Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

  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.



Pigeon guillemot[edit]

Nominator(s): RileyBugz and Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm please to co-nom this with RileyBugz. A delightful little seabird from the north Pacific. It's had a picking over at GAN and covers all the relevant material. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Banksia serrata[edit]

Nominator(s): Gderrin (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

We have been buffing this article over the years, it got a detailed GA review and we think it is the equal of other banksia FAs. Let us know what to fix. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

John Glenn[edit]

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

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

Black stork[edit]

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

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

Comments from Riley[edit]

Some quick comments, like usual.

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

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

Comments from Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

Some observations:

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

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

  • Overlinking is still an issue, particularly in the distribution and migration section.
  • However it flees at the presence of dogs. I'm not sure why this is "however" or even what it adds.
  • which had large side branches that allowed it to build the nest away from the trunk as well as black pine, (Pinus nigra) and to a lesser extent oak I think a comma is in the wrong place (it should be after trunk, not pine)
  • Considering the rarity of infanticide in this species has it been given undue weight in the lead? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

  • Thank you for your response. I just had a quick comment about the revisions to the part about this child, but otherwise, everything looks good. I am going to stay out of the support/oppose votes as I am not familiar enough with this subject matter to cast a decision either way. Good luck with this! Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The Blue Flame (play)[edit]

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Blue Flame is a 1920 stage play with a distinction that most would not want: it may be the worst play ever performed on Broadway. Audiences laughed at supposedly serious lines; words like "abysmal" and "freakish" appeared in reviews. The article has been GA since February, so presumably it is better than its subject! I await your critical reviews. RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • This is more of a clarification question, but does femme fatale need to be in italics as it has entered into the English language lexicon?
    • After checking a few guides, italics removed.
      • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, I would attribute who described it as "one of the worst plays ever written".
    • Attribution added.
      • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In the "Plot" section, I would add some context to identify who Ned Maddox is as he appears rather abruptly in the description.
    • Reworded, but there is a limit to how much context I can add. The full text of the play is not published, so I can only work from summaries in other sources.
      • Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Since you linked "dream" in the lead, should it also be linked in the body of the article for consistency?
    • Link added.
      • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest organizing the paragraphs in the "Critical reception" subsection around topics with clear topic sentences, as suggested by this resource, as it is a little all-over-the-place. The second paragraph appears to be focused on the criticism of the dialogue and the fourth paragraph is about the retrospective reviews, but the first and third paragraph appear a little shapeless, and would benefit from some revision and focus.
    • Reworked to a first paragraph about negative reviews that were somewhat kinder to Bara, a second to those who condemned her equally with the rest of the play, and the third to retrospectives. Hopefully that makes sense, but I'm open to other ideas for how to organize the section.
      • Thank you. I think that it helped that particular section a lot to give more structure. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article, it is a very interesting read. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for reviewing. Replies above about each of your suggestions, and let me know if you spot anything else that needs addressing. --RL0919 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Wonderful work with this article; it was an interesting read. I support this for promotion. Good luck with this, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose[edit]

Who could resist this? Just for laughs, I would go see the play if that were possible. The article is interesting, well-organized, and well-illustrated, it appears to be comprehensive. My suggestions below have to do mainly with prose and style, and none should involve much trouble. I made a few minor changes as I went. Please revert any you think are inappropriate.
  • ¶2 "The play received strongly negative reviews, with critics ridiculing the plot, dialog, and Bara's acting." – Replace "with plus -ing" construction? Suggestion: "Critics panned the play, ridiculing the plot, dialog, and Bara's acting."
  • ¶2 "Bara's movie fame drew large crowds to theaters, making the play a commercial success, with the production breaking attendance records at some of its venues." – Replace the "with plus -ing" in this one too? Suggestion: "Bara's movie fame drew large crowds to theaters, and the play, breaking attendance records at some venues, was a commercial success."
  • The "blue flame" claim is supported by a reliable source, but what about the rest of the plot? What is the source for this?
Plot summaries usually aren't cited, because in most cases the source is the work itself. But considering that The Blue Flame is unpublished and hasn't been performed in almost a century, that's not the case here, so you are correct that this should be cited. Started adding and should finish in the next few days.
Sounds fine. Finetooth (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Background and development
  • ¶1 Note 1 ends with "These figures follow the figures as of 2015." Can this sentence be deleted? The main text already specifies 2015, and the repetition of "figures ... figures" seems a bit strange.
This text comes from a template that is used in many articles, so I am reluctant to remove the information entirely. However, I did update the wording to eliminate the repetition.
  • ¶1 "The first version of The Blue Flame was written by Leta Vance Nicholson, a movie scenario writer." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "Leta Vance Nicholson, a movie scenario writer, wrote the first version of The Blue Flame".
  • ¶2 "...a "vamp", playing femme fatale roles, with her characters seducing and ruining innocent men." – Replace "with plus -ing"? Suggestion: "a 'vamp' or femme fatale who seduced and ruined innocent men."
Productions and legacy
  • ¶1 Just as you already did for Boston, you might as well eliminate the state names for the equally well-known Pittsburg and Chicago.
  • ¶2 "settled with a cash payment to Davis..." – Do the sources say how much he got? I wondered.
I don't believe so. Settlement terms in this type of case are often kept confidential.
  • Critical reception
  • ¶1 "Variety said opinions in the daily press were united about how bad the play was, but expected Bara to draw audiences to the theater for at least a few weeks." – It's not quite clear whether this means that the magazine thought Bara would draw audiences or whether it was reporting that the daily press was saying so. Maybe "...but that reviewers expected..."?
  • ¶1 "Overall the play was a tremendous financial success, with the previews breaking attendance records." – Another "with plus -ing". Suggestion: "The play was a tremendous financial success, and its previews broke attendance records." Or something like that.
This is your only copy editing suggestion that I don't think is really an improvement.
My pouncing on "with plus -ing" might go too far now and then, I admit. Finetooth (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "In Boston, the show was sold out, even after adding extra matinees." – Since the show didn't add matinees, maybe recast to something like "In Boston, the show sold out even after the addition of extra matinees."
Works cited
  • I don't think you need to repeat the page numbers in this subsection since you've already got them embedded in the references. It's possible that someone will eventually want to add another citation to a different page of any of these works.
Removed a page number mistakenly included for a book. Page ranges for articles are normally provided in bibliographies, and there wouldn't be a way for anyone to cite the work outside those ranges, because it would be a different article.
  • You might want to convert the Golden book ISBN to its 13-digit form. A converter lives here.
Golden's book was published in 1996, before ISBN-13 was developed. My rule is to use the ISBN that appears in the edition actually used, so that someone looking at the physical copy can verify it, that is what I've done on my previous FAs and would prefer to continue unless there is a consensus to do it differently.
OK, and thank you. That is a good reason. Finetooth (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to review. I've made changes along the lines of most of your suggestions, and commented above only where there is something different/additional to say. I'm still working on one item and will update again when finished. --RL0919 (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Switching to support on prose, as noted above. I leave it to you to add the source or sources for the rest of the plot summary, this is an entertaining article, nicely done Finetooth (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Support from Parcly Taxel (with image and source review)[edit]

Images are appropriately licenced, alt-texted and used. Sources are also all reliable, drawing from both contemporary and modern reviews of the play, and are appropriately used in the article. I gave my own look at the prose too and it's OK (after the edits above). I completely support the article becoming featured. Parcly Taxel 02:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

ZETA (fusion reactor)[edit]

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

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

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

Louise Bryant[edit]

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Louise Bryant, an early 20th-century journalist, feminist, and political activist, who with her second husband John Reed reported on the Russian Revolution from Moscow; in the movie Reds, Diane Keaton plays the fictionalized role of Bryant during her life with Reed. After Reed's death in 1920, Bryant covered events in Russia, Central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East and interviewed such notables as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Benito Mussolini for the Hearst newspaper chain, her life included a childhood in rural Nevada, a rise to fame in mid-life, and a bleak ending after the collapse of her career, her health, and her third marriage. Finetooth (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Bryant is listed in Category:American anarchists, but on skim, I don't see such political beliefs elaborated in prose (more her husband's and that she wrote about radicals). If she didn't identify as an anarchist, the category should be removed as a non-defining trait czar 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Quite right. I removed the anarchist category and the two Communist categories since, unlike Reed, she did not became a Communist party member. "Marxist feminist" seems more accurate. Finetooth (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel[edit]

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

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

Disclaimer: This article is being nominated as part of the ongoing WikiCup competition. SounderBruce 02:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Donald Hardman[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Time for another RAAF chief, this one being the second and last RAF officer to run the service, that caused resentment, but it soon dissipated. Hardman had a good pedigree: fighter ace in World War I, foreign postings between the wars, and group command in World War II, he also seems to have been a likeable bloke, as well as an imaginative organiser. His main claim to fame is that he transformed the Air Force from its WWII-era geographically based command-and-control system into a functional command system, which essentially exists today. The article's post-military section is a bit thin, but I think he just lived a quiet life -- I've combed British newspaper archives for mentions and it pretty well amounts to a few letters he wrote to The Times... Thanks to all who participated at the MilHist A-Class Review a while back, and in advance to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Just a note on the caption to the image showing Hardman with Mountbatten in 1954. Mountbatten had long since ceased to be "Lord Louis" by then, that was his courtesy title as the son of a marquis. He was given a viscountcy in his own right in 1946, and an earldom in 1947. So the caption should correctly refer to "Earl Mountbatten", or "Lord Mountbatten" at a pinch. Trivial stuff I know, but still... Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Tks Brian, I was following the caption at the source Australian War Memorial image, but they can get things wrong occasionally too -- the best compromise is probably "Lord Mountbatten" so will change accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Steve Biko[edit]

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

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

Image review[edit]

  • This text is a simple commandment or warning; there is no reason (that I can determine) for it to be in copyright. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Fist.svg: Use seems fine, source information is missing however.
  • The upload date at Wikipedia predates the external website, suggesting that the other website took the image from Wikimedia/Wikipedia rather than vice versa. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thinking about it further, so am I. South Africa still has a law dating from the 1970s banning any freedom of panorama for public artworks, that means that this sculpture, and any photographic representations of it, are restricted under copyright. I've removed the image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Comments and support by Gerda[edit]

Thank you for undertaking the topic!


