, but some Ultimanias are also known for having "writer headcanon" that never actually made it into the game. My *personal* stance would be to be skeptical of including Ultimania content that isn't referenced in-game, but this is admittedly weird because FF7 has a famously erratic English translation, so maybe some of this stuff was in the Japanese version? Who knows.

  • Cetra: I'll admit I'm misty on this because the game is misty on this, but they're a "human tribe"? The game sure acts like they're aliens, or a different species, or something, but FF7 is also a game where a lot of key characters are just flat wrong in their understanding of the Cetra/Jenova/Planet backstory (Hojo, Sephiroth), so who knows.
  • Reeve: I don't think his last name (Tuesti?) is ever mentioned in-game, and if it is, it has no relevance - basically trivia. I'd say remove it. Also, since when is he a Turk? Maybe the Compilation retconned him to be a Turk, but he never claims to be a Turk, never orders them around, etc. He's the Head of Urban Development who deals with all the Midgar infrastructure stuff in-game if you want to talk about his role.
  • Sephiroth's mother: I realize that you need to keep this short, and that Sephiroth *thinks* Jenova is his mother, but Sephiroth is wrong about this! Lucrecia plot is pretty minor and basically a footnote in-game, but if you're going to include it, something like "In an experiment at Nibelheim, an infant Sephiroth was infused with Jenova cells by Shinra scientists Hojo and Lucrecia, his parents."
  • "Cloud became an infantryman" - Maybe sneak in "low-ranking" in there, or some even less flattering term? He's an MP, basically a rent-a-cop on the prestige scale.
  • Localization: Is Aeris vs. Aerith really an example of a "disconnect" / mistake? It's not uncommon for localizations to entirely invent different names that aren't even close to the original, so it could easily have been an intentional choice (that was later overruled). What did the source say on it? SnowFire (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @SnowFire: Thanks for the shoutout about Reeve. Cetra are treated as a distinct tribe, that's true, but it's never specified that they're not just a tribe of humans. I've removed the addition about Jenova being Sephiroth's "mother", which isn't really here or there when communicating the story to series newcomers. Most of the points above are non-essential to communicating the narrative. As to Cloud, it's just the fact that he was lying to himself that's important, not exact circumstances. As to your final point, it is explicitly described as a result of a lack of adequate communication. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the fact that Cloud had "failed" but succeeded anyway is reasonably important - that he wasn't a big fancy elite SOLDIER but a grunt. I think "infantryman" still has too much prestige / honor to a casual reader and might read as someone expected to be competent. So my suggestion is adding "low-ranking" if you can't find a good synonym (admittedly, I can't, aside from using "MP" which is also misleading). If you really feel it reads better without it, you can keep it, but I still don't quite like it.
For communication: Checking the source, I'm not really sure the current passage accurately reflects the interview. It's conflating "lack of communication between JP team and international team" with "Aeris doesn't reflect Air+Earth, but Aerith somehow does," and the 2nd part is definitely not in the interview (Honeywell randomly muses "Earith" as a possibility). Maybe move to the "Legacy" section that some later versions changed the official localization from Aeris->Aerith, and cut that bit from "Localization"? SnowFire (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @SnowFire: I've conceded on the point about Cloud. But the fact of Aerith's name shifting with later translations seems too trifling for the game's "Legacy" section, whereas the fact the original translation happened denotes how challenging the localization was. I've rephrased it slightly to better reflect the source's text. Aerith's own article is a better place for that, and does actually go into it there. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • LGTM. Support. The only thing I'd add is that the list of awards won / mentions on best-ever lists borders on the excessive, and for 99% of articles I'd suggest chopping the list of awards a tad or moving them to a footnote, but FF7 might be a rare case where it's mostly justified, since I'm sure lots of best-ever mentions are already being excluded. It's still a little long, but not indefensible or anything. SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need image and source reviews, unless I've missed them. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harizotoh9

  • Opening paragraph should have a sentence or two listing the staff who worked on it, their role, whether it was their first game, second, etc. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Harizotoh9: Which opening paragraph? --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
    The first paragraph in the lede. It's typical for movie articles to discuss the cast, but video game articles often neglect the cast. Also the lede and infobox should contain roughly the same information (not a hard and fast rule, more like a guideline). Also the cast and development are heavily discussed in the article, but not much in the lede. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Harizotoh9: I've done some minor expansion to mention the staff, but not in the first paragraph. Such things are not normally mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead of VG articles. How the lead is currently structured is the typical way VG article leads are structured. --ProtoDrake (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • My understanding that Amano did designs for FFVII, and then Nomura finalized them and produced the artwork used in promotion and in-game. At least that's my understanding. The article however, does not mention this. You can see a gallery of Amano's FF7 art here. Thus, it would seem wrong to give Nomura sole credit for the character designs of FFVII. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    Or did Amano draw Nomura's designs after Normua had made them? A little bit of clarification could help. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Harizotoh9: Nomura created the designs first, Amano did promotional art and logo art. That's confirmed by multiple sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 05:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Each image looks like it is in a pertinent section, ALT text seems good for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've done my best to address the issues you raised in your image review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Seems like we are ready to roll then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Evita (1996 film)

Nominator(s): FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about...the 1996 film depicting the life of Eva Perón, from her beginnings, rise to power and death at the age of 33. FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

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

  • "June 21, 1978": See WP:MOS. Here (and elsewhere), a comma is needed afterwards if there's no other punctuation there.
  • "they are upset": About?
  • "Lader taught Madonna how to sing using her diaphragm rather than just her throat, allowing her to project her voice in a much more cohesive manner.": I'm dubious that this was the first time she heard about singing from the diaphragm, and I think readers will need clarification even if it's true.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Chrishonduras

Comments I think even though the film received according to review aggregation websites an average of mixed reviews, the protagonism of Madonna has had attracted an universal acclaim. There is some yesterday and today sources like this: 1 and 2. So, one of the most important things in an article is to be neutral, and there is not something to treat it lightly, specially when some source claims that Madonna "popularised" Argentinian politics. So, my request is to mention in the lead and critical response section, this specification about her acting (as they do in other articles, like Suicide Squad with "Robbie and Leto's performances"). Thanks Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review from SNUGGUMS

Here's an image review:

There thankfully are no glaring concerns that I can find. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that the Stone caption has thankfully been trimmed. Let me know when the other concerns are addressed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Some updates: I replaced File:Evita color.jpg since I could not find any details regarding the original author. I could remove the image File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg if the file source is a concern. FrankRizzo (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
File:Eva Perón Retrato Oficial.jpg definitely was a good substitute to include as all publication details are known. As for the Alan Parker image, it would probably be best to remove if no other file source can be found. Feel free to also replace it with another image of him with a more accessible file source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS:, OTRS is an extremely reliable way of accepting content in Wikipedia. File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg has actually