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


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

Early life

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

Developing SASO

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

More to come. Again thank you!

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

The Black People's ...

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


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

See also

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

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

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

Walt Disney World Railroad[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackdude101 (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the steam railroad attraction located in the Magic Kingdom theme park of Walt Disney World in the outskirts of Orlando, Florida, this is the sister attraction of the Disneyland Railroad located in the original Disneyland theme park in Anaheim, California. The railroad opened on October 1, 1971, and since then it has become one of the busiest attractions of its kind on the planet with an estimated 3.7 million passengers served every year. I re-wrote the entire article last year and after doing so, I successfully campaigned to get it upgraded to good article status. I feel that it satisfies the criteria to be upgraded further to featured article status, which, of course, will ultimately be decided by the reviewers. I look forward to reading your opinions and working together to make the Walt Disney World Railroad article a new piece of featured content on Wikipedia. Jackdude101 01:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from epicgenius: Based on a cursory examination, the article looks well-researched. Some points:
  • General comments:
    • After mentioning US$32,500 in the "Discovery of Mexico" section, any prices in US$ could just be mentioned with the dollar symbol, e.g. $8,000  Done
    • The alt text seems good. It doesn't seem to correspond with the captions, however - and you may want to align the alt text more with the captions, this may be a problem for people with screen readers, since all they hear is a description of the image that otherwise has no relation to the article. E.g: [[Image:Walt Disney World Railroad train.jpg|thumb|left|The WDWRR's Mickey's Toontown Fair Station in 2008 prior to its transformation into Fantasyland Station in 2012|alt=A circus-themed train station]] is parsed by screen readers as "a circus-themed train station" without any other context whatsoever.  Done
    • If you know how to use {{Attached KML}}, you can also make a Google Maps KML file, upload it, and insert the template into the article. Then people will see the train's route on Google maps. I can help you with that.  Not done
      • The route diagram template already present in the article serves that purpose, and adding an additional map, I feel, would be redundant. There is a link at the bottom of the article to a map of the railroad in OpenStreetMap, as well. Furthermore, there isn't a good spot to put something like this without having to remove some of the other images already in the article. Jackdude101 13:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Good point. I didn't see the OSM link earlier. However, the attached KML can be shown with no box at all, and allows the route to be shown on WikiMiniAtlas that is built into Wikipedia, but I respect your decision. epicgenius (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
          • I read the {{Attached KML}} instructions and it actually looks pretty simple to do, and given that it will only create a simple box in the External links section, it will be out-of-the-way, also. I'm open to adding this, but let's wait a few months for updated satellite imagery of the Disneyland Railroad to become available, so both railroads can get these at the same time. Right now, one quarter of that railroad's route is completely torn up and surrounded by a sprawling construction site. Jackdude101 19:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In the "Discovery in Mexico" section:
    • was overseen by Mapo, Inc. (Retlaw Enterprises' research and manufacturing branch) Vice President and General Manager Roger E. Broggie.was overseen by Roger E. Broggie, Vice President and General Manager of Mapo, Inc., Retlaw Enterprises' research and manufacturing branch. Or something similar. The parenthetical breaks up the sentence awkwardly.  Done
    • The location was a railroad boneyard in Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico: add a comma after "Mexico"  Done
  • In "Restoration in Florida":
    • with the space and equipment needed to accommodate full-size railroad equipment: the word "equipment" is repeated consecutively. I suggest replacing one instance of the word with a synonym.  Done
    • Built in 1902, it was the oldest of the five locomotives purchased and after determining that it had too many problems to be rebuilt, the locomotive was stored out of use in California for a period before being sold to a locomotive broker.: This is a run on sentence and may be split. Additionally, "after determining that it had too many problems to be rebuilt" does not match the grammatical subject "the locomotive". Obviously you're saying that the restoration team determined the locomotive's problems, but the subject doesn't match.  Done
  • In "Opening day to present day":
    • You should describe the geographical locations of Main Street USA, Frontierland, and Toontown (or New Fantasyland, last time I went) in relation to the park itself. As any Disney visitor knows, Main Street is in the south, Frontierland in the northwest, and New Fantasyland in the northeast - but this would be helpful to describe anyway.  Done
  • In "Ride experience":
    • If the above comment in "Opening day to present day" is resolved, there's no need to put geographical compass directions here. Otherwise, relative directions should be placed.  Done
    • After going through a tunnel through the Splash Mountain log flume attraction, the train's next stop is at Frontierland Station: the subject for "After going...attraction" should be "the train", not "the train's next stop."  Done
    • close proximity is redundant. Just use "proximity". Interesting fact I just learned, BTW. I just assumed they launched the fireworks from Fantasyland behind the castle, near the carousel. In the same sentence, I suggest a change of "will not run" into "does not run" since this is a current service pattern.  Done
  • In "rolling stock":
    • Each Walt Disney World Railroad locomotive when working on the lineWhen working on the line, each Walt Disney World Railroad locomotive or something similar.  Done
    • I suggest you add a {{clear}} right before the table so you have a wider table. It may look weird on narrow devices, but the table could be wider.  Done
  • In "block signals": No issues.
    • Interesting why, when the signal is green & yellow, the train must stop when 2 trains are operating, but it may proceed when 3 trains are operating. I guess it's to space the two trains out more and pack the three trains in, but anyway, this note is not necessary. As an avid fan of subways, I personally believe that Disney should install communications-based train control so they can run 4 trains at a time.
      • The railroad runs most efficiently when the number of trains operating and the number of stations are equal. The other reason why they have four locomotives, but only use three max at once, is so the locomotives can be rotated out of service routinely for maintenance. Steam locomotives are a pain-in-the-neck in this area. Jackdude101 13:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is some very good work. I didn't check images or references, and being relatively new to commenting a featured article, I don't know if this is the right format to make my comments. epicgenius (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Epicgenius: All points addressed. Thank you for taking the time to go review the article's prose. Jackdude101 13:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

All files seem to have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

I don't see many problems. There might be some people who need a wikilink but it seems I might be wrong since in one example there are three people with the same name. Anyways, good luck with this nomination. I'll support it.Tintor2 (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I will have to echo Tintor2’s comments above, and say that I cannot find much that needs revision. My only note would be to add WDWRR in parenthesis after Walt Disney World Railroad to make sure the acronym is clarified and spelled out in the body of the article as well as the lead. Otherwise, I completely support this; wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Beograd-class destroyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The Beograd class are a classic example of the fates of World War II Yugoslav ships, the class consisted of three destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in the lead-up to World War II. Two were captured when the Axis powers invaded in April 1941, but the other (Zagreb) was blown up by two officers who were killed in the explosions, the others were put into service by the Italians, who used them mainly on the North Africa convoys. One was lost in their hands, but the other was taken over by the Germans when the Italian surrendered in September 1943, it wasn't sunk until late in the war. In the late 1960s, a French film was made about the scuttling of Zagreb, and in the early 1970s the two officers who scuttled her were posthumously awarded the Order of the People's Hero by Yugoslav President Josip Broz Tito. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

Their standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), and they displaced 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load - looks funny going noun/verb. Why not, " Their standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load" or something like it.
Good point, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
it sank close to shore, and some of the crew swam to safety. - err, if only one died, didn't all the rest swim to safety...?
They may have used the lifeboats, but the sources don't say.
Fair point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise reads ok. I did have more questions about completeness but note that daughter articles are comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Cas Liber. Class articles tend to be very much a summary rather than in depth about each ship. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

All in all, reads well and appears comprehensive, though this is an area I know very little about, hence I tentatively support this as a lay reader. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I copyedited as usual so let me know any concerns. Not a big article but I appreciate that the ships didn't see a lot of action. Outstanding points:

  • "the only modern sea-going vessels left to the KSCS were 12 torpedo boats, and they had to build their naval forces from scratch -- firstly, as it's one kingdom I'd expect "it had to build its naval forces"; secondly, if it had 12 boats, is it really building from scratch or is it more like building its major ship fleet from scratch?
  • I've tweaked it to "almost from scratch", as 12 torpedo boats aren't exactly a significant asset.
  • FN17 seems to be formatted oddly but not sure how to fix it as it's SFN. Actually I'd prefer it if Nikkimaria checked over the formatting of the sources overall...
  • There has been a recent dubious change to the sfn template which has screwed up the way I (and others) have been using it for newspapers and news websites, throwing up an ampersand between the newspaper and date of issue. I've used an "unauthorised" workaround to address it for now.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Image licensing (checked by Nikki at MilHist ACR) looks good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, for the c/e, review and image check. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Maritime Museum is a publisher not a work
  • The work is the webpage "World War I and II". I'm not sure I understand your point. Do you mean the shortened footnote?
  • No - the full cite is using |website= for the museum name, where it should use |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes Niehorster a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • He has a PhD in history and several books on orders of battle published by The Military Press and other publishers, and held by libraries like the University of Cambridge, Australian Defence Force Academy, US Air Force Academy etc. I've found him to be highly accurate and consistent with other sources for order of battle information. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Support: Comments: My comments have been addressed, and I thinkthe re-worded section is a definite improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  • A very long sentence starts off the Background section. Of the several obvious places to split this, "almost from scratch.[2] The name of the state" seems like the most natural.
  • Done.
  • "planned half-flotilla was ever built.[4] Despite the fact that a half-flotilla of large destroyers" - one or the other "half-flotilla"s is redundant.
  • I've rewritten that bit, see what you think?
  • " three ships had only been in commission for a short time" - this could mean a couple of things. Were they fully active, or in some intermediate state? Had they all gone through their shakedowns by this point?
  • I had neglected to link ship commissioning, now done.
  • "arrested pending an investigation.[17] When Yugoslavia " A para-split at this point seems well advised.
  • Good idea, done.
  • "scuttled on 1 May.[13][14] In 1967, a French film" - and here.
  • Done.

That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Maury! Let me know what you think about the rewording of those sentences. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the article at A-class, and am happy with the quality. The only nitpick I'll make now is there's a duplicate link to Division (naval) in the service history section. Parsecboy (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for taking another look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this one looks good to go, with three supports, and an image and source review. Can I have dispensation to put another one up please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

History of the British penny (1714–1901)[edit]

Wehwalt (talk), Arwel Parry (talk)--20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... the penny, but about the crucial time when it evolved from a small silver coin rarely seen to a fairly large bronze coin which it stayed until decimalisation. So it either fell through holes in pockets, or caused them. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The article looks really good but there's something I wanna know before supporting it. Is the citation from "Mintages" apply to all the numbers below? Other than that, good work. Ping me once you solved it or the citation explains it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Tintor2 Yes, there no good way to hang a ref on these things. I just amended the ref to source the ones that say "unknown", the numbers were already sourced. Thanks for looking it over.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Then leaving my support. Good luck with this nomination. Also, if you have free time I would appreciate if you could comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3. I didn't nominate that article, but two fellows who worked hard on that did it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for that. I'll be happy to look in on it. I'm writing right now so allow a couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I'm pleased to see this article, and I'm sure Uncle Matt would be very proud. I'm making a close review of the prose; here are my comments on the lead and the first couple of sections, with more to follow over the next day or two.

  • "Industrialist Matthew Boulton lobbied for a contract to produce official pennies at his Soho Mint in Birmingham and gained it in 1797;" You might simplify this to "In 1797 industrialist Matthew Boulton gained a contract to produce official pennies at his Soho Mint in Birmingham" - (four words saved, but every little counts)
  • "They were replaced by lighter bronze coins beginning in 1860, the "Bun penny", named for the hairstyle of Queen Victoria on it, was issued from then until 1894." Something not quite right with the punc. I think a semicolon rather than a comma after "1860" is required.
Silver penny (18th century)
  • "The beginning of the Hanoverian dynasty in Britain occurred..." → "The Hanoverian dynasty in Britain began..."
  • "during his time at the Royal Mint" – a basically unnecessary phrase that repeats words/phrases uses earlier in the line ("during his/the time", "Newton", "Mint"). And we have "at this time" later in the line. All a bit cluttery - suggest just delete the phrase, the prose reads perfectly well without it.
  • On further thought: do we need even the attenuated sentence "Newton worked to improve efficiency and accuracy"? It's a general observation, not followed up, and I think it can be assumed that Isaac would treat his duties with diligence.
  • You might elaborate note [a] to briefly cover why George I was described as "King of France" when he clearly wasn't.
  • redundant "as well" in third line of third paragraph.
I think that should stand. The penny, so far as is known, was always used, and sometimes the Maundy was entirely in pennies. I think "as well" is proper.
  • We seem to have got to "George II as an older man in 1740–1743" with no details of his accession, and no link either. For those without a sense of Britain's royal history this could be confusing. To keep it simple I would modify the previous sentence: "By 1727, when George II succeeded to the throne, the price of silver guaranteed that pennies were struck at a loss."
The introduction of George II, with link, is at the end of the second paragraph.
Yes, sorry I missed that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "would not have been worth the 12 weeks..." → "would not have been worth the 12 weeks' work..."
  • In the sentence dealing with New Year's Day 25 March it might be worth piping a link to Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
  • Could the Maundy Money image clarify which is the silver penny? Top right?
Soho issues (1797—1807)
  • I find this sentence oddly constructed: "Many of the manufacturers of these tokens were in Birmingham, and industrialist Matthew Boulton both struck large numbers of tokens there and constructed the Soho Mint, the first to be powered by steam." A little smoother might be: "Many of the manufacturers of these tokens were found in Birmingham, where industrialist Matthew Boulton struck large numbers of tokens and also constructed the Soho Mint, the first to be powered by steam."
  • I'm wary of "It was not until" formulations, which might imply an unstated hidden agenda. Why not simply: "In 1797 the government gave Boulton a contract..."?
  • Link farthing at first mention
  • "In 1805, Boulton gained another contract..." A "further" contract would be better, as we've already had "another" earlier in the line.

Reading on with interest. Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Done to date. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are the rest of my animadversions:

Regal issues (1825—1860)
  • "Finding its premises at the Tower of London too cramped and unsuited to the new technology, the Mint moved to a new building on Tower Hill, which first struck coins (for the East India Company) in 1811." The present construction implies that a building struck coins for the EIC. Suggest replace "which" with "and" .
  • "The coinage was by steam" – missing a verb: suggest "was created by steam power..."
  • "...that the copper coinage was seen to." "Seen to" seems slightly unencyclopedic. "that copper coinage recommenced"?
  • "George's pennies" → "George IV's pennies"
  • I recommend splitting the overlong sentence beginning "The final years of the copper penny..."
  • "These contracts were because of..." Again, it seems that a verb is required, e.g. "These contracts were issued because of..."
Bronze penny (from 1860)
  • "Thomas Graham, the Master of the Mint, persuaded William Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that.." When?
  • "the postman opened the parcel": "a postman", unless there was only one.
  • "There are a large number of varieties..." The grammar is equivocal. You can get round it with "There are many varieties..."
  • Punc issues in this sentence. The comma after "especially in 1860" should be a full stop
I've recast it slightly as I'd like to keep it as one sentence.
  • "and refers the reader to specialist books for further information" – not helpful to our readers. Suggest delete this phrase.
  • "The penny was given the new design beginning with 1895, and the new version was made current by a proclamation dated 11 May 1895." A bit clumsy. Suggest rewrite: "The new penny design was introduced in 1895, the new version being authorisedd by a proclamation dated 11 May of that year". Or similar.

That completes my prose check. Nothing of great consequence. I'll follow with a sources check if someone else doesn't get there first. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: my concerns satisfactorily resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support from Jim. I've read Brian's comments above, and the only nitpick I'd add is that not until 1825 that pennies were struck for circulation might benefit from "again" after "were" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support, I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Publisher for Crellin? What makes this a high quality reliable source?
  • The "About Us" page says he is a published author on numismatics and prominent in the Australian numismatic community.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Leave this out for others to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing Coins of England and the United Kingdom, Pre-decimal issues used as a source?
  • Ref. 48.
  • Well, that's not intuitive or obvious since ref 48 says "Spink" but the entry in the references says "Coins....". Remember, not everyone is going to understand the linking nor will it be present in a printed out book. (Nor, unfortunately, will it appear in the inevitable create-space knockoff of the article ...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I"ve added the firm as author as well. That should take care of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Done. Shall we meet here for the next FAC with the same issue? (grins) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the source review. I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Baltimore railroad strike of 1877[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Chad1m Email Talk Cont. 18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about, arguably, the most popular American kids' TV game show ever, Double Dare, it helped jump-start the media behemoth known as Nickelodeon and, 30 years later, still has a long-lasting effect on a generation of young adults. I crafted this article from the bottom-up, practically by myself (with assists from Bcschneider53 and Twofingered Typist), taking a mess with very few citations six months ago and turning it into what I feel is a very well-crafted and cited article on how Double Dare worked, its history and current evolution, and the impact it has had on television and culture. The GA process went really well and I look forward to engaging in the FA process for the first time. Thank you! — Chad1m Email Talk Cont. 18:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. There is a good start to an article here, but it feels like its still a little far from FA. There is so much history in the sources you cited about the creation of the show format, the transplanting of certain messy elements from other Nick shows, the hiring of Marc Summers and Harvey, etc. that has not made it into the article. Also, the "Personnel" sections are incredibly bare bones and should probably be integrated with other content and the "Other Media" section appears to consist of a couple of random lists rather than material written in summary style. Indrian (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Indrian. I've taken a lot of them into concern and adjusted the article thusly: I added more information about the hiring of Harvey, discussed why Philadelphia, an uncommon site to shoot national TV was chosen, integrated the personnel section into the production and broadcast section, added a paragraph on the origin and implementation of slime (As it was so early, Double Dare really didn't transplant anything from other Nick shows besides slime from You Can't Do That on Television), its impact on Nick and how it still is associated today, and turned the list of media into two cohesive paragraphs about realistic depictions and parodies. — Chad1m Email Talk Cont. 16:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know I have not forgotten about this; I have just been very busy. I'll look over what you have changed soon, and if it seems like the article is in much better shape, I will move on to a more formal review. Indrian (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

High Explosive Research[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Battle of Leuthen[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of Frederick's greatest victories (according to Napoleon) Previous 2 articles I've submitted have been about his greatest defeats, this one, and the one following Battle of Rossbach, are the other side of the coin. Both have been reviewed at MilHist A class. I forgot to put Rossbach on the GAlist, so it's getting it's GA nom done now. Enjoy! I'll appreciate your comments... auntieruth (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest including a legend in the maps caption
  • Sources links for the maps are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose[edit]

Another really interesting account, well-written and well-illustrated. I have a few suggestions, none very complicated.
  • Images need alt text. all done except the one in the box--does that allow an alt text?
  • Yes. I added an alt parameter and the word "something" to the infobox. You can replace "something" with words of your choosing, the others look fine. Finetooth (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Captions cleaned up
  • "At Borna, Frederick the Great and his staff develop their battle plan, by Hugo Ungewitter" – I'd add something to this to make it more clear that this is an illustration by Ungewitter and not a battle plan by Ungewitter.
  • Maybe Camphausen should be mentioned in the caption for the Choral von Leuthen.
  • The Schloss von Lissa caption is confusing. Maybe " Schloss von Lissa by Richard Knötel depicts Frederick's arrival at the castle, where he is greeted by Austrian officers (wearing white jackets)." Or something like that.
Seven Years' War
  • ¶1 "based on the recently concluded War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748). The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war with Austria." – Repetition. Slight ambiguity. Maybe "based on the recently concluded War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748) and the subsequent Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which ended the war."? Or something like that. cleaned up
Terrain and dispositions
  • Yep, it sure is. I missed the first instance. Time for new eyeglasses. Finetooth (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Hapsburg dispositions
  • ¶1 "He secured the Nippern..." – Delete "the"? done
  • ¶1 The link to abati looks like a mistake. Maybe a brief definition in parentheses would work if no other link makes sense. cleaned up
  • ¶1 "hastily erected redoubts" – Link redoubt? cleaned up
Oblique maneuver
  • ¶1 First sentence. Unspaced em dashes rather than spaced en dashes since you use em dashes in the Prussian dispositions section? I have no idea what this means....?
  • It's a truly minor matter. I went ahead and changed them just now. Please revert if you think this was a mistake. Finetooth (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "Similarly, Zieten's cavalry had traversed the entire Austrian front... " – I think this is the first mention of Zieten. The full name and link should come here rather than in the Attack section below. done
  • ¶1 "as if that was where any attack would occur" – I think this should be "as if that were" rather than "was". hmmm, ok....
  • ¶2 "more than two hours elapsed before his cavalry reached the center of battle" – "His" seems ambiguous. Perhaps "the Austrian" rather than "his"? clarified
  • ¶6 "40 squadrons of Hans Joachim von Zieten's cavalry awaited them Radaxdorf" – Something missing, perhaps "at" before "Radaxdorf"? Also, shorten to "Zieten's cavalry" and move the full name and link up to the "Oblique maneuver" section.
  • ¶6 Is the Schweidnitz river the same as the Schweinitz (river)? The latter might be another editor's misspelling, not sure. I don't think so. well out of the proper place.'
Aftermath i think I've addressed these...
  • ¶2 "not only because losing it would cost them control of Silesia and considerable loss in prestige" – To avoid repeating "losing ... loss", maybe "not only because losing it would cost them control of Silesia and considerable prestige..."? Or something like that.
  • ¶2 "the future of Austrian control of Breslau and the region looked grim" – Since the lede takes this one step further, better add a sentence here about the fall of Breslau.
Assessments i think I've addressed these...
  • ¶1 "he should have considered the possibility of an attack" – Attach attribution? "According to X, he should have..."? Otherwise it sounds as if Wikipedia were making the judgment. It's cited to Showalter and the others According to Showalter, Redman, Duffy, Blanning, Anderson, et al?
  • ¶3 "that even his most bitter of enemies maintained for the rest of the war." – "Maintained" doesn't seem quite right. Maybe "felt" or "entertained"? continued for the rest of the war and the subsequent peace
  • ¶1 Flip the third, fourth, and fifth sentences from passive to active voice. Sentence three might say, "Berlin architect Friedrich August Stüler designed the monument, and Christian Daniel Rauch designed the goddess of victory." done
  • Looks good except a new question arises. Is "Victoria" the right word in "gilded the statue Victoria for better effect"? The voice flips (passive to active) look fine. Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • all done {ping|Finetooth}} except for the one I didn't understand about Mdashes. auntieruth (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Switching to support on prose, assuming you add the alt text to the infobox, which now has a place for it. Excellent article. Really good maps. Finetooth (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yep, done! I had no idea it was that simple to add alt text to a box! 21:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment regarding "Nun danket alle Gott"[edit]

  • Modern German historians and musicologists have questioned whether the Prussian army really did sing "Nun danket alle Gott" in unison after the battle. I think that our article should reflect that this story might be more of a legend or a later propaganda invention, rather than something that actually happened, for more details please see:
Hofer, Achim. "Joseph Goldes (1802-1886) Fest-Reveille (1858) über den Choral 'Nun danket alle Gott' für Militärmusik
" in Peter Moormann, Albrecht Riethmüller,
 Rebecca Wolf eds., Paradestück Militärmusik: 
Beiträge zum Wandel staatlicher Repräsentation durch Musik, Transcript Verlag (2012), pp. 217–38. ISBN 978-3-8376-1655-2
Bernhard R. Kroener "'Nun danket alle Gott!': der Choral von Leuthen und Friedrich der Große als protestantischer Held; die Produktion politischer Mythen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert" in Hartmut Lehmann, Gerd Krumeich eds. Gott mit uns : Religion, Nation und Gewalt im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (2000)
Thanks! P. S. Burton (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • thanks. Added a Note to that effect. auntieruth (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I tweaked the wording a little bit further to align with the opinion of the sources . P. S. Burton (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

Very nice work - just a few comments:

  • "Britain aligned herself with his nephew..." - whose nephew? fixed
  • "could fire at least four volleys a minute" - I know that's fast, but the average reader likely will not know what the typical rate of fire in those days was - might be worth a footnote added a phrase explaining.
  • "gave him almost (and only) 200 men." - similarly, for most readers, the question will be "is that a lot? not a lot? instead of the 1,000 that would normally have been in his battalion.
  • "Leuthen was not a big village: troops were so closely packed they stood 30 to 100 ranks deep. The killing was terrible: Lamoral commented..." - the structure here is repetitive
  • "Commanded by Joseph Count Lucchesi d’ Averna[Note 2] hurried to take them in the flank" - I think something is missing here fixed
  • "Solid red lines indicate Habsburg positions; dotted lines show movement. Solid blue lines indicate Prussian positions; dotted blue lines indicate Prussian movement." - I'd add an explanation of the cavalry icons fixed

Parsecboy (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Okay, your reference system sorta makes sense but it it decidedly odd. You list the full bibliographic details twice - once on the first appearance in the footnotes and then again in the sourcess, but subsequent uses of the same source in the footnotes is a short footnote (which, I might add, is by last name, but you give the first fuller footnote with first name first, making it more difficult to figure out what is being referred to.) It works, but it really makes finding bibliographic details much more difficult than it probably should be. At the least, could we put the author's last names first in the footnotes? That would make checking to see whether every source listed in the References was actually used in the footnotes a bit easier.
  • Chicago Manual of Style. Unless I'm coerced into using one of those fancy templates, which I have bizillions of problems with, I do it this way, and have done so since I started writing articles anywhere. Footnotes have author's name first last. Bibliography has author's name last first. Easier to alphabetize. I'd be happy to call it "sources consulted", and combined the two sections, which I've done auntieruth (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I"m not going to be opposing on the system used but ... ugh. It's really clunky. It'd make a lot more sense to only have one section but if Chicago requires both the footnotes with full information (except ISBN, as far as I can tell) and then a separate section for the full-full bibliographic details ... I can't make you change per WP:CITVAR. Not sure I'll be rushing to do more source reviews though as detangling which references were used and how took me about three times as long as a more usual referencing system. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing Duffy used in the footnotes?
  • I'm not seeing Latimer used in the footnotes?
  • Why is "International History Review" in footnote 2 (D.B. Horn) underlined? it is a journal
  • What makes a high quality reliable source? Roger Moorhouse makes it so. established and respected historian of Eastern and Central Europe
  • I see we're using Gaston Bodart for casualty figures - but his work is from 1916, surely there are more modern historians who give casualty figures? his work is still the authority, and the others rely on them for the basic. They then use other sources to augement his numbers, or to argue with them
  • So if later historians argue with his numbers, shouldn't we be covering their views also as they relate to this battle? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming in footnote 2 that all of the information is covered by both sources given - Horn and Black? If so, why not just cite to Black, the more modern work? If it's not all covered by both sources, we really need to have it made clearer what bits are from each source - given that both sources are 20 some pages. I disagree with that. Both sources cover it in detail over the 20 pages and it is hardly unreasonable to ask someone who wants to know more to read 40 pages to gain a deep understanding of the Diplomatic Revolution, although Black is more recent, the consistency of sources reflects the continuity of historical understanding of the importance and causes of the diplomatic revolution.
  • You give a link for footnote 5 (New York Times) and put NYT in italics - but in the sources, you don't give a link and you underline NYT? Consistency. I generally don't link in references unless it's to a webpage.
  • World Cat shows the author of "War: From Ancient Egypt to Iraq" as Saul David. Idon't understand this.
  • It appears that the author is Saul David, not DK Publishing. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. He's the editor. auntieruth (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

SMS Deutschland (1904)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This ship was the flagship of the German fleet from 1906 to 1913, leading the fleet's training for much of the run-up to World War I. By the time of the war, Deutschland was obsolescent, but nevertheless took part in the Battle of Jutland, the largest naval action of the war, this article passed GA and Milhist A-class reviews all the way back in 2010, before being substantially overhauled with a new source a little over a month ago. It has since had a GOCE copyedit, so the prose should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few quibbles, comments:

  • the draft in the infobox doesn't march the body
    • Must've been a typo - good catch
  • link knots at first mention
    • Done
  • is there any info about the size of her bunker?
    • Added coal capacity
  • is there any info about where the torpedo tubes were actually located?
    • Will have to look tonight
  • the mention of Dreadnought seems out of place, perhaps slot it in to the narrative of the following section in the appropriate place?
    • Yeah, I'm not really happy with where it is, but I don't really think it fits in the narrative either - it seems like an odd tangent to jump from the narrative on training activities and the like to the line about Dreadnought, and then back to training, etc.
  • perhaps mention that Skagen is in Denmark?
    • Done
  • perhaps also mention Funchal is in Portugal, Santa Cruz is in the Canary Islands and Bilbao is in Spain?
    • All done
  • it says "another periodic overhaul", but I can't see where she had an earlier one?
    • Fixed
  • consider linking dry dock
    • It's linked in the second para of the Construction-1908 section
  • I suggest that where you first introduce a British ship, you use HMS for clarity
    • Good idea
  • the ordinal designations are a bit weird, 1st Battlecruiser Squadron, but V Battle Squadron?
  • move the link to Grand Fleet to first mention
    • Done
  • is there a link for 8-point turn? I'm not entirely sure what that is. Given degrees has been used previously, perhaps stick to that?
  • I think Nassau-class is linked twice
    • Fixed
  • Meuer is replaced, but I don't see him taking on the role earlier?
    • Will have to check HRS for the date Meur took command.
      • Have added a mention of (and link to) Meurer, not to mention fixing the spelling of his name

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Just waiting on the torpedo tubes, but happy to support at this point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    • Done
  • File:SMS_Deutschland_with_steam_up.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Unknown, but the photo was from the Office of Naval Intelligence, and they wouldn't have been interested in the ship post its 1920 scrapping, which demonstrates it was in circulation before 1921. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose[edit]

Interesting article, well-written and well-illustrated. I'm a landlubber with no particular knowledge of ships; however, I have several suggestions, mainly about prose.
  • The middle three images need alt text.
  • Added.
  • ¶1 "She was commissioned on 3 August 1906, only a few months before HMS Dreadnought was commissioned, the latter ship, armed with ten large-caliber guns, being the first of a revolutionary new standard of "all-big-gun" battleships that rendered Deutschland and the rest of her class obsolete." – Replace "with plus-ing construction" and trim by a few words? Maybe "She was commissioned on 3 August 1906, only a few months ahead of HMS Dreadnought was commissioned. The latter ship, armed with ten large-caliber guns, was the first of a revolutionary new standard of "all-big-gun" battleships that rendered Deutschland and the rest of her class obsolete."
  • Good idea.
  • ¶3 "After the battle, which highlighted the fact that pre-dreadnoughts were too vulnerable in the face of more modern battleships,..." – Tighten by a few words? Suggestion: "After the battle, in which pre-dreadnoughts proved too vulnerable against more modern battleships,"
  • Sounds good to me.
  • ¶2 "Steam for the engines was provided by twelve coal-fired Scotch marine boilers that were trunked into three funnels." – This slowed me down a bit. First, I'm not used to seeing "trunked" as a verb; it might be a nautical term, though I'm not sure. I assume this means "connected to". Second, I wasn't sure if only the coal smoke goes up the funnels or if maybe excess steam goes up the funnels too. A brief note explaining the mechanics in a bit more detail would be helpful to ship neophytes like me. Third, active voice would be more direct; i.e., something like "Twelve coal-fired Scotch marine boilers linked to three funnels provided steam for the engines."
  • How about "Twelve coal-fired Scotch marine boilers provided steam for the engines; three funnels vented smoke from burning coal in the boilers."?
  • Done
  • Done
  • ¶4 "Her armored belt was 140 to 225 millimeters (5.5 to 8.9 in) thick, with the heavier armor amidships, protecting her magazines and machinery spaces, and the thinner plating at either end of the hull." – Replace "with plus -ing" construction? Maybe break up the sentence like this: "Her armored belt was 140 to 225 millimeters (5.5 to 8.9 in) thick. Heavy armor amidships protected her magazines and machinery spaces, while thinner plating covered the ends of the hull."
  • That works for me.
Construction through 1908
  • ¶1 "though he served aboard the ship for just a month, being replaced by..." – Modify the verb form slightly and delete the comma? Suggestion: "though he served aboard the ship for just a month and was replaced by"?
  • Done
  • ¶1 "Heinrich was new to the command..." – The first and third mentions of him call him Prince Heinrich. Should this one be the same especially since Heinrich is his first name?
  • Good catch
Battle of Jutland
  • ¶3 "Soon after, Pommern was struck by at least one torpedo and exploded." – Maybe more emphatic: "Soon after, Pommern exploded after being struck by at least one torpedo."
  • Good idea
Final operations
  • ¶2 "though on 10 September she was replaced by the cruiser Stettin." – Flip to active voice? "though on 10 September the cruiser Stettin replaced her."
  • Done
  • ¶2 "...struck from the naval register and sold to be scrapped, which was completed by 1922." – "Scrapped" and "which" don't match. "For scrapping" would be better.
  • Done
  • Happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry[edit]

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This article discusses a military unit, part of the East India Company's Bengal Army, that played an instrumental role in the early stages of the Indian Mutiny. An A-Class review was successful, so this is the next logical stage. I'll respond to comments within 24 hours (usually) and I'll make sure that any actionable changes are carried out. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done, as always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Information_Plaque_at_Shaheed_Smarak_Meerut.jpg: what is the copyright status of the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: It's part of a large memorial, and I believe it's covered under India's Freedom of Panorama. If that's not the case it's no big issue, it'll take me seconds to remove it from the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
My understanding based on this is that engravings are not covered by FOP in India. Is there another reason for this to be PD - age, for example? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the age of the plaque or the memorial that it's part of. I've removed the image from the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


  • minor quibbles: British India in lead should be linked, as it is in the box. And There was a struggle, leading to the death of a cavalry trooper and a civilian weak construction. Perhaps "A minor struggle lead to the death of a cavalry trooper and a civilian....?" auntieruth (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: I've made the changes you suggested, let me know if you have any other ideas! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • my comments are dealt with. FunkMonk has good comments, and I'd like to see them addressed too. auntieruth (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Hi, I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • " instructed the Governor-General to" Name?
  • "forces of Daulat Rao Sindhia" Which was who?
  • It would seem a good idea to give some introduction/background to the East India Company.
  • The intro seems on the short side, it should be a summary of the entire article.
  • Everything that is linked in the lead should also have a link at first occurrence in the article body.
  • "The actions of the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry themselves were described by Major Agha Amin" When?
  • You there, Exemplo347? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
  • What makes a high quality reliable source?
  • "These rumours reached Lieutenant Colonel George M. Carmichael-Smyth, in temporary command of the regiment," is sourced to Clark p. 92, but page 92 on google books does not support this information at all. In fact, it doesn't mention Carmichael-Smyth at all. Nor does it mention rumors - it's just a list of commanders. There are also problems with all the other information sourced to Clark p. 92, because much of it is listings of battles and battle honors, which is not supported on page 92. An example: "The regiment earned the "Delhi 1803", "Leswarree" and "Deig" battle honours during this campaign." ... p. 92 lists "Delhi" "Laswaree" and "Deig" at the top, but does not connect these honors to the specific campaign referred to in the article text.
  • What makes the Mutiny Memoirs (a primary source) a high quality reliable source?
  • Same for Fifty-two Stories of The Indian Mutiny?
  • Same for Narrative of the Siege and Capture of Bhurtpore?
  • Same for Forty-one years in India?
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Exemplo347, are you planning to respond to outstanding comments? We'll need to archive otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: The nominator hasn't edited any Wikipedia pages for a week now. You may proceed to archive. Parcly Taxel 09:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Akira Kurosawa[edit]

Nominator(s): JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is for the Akira Kurosawa biography which is currently listed as of top importance for Wikiproject:Japan, it has previously been nominated for FA status in 2010 though failed and is presently at GA status following recent updates and related article development. The article is comprehensive, up to date, and with an improved outline for the biography, it should be more readable and accessible for readers and editors of this article who appreciate the contributions made by this filmmaker. This is my first GA article here and first time to try to promote it through the FA nomination process. Comments from those experienced editors reading this article and participating in this assessment are welcome to help in refining it by constructive and critical comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Article review[edit]

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The article looks in good shape but there are somethings that could be fixed:
  • Avoid quotes in the lead.
The sentence making that quote has been rewritten. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, try to balance the lead. The first and last paragraphs are too small.
Lead section paragraphs should be more balanced now with some further short summary of Kurosawa's influence. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The references 33-37 seem like an overkill. I would reduce some of them. There are other similar cases, so I suggest separating them across the paragraphs.
Reducing down to three citations now to support that sequel's reception. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "However, it would be Kurosawa's second film of 1950, Rashomon, that would ultimately win him, and Japanese cinema, a whole new audience." is completely unsourced and small.
That sentence was meant to be part of the paragraph before it and has been merged there, with Rashomon elaborated in the subsequent section in chronological order of films. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Other than that I see no issues. Ping me or mention me when you think you fixed the issues. If you have free time, could you check Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Naruto/archive3? Regards.

All right, giving you my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Note: All images in this article are currently in good standing on Wikicommons and are shared by over a dozen other editors and articles in Wikipedia at present as being images in good standing. If you have reason to believe that there may be any issues with any of the images used in this article then add your comments in this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Akirakurosawa-onthesetof7samurai-1953-page88.jpg: when was this first published? Same with File:Kajiro_Yamamoto.jpg
The image in the infobox is used from the Japanese Wikipedia article, and was taken during film production of his film Seven Samurai from 1953. The Kajiro Yamamoto image is shared with his English Wikipedia biography page. If there is an issue with either of these images then they can be replaced with other public domain images. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Sugata_Sanshiro_poster.jpg: confused by this. The date field says 1943, but the description says 1952 and tagging suggests it was not PD in the US in 1996
This was the marketing poster for the film from 1943 and is shared with the English Wikipedia article for this film. Promotional material used in marketing films is usually public domain in terms of newspaper and magazine fair use. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Public domain and fair use are not the same thing. Which is it in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Promotional posters used to promote and market films are considered public domain. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Not by default, although some are for other reasons. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Please clarify. Promotional poster art is used as public domain throughout Wikipedia and Interwiki usage even doubles that high usage. Presently, Kurosawa's film Drunken Angel uses the poster art on nearly two dozen Interwiki versions of the article, and his film Stray Dog uses it on another two dozen Interwiki versions. Kurosawa's film Seven Samurai uses promotional poster art on nearly four dozen Interwiki articles, including the « article de qualité » at French Wikipedia which is peer reviewed. Please clarify, or do all of these Wikipedia articles and Interwikipedia articles share the same image protection issue you raise for the use of promotional poster art. If you prefer, I could offer to help address this by using the peer reviewed promotional poster art from the French version of Seven Samurai if being extra careful is important here. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
See WP:PD. In a nutshell, being made available to the public - as with any poster, news photo, art display, etc - is not synonymous with public domain, which has as a particular meaning of "copyright-free", some promotional poster art is public domain due to its age - copyright expires after a period of time, which varies from country to country. In other cases Wikipedia uses poster art under fair use, which requires that all of the non-free content criteria apply; in this particular case, if the poster was published in 1943 it likely is in the public domain because the copyright would have expired; if it was published in 1952 that is likely not the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that link about copyright protection. I've just read the articles for the current Academy Award winning films Moonlight and La La Land both of which use promotional poster art prominently and I see no difficulty there with the use of promotional poster art in those articles which were released for the purpose of promoting and marketing those films. Possibly you could explain why the use of promotional poster art on the two current Oscar film articles is fine in the eyes of all the editors at those Wikipedia articles, but the use of promotional poster art for Kurosawa's films forms an issue for this article. If you need to see some special annotation for the use of this promotional poster art in this Kurosawa article, please indicate what you would like to see here on the basis of these two current Oscar winning film articles which prominently use promotional poster art. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
First we need to clarify the publication date of this poster, to determine whether a fair-use claim is needed at all. If it is, take a look at the description provided at File:Moonlight_(2016_film).png: it includes a breakdown of how the use of the image meets each of the non-free content criteria, as well as a tag indicating the poster is under fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Drunken-Angel-1a.jpg: the given tag is meant for cases where there is critical discussion of the film, not for biographical images
This film was a breakthrough film for Kurosawa and Mifune, and is discussed in this article as to its harsh thematic content for the time of its production, as a controversial artistic choice of material by Kurosawa. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
But the fair use rationale provided states that the purpose of the image is to show Mifune, not to discuss the film. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Mifune in Drunken Angel (1948)
There are a large number of Mifune images from the film Drunken Angel used on many other pages in Wikipedia which could be used in the article based on preference and use of image standards. Here is one of many others. If you prefer this one, it can be used with the same caption presently being used in the current article's image or a modified caption can replace it as an enhancement to the article, the current image in the article was placed there by a previous editor. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Dostoevskij_1863.jpg: when/where was this first published?
This is image is shared with the Wikipedia page for Dostoevski. If there is an issue with the use of the image in the article there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Badsleepwell.jpg is lacking a fair-use rationale for this article
This was the marketing poster for the film from the 1950s and is shared with the English Wikipedia article for this film. Promotional material used in marketing films is usually public domain in terms of fair use in articles. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:DavidLean1965.jpg: what is the status of this work in the US?
This is image is shared with the Wikipedia page for David Lean. If there is an issue with the use of the image in the article there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:An'yo-in_Kamakura_Kurosawa_Akira's_Grave.jpg: what is the copyright status of the memorial?
This image is used from the Japanese Wikipedia article. If there is an issue with its use there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Ingmar_86135a.jpg: source link is dead, date is missing, and what is the status of this work in the US?
This is image is shared with the Wikipedia page for Ingmar Bergman. If there is an issue with the use of the image in the article there, then it can be removed or replaced in this Kurosawa article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Oppose pending fixes, and pending some attention to citation formatting which is at the moment rather inconsistent and incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The cite templates you had left in the article earlier today I can try to address tomorrow or the next day and ought to be fairly straightforward to rewrite. Your images questions above appear mostly concerned with images shared with other Wikipedia articles, they can generally be removed or replaced as needed. My responses are interspersed with your comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
So it really doesn't matter whether the images are shared with other articles. Nominations for featured status must meet the FA criteria, which includes a point about images, that means we need to be able to demonstrate that these images in this article are in accordance with the details of that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Your citation templates from yesterday in the article are now taken care of with some added links I placed in the article this morning. My responses to your follow-up image comments are interspersed with your image comments above. Promotional posters used to promote and market films are considered public domain, the other images you have listed as needing attention can be replaced or removed based on your responses to my interspersed answers to your useful image comments above. I'll try to follow your indications of which images ought to be replaced and which to retain in order to further enhance this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
After your last comments above I spent the afternoon reading through the copyright notices on the articles and think that I can summarize them succinctly for all the images you identified, though the reasoning applied to justify each image varies somewhat from image to image. For the first three photographs you list, the Kurosawa at Seven Samurai, Kurosawa's mentor, and still photo of Mifune, then the relevant date for Japanese copyright is 1958 which can be summarized as: This photograph is in the public domain in Japan because it was first published in Japan and its copyright has expired according to Article 23 of the 1899 Copyright Act of Japan and Article 2 of Supplemental Provisions of Copyright Act of 1970. Photographs prior to 1958 are in the public domain. All three of these photos are from before 1958 and therefore may be used. For the two posters you identify as a concern, the reasoning is from fair use which can be summarized as: This image is of a poster, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher or the creator of the work depicted. It is believed that the use of scaled-down, low-resolution images of posters to provide critical commentary on the film, event, or associated activities in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under the copyright law of the United States. For the image you question of Dostoevski, the photo is from when he was alive in the 19th century and there is no claim to copyright for such old photographs which may be summarized as: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923. The David Lean photo is public domain under the law of Finland where it was taken which states: This photograph is in the public domain in Finland, because either a period of 50 years has elapsed from the year of creation or the photograph was first published before 1966. The §49a of the Finnish copyright law of 2005 specifies that photographs not considered to be "works of art" become public domain 50 years after they were created. The high resolution image of his grave was donated for use as public domain by a Wikipedia user named Urashimataro on WikiCommons. Finally,the Bergman photo is under Swedish law prior to 1967 and therefore: This Swedish photograph is in the public domain in Sweden because one of the following applies: The work is non-artistic (journalistic, …) and has been created before 1969. The image use for each of these items placed in your list is justified for inclusion in this article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
the relevant date for Japanese copyright is 1958 in terms of publication - images published, not just created, before that date are in the public domain in Japan. Further, we need to consider whether it was in the public domain in Japan as of 1970, which determines whether it is in the public domain in the US. For the two posters you identify as a concern, the reasoning is from fair use - in which case you would need a fair-use rationale on the image page to address the non-free content criteria as they apply to this specific article. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923. Can you demonstrate that this occurred? Not all old photographs have been published. Thr David Lean photo is public domain under the law of Finland but we also need to consider its status under the law of the US. The high resolution image of his grave was donated for use as public domain but what is the status of the grave itself, independent of the image? See freedom of panorama. the Bergman photo is under Swedish law prior to 1967 but again, what is it under US law? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The full rationale is given on the WikiCommons page for each one of these images which I summarized above for ease of access. If there is a faulty rationale which previous editors have logged there for the multiple pages which share these various images used on English Wikipedia and Interwikipedia, then the previous editors need to be challenged on their rationale at WikiCommons. You can read these statements of rationale by clicking of the individual images and then clicking again on the detail tab which comes up at the bottom right of the screen to find the details of each of these rationale statements. If you are challenging them then please realize that some of these images have been in shared use on multiple Wikipedia pages for several years without issue by readers and editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
...yes, I know how to find the image description on Wikimedia Commons. Since you are putting up this particular article for FA status, you need to ensure that those pages are correct and complete, in accordance with FA requirements around images. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that link and let me know if there are items which require attention on the images. The current images used look ok on WikiCommons and I have offered to change the Mifune image to the one in your discussion with me above if this is preferred or preferable to readers and editors. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC).
See my initial comments for the items which require attention on the images. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The rationale provided for each of those images on WikiCommons appears adequate to the many readers and editors who use those images daily at multiple pages on English Wikipedia and Interwiki for use on both regular articles and peer reviewed articles. If an image is not justified for use on a peer reviewed article then it is not justified for use anywhere else on Wikipedia, as you are in sysops, you may have some responsibility to move forward to challenge and remove those images at Wikicommons, with my support if it helps. If the rationale currently provided for those image is poorly formulated in your view, then they should not be used on either regular articles or peer reviewed articles. My own option is to change and replace the current images, and spend time finding peer review quality images, possibly including the ones used on the fine peer reviewed Seven Samurai article on French Wikipedia. I am assuming that you will allow the use of the Kurosawa gravestone image which was donated by a Wikipedia user at WikiCommons as being unencumbered as to copyright, the alternate Mifune image I presented above also looks like a good substitute for the one you pointed out as having suspicious rationale on WikiCommons. Thanks for alerting me to these issues with the suspicious rationale currently being used for those images which are presently being used throughout Wikipedia and Interwiki. JohnWickTwo (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
After two weeks, all images used in this article appear to be in good standing on Wikicommons and are shared with over a dozen other editors and articles in Wikipedia. All the images appear to have no challenges for their use in Wikipedia and in this article at this time. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia[edit]

Nominator(s): Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 6th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Militia which gained considerable notoriety at the start of the American Civil War, they were the first regiment to arrive in Washington in response to Lincoln's call for volunteer troops. En route, they were engaged in the Baltimore Riot during which the regiment became the first Union unit to lose casualties in action, the incident attracted world-wide attention as evidenced by the large number of newspaper depictions of the Baltimore Riot, some of which I've included in the article. I think their experience is a key piece of American Civil War history. Thanks. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in pretty good shape. I have the following comments:

  • "three separate tours" - 'tours' is somewhat unclear, and the term Tour of duty was not used at the time of the US Civil War, and isn't appropriate as its usually applied to individuals. The later use of 'terms' is fine, and 'periods of service' or similar would also work.
  • Did this regiment exist before 1861? (eg, was it a reserve unit) - the text implies that this was the case. If so, please say when it was raised and what its status was prior to this year.
  • How was the regiment manned during its first and second periods of service? Did its member soldiers volunteer to be activated, were they compelled, or was the regiment filled with volunteers who weren't necessarily peacetime members of the regiment?
  • "seven of the ten original companies returned for the second tour" - as above, how did the manning situation work here? (also, a second use of 'tour')
  • "On May 13, the 6th Massachusetts joined its final expedition to the Blackwater River" - what the 'its' is here is unclear
  • "Battle of Carsville or the Battle of Holland House" - please link (if only red link) given it seems to have been a notable engagement from the description
  • "In the middle of the battle, when the 6th Massachusetts was driven back out of the woods, Private Joseph S.G. Sweatt of Company C perceived that several of his comrades had been hit and were left in the woods, he rushed back into the woods in an effort to pull them out." - 'woods' is repeated a bit too much here
  • "Sweatt was eventually released" - can you say when?
  • "fell back to Deserted House" - does 'Deserted House' need to be capitalised? (eg, was it a settlement or geographical feature rather than a single house?). If it was a settlement or notable geographic feature, a link should probably be added.
  • "prompted Lincoln to issue a call for 500,000 troops to serve a brief term of 100 days to bolster defenses around the capital" - does the source really say this? This is a vast number of troops, and far more than would be needed for this purpose (especially as it was recognised by the Union government that the raid was a one-off). I can't find any references attesting to this via a Google search, though Lincoln did call for 500,000 volunteers in July 1864 [1]. There also appears to have been a raising of short-service units in the spring of 1864 for rear duties tasks across the north, but not only for Washington's defences.
  • What was the status of the regiment between its periods of active service? The text implies that it was a manned reserve unit given that it had largely the same leadership, structure and personnel across each period of service.
  • What happened to the regiment after the war? Was it disbanded and never raised again? Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Response Thanks very much for the review of the article and comments. I've addressed them (as best I can given available info) as follows:
  • I agree "tour of duty" doesn't seem right to the modern reader in this context. It was a term at the time...the regimental history of the 5th Mass is titled "History of the 5th Massachusetts during its three tours of duty." But I've removed any use of "tours" and replaced as suggested with "term" or "period of service."
  • Regarding earlier uses of the designation "6th Mass," I meant to add clarification to the "Earlier units" section but forgot. Thank you for pointing out the ambiguity. I added language and hope its clear...the name was used for other units but there was never a continuous 6th Massachusetts. So, I tried to indicate that the Rev War 6th Mass was a completely different entity than the 6th Mass that was organized in 1855 and served in the Civil War.
  • Regarding how it was manned, I've added language in several places indicating that they were volunteers, that soldiers were not compelled to reenlist, that some recruiting was needed for the subsequent terms, and that the rosters therefore changed but the sources indicate that the roster of officers remained substantially the same.
  • Reworded the ambiguous "its"
  • Added redlink for Battle of Carrsville up in the lead where it first appears.
  • Reworded to fix repetition of "woods"
  • I have tried hard to figure out when Sweatt was released. I wish I could say, at present I just don't know.
  • "Deserted House" was a place designation and is linked above in "Battle of Deserted House."
  • I took out the sentence about Early's raid and reworded the sentences about the July 1864 call for troops along the lines of what you've pointed out here.
  • I can't find any reference to the status of the regiment between active terms of service. I suspect they were completely inactive but I just don't have anything to go on there.
  • I added a brief section on a later 6th Massachusetts that served during the Spanish American War. Again, I've tried to indicate that these were different entities that happened to share the same designation.
I hope these edits mostly clear things up. Thanks again. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Baltimore_Riot_1861.jpg: source link is dead; where was this first published?
  • File:6th_Massachusetts_Militia_attacked_in_Baltimore_1861.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Five_soldiers_in_Union_uniforms_of_the_6th_Regiment_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Militia.jpg: what was the author's date of death and when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Response Thanks very much. I've addressed these issues as follows:
  • Included periods were captions are complete sentences
  • I could not find the origins of that colored engraving with the dead link. So I uploaded another, not colored, from a U.S. Army website. Published in 1861. I included links in the media file to the U.S. Army site and the same lithograph in the LOC (the latter shows all the publication info). I've replaced the dead link one with this version in the infobox.
  • File:6th_Massachusetts_Militia_attacked_in_Baltimore_1861.jpg, Oliver Pelton, engraver, died in 1882 [2]
  • File:Five_soldiers_in_Union_uniforms_of_the_6th_Regiment_Massachusetts_Volunteer_Militia.jpg: I can't track down the author, date of death or the first publication date. Following the link to the LOC, I see that the photo was gifted outright to the LOC in 2010, which should put it in the public domain?

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, nice work. I have a few minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • in the References: " Life of Luther C. Ladd: the first martyr that fell a sacrifice to his country, in the city of Baltimore, on the 19th of April, 1861, etc.": the title should probably use title case capitalisation instead of sentence case, e.g. " Life of Luther C. Ladd: The First Martyr that Fell a Sacrifice to his Country, in the City of Baltimore, on the 19th of April, 1861, etc."
  • as above, "Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861; A study of the War" --> " Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861; A Study of the War"
  • as above, "Regiments and Armories of Massachusetts. An historical narration of the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia, with portraits and biographies of Officers, past and present, etc. Vol." --> " Regiments and Armories of Massachusetts. An Historical Narration of the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia, with Portraits and Biographies of Officers, Past and Present, etc. Vol."
  • Benjamin F. Butler appears to be overlinked
  • Are there any later units that claim lineage from this one? I note that there are links to a later unit in the article, which is a great addition, but I also wonder if any more recent units draw campaign credit from this one?
  • this seems a little awkward grammatically: "The 6th Massachusetts served a third term in response to the emergency call for troops to defend Washington lasted 100 days...". Suggest that perhaps "lasted" should be changed to "lasting", or add "that" in front of "lasted";
  • "...he “double-quick.” This...": the quotation marks here should be straight quotes per MOS:CURLY
  • "Ladd died on Pratt street" --> "Ladd died on Pratt Street"
  • "Needham. 36 men of the 6th Massachusetts..." I believe the MOS prefers that sentences do not start with numerals, as such I'd suggest maybe something like this: "Needham. A total of 36 men of the 6th Massachusetts..."
  • "9-month term of service"? same same "90-day term of service" and "100-day term of service"?
  • "The 3rd Massachusetts formed a peripheral part...": do you mean the 6th here?
  • "Eight companies of the..." suggest linking Company (military unit)
  • "regiment lost 13 men killed or mortally wounded and 18 by disease..." --> "regiment lost 13 men killed or mortally wounded in combat and 18 by disease..."?
  • "for 100 days regiments" --> "for 100-day regiments"?
  • "They departed on July 20 for Washington, reaching the city on July 22 and posted on Arlington Heights in Fort C.F. Smith" --> suggest splitting this sentence after "July 22", and then joining the rest of the sentence with the next one.
Response: Thanks very much for these corrections and suggestions. I'm particularly glad you caught "3rd Massachusetts"...that was an "oops." I've incorporated all these suggestions with the exception of the "companies (military unit)" link as its linked in the lead of the article. The biggest change: I included the 181st Infantry Regiment (United States) in the "later units" section as they claim the 6th Mass in their lineage. Military heraldry seems a bit arbitrary to me, but who am I to question? If they claim it, I think it belongs in this article. Thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries, I've always used the link once in the lead, and once in the body rule of thumb, but it's not a warstoper. Support for promotion as all of my comments have been addressed, or responded to. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

This article is in fine shape, and makes a interesting read. I have only a few queries/comments:

  • Governor Andrew should just be Governor Andrew after he's first mentioned by full title and name per WP:SURNAME
  • same for Follansbee
  • I made a couple of minor c/e tweaks to insert what looked like a missing word
  • I wonder if a disambiguation hatnote for the article is appropriate, given the other 6th Mass' that have existed? Perhaps pointing to the disambiguation page?
  • Battle of Bunker Hill is linked twice in the body
  • Given he commanded the regiment for two terms of service, I wonder whether Follansbee should be mentioned in the lead
  • the lead should probably mention that their duties at Fort Delaware were guarding POWs
  • the infobox should probably be simplified to just show the regiment as active 1861–1864, readers can read the article to get the exact dates of each term. It is a bit cluttered at present.
  • I'm interested in the history of the regiment before and after the war. It was first raised in peacetime in 1855, but when was it disbanded as a peacetime regiment?
  • add the oclc for Annual Register of the General Society of Colonial Wars and ISSN for Harper's weekly

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Response Thanks very much. I've made these corrections, with regard to the dates in the infobox, I wonder if 1861-1864 would give the impression that it was one of the three year regiments at a quick glance? I've tried to make it less cluttered by just using the month and year. If that's still too cluttered, I can change it to the year range, with regard to before and after the war, there is very little information available in secondary sources. Hall's book addresses both to some degree. I've added a bit to the "Later units" section to explain that it persisted as a peacetime militia unit. My sense is that it remained a militia organization with little or no hiatus between the Civil War and the Spanish American War, but I can't find a source that expressly states that. I think to go any further than the general statements I've made in the "Earlier units" and "Later units" sections would be getting into primary research. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I think those changes are fine. Just one final thing, there really should be no need for citations in the lead, as everything in it should be in the body and cited there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've removed the citations. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes Massachusetts in the War from 1889 a high quality reliable source?
  • Same for Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April 1861?
  • Same for A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion?
  • Same for Historical Sketch of the Old Sixth Regiment?
  • Same for The Life of John A. Andrew?
  • Same for A History of Massachusetts in the Civil War?
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some concerns that probably need to be addressed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Response Thanks very much. In reviewing information on authors, I realize there are a number of authorlinks I should have included. So, I’ve added those.
  • "Massachusetts in the Civil War," based mainly on regimental histories, was written by James L. Bowen, a veteran of the 37th Massachusetts, after the war, a journalist and magazine editor. Became commissioner of Massachusetts State Aid and Soldier Relief. Prominent citizen of Springfield, Massachusetts. According to his obit, "In 1882, Mr. Bowen was made historian of his regiment, and wrote "Massachusetts in the War, 1861-1865." He made a deep study into history of the civil conflict, and wrote many papers on the subject."[3] He was an authority.
  • "Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April" was written by George William Brown, mayor of Baltimore during the riot.
  • "A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion," was written by Frederick Henry Dyer. The Compendium was compiled primarily using the official records of the U.S. War Department, the section on Dyer’s Compendium cites Bell I. Wiley who wrote the introduction to the 1959 edition and asserted that veterans praised the Dyer’s work for its accuracy.
  • "Historical Sketch of the Old Sixth Regiment" was written by the chaplain of the regiment with the members of the regiment itself as the main audience. He states in the preface that he therefore strove for unvarnished accuracy.
  • "The Life of John A. Andrew" was based mainly on the official correspondence of the Governor. According to the introduction, Pearson was assisted in the research by some of the Governor’s closest friends, his is still the preeminent biography of Gov. John Andrew.
  • "A History of Massachusetts in the War" was written by William Schouler, Adjutant General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts during the war. He had full charge of the militia and was responsible for organizing, equipping, training, transporting, paying, supplying Massachusetts soldiers. Probably no greater authority on the subject.
  • Are there no more recent works that cover the regiment? Because, quite honestly, the practice of history has moved on quite a bit since the late 1800s and new sources are available. These are all written by amateur historians, if you can even call them amateurs. We require high quality sources at FAC, and works written over a 100 years ago by non-historians are going to be difficult to show they are high quality. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
There are definitely newer works which briefly reference the 6th Massachusetts but newer works won't offer the depth of detail provided by sources like Hanson and Bowen. And those newer works which discuss the 6th Massachusetts will almost certainly cite Hanson and others I've cited here. So I generally choose to eliminate the middle-man and go right to the main authority on the subject...which in this case is the official regimental history written by Hanson. Yes, there indeed have been just a few advances in the historical profession, believe me, I'm intimately aware of that. Nonetheless, I feel these are absolutely solid sources. And I'm not alone. A quick search on Google Books shows that John Hanson's book on the "Old Sixth" is cited by Stephen W. Sears, Gary Gallagher, Leon Litwack, and Mark Neeley, to name a few. "Massachusetts in the War" and other works by James L. Bowen are cited by James M. McPherson (in his Pulitzer Prize winning book), Bradley Gottfried, David J. Eicher, and Harry Pfanz. If he's good enough for McPherson...The likes of Bowen, Hanson and Schouler may not have been professional historians but they were extraordinarily accomplished and respected professionals who were the highest of authorities on this subject. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Hi. I've done some work to address the issue of these older sources:
  • I eliminated half of them (Schouler, Brown, and Pearson), replacing those citations by citing other more recent works instead.
  • I've added as references some recent works which cover the 6th Mass (O'Connor, Puleo and Berenson). I also realized that I really underutilized Wills (a 2001 source that I only cited once). He's about the only recent writer who has some good detail on the 6th Mass and their 9-month second enlistment, so I was able to replace many of the citations of older works in those sections with Wills. I also added a recent source (Temple) who discusses the 6th Mass at Fort Delaware.
  • Hanson, Bowen and Dyer have info on the 6th Mass that can't be found anywhere else. But I've tried to reduce my reliance on them in many instances by citing new sources instead (O'Connor, Puleo and Berenson).
I hope this mitigates/remedies these source issues. Thanks very much again for your comments. Best, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
It's an improvement, but its always a concern to rely on these older sources - they weren't trained historians and they viewed history differently than we do now. I'm not going to oppose, but it is a concern that more modern historians haven't covered the information - is it because they trust these regimental histories or is it because they don't think it's notable? Or is it because they aren't including the information because they don't trust the regimental histories and have concluded the events didn't happen that way? Do you see the concerns? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I do. I think the fact that more recent historians haven't covered much of this has a good deal to do with the way history is written now, focusing more broadly on larger campaigns or the entire war, rarely a single regiment. I suppose notability is involved there, the 6th Mass is one of the most notable regiments I know of due to their experience in Baltimore and gets at least a quick mention (or a few pages) in just about every survey of the full war I've picked up. Are they as notable for their fairly uneventful second term in Virginia? Not so much. I definitely don't think the information isn't getting repeated due to any lack of trust in those older sources; in fact, those brief mentions of the Baltimore Riot almost always cite Hanson. So, good historians trust him (and Bowen). I guess I just keep coming back to the fact that regimental histories like Hanson's were typically hugely vetted works (roughly a thousand men who were actually there would be picking apart every detail) usually written by someone chosen by a regimental association who reviewed the work. So, it's an old source, no doubt, but I really feel it is solidly reliable.Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I've made some copy edits which I think address the issues turned up by Earwig.
Hope this addresses your questions. Thanks very much. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
G'day Historical Perspective 2, suggest you ping Ealdgyth again to see if she's happy with your responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll drop a note on her talk page. Thanks. Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties...

  • I copyedited so pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or simply if you disagree with my changes. Considering the regiment didn't see a huge amount of action, I found the article quite interesting to read and easy to comprehend -- well done.
  • A few outstanding points:
    • Re. the infobox: I think we just say United States rather than United States of America; also I generally expect notable commanders to be worthy of their own article in WP.
    • Re. "spring of 1864", we should avoid seasonal references -- do we know the month?
    • Can you expand a little on just how the 6th "openly condemned" abuses at Fort Delaware?

I daresay I'll be supporting once these and the sourcing questions are finalised. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Response: Thanks very much for your comments and the copy edits. Those were very helpful and look good to me. I've made those adjustments to the infobox (took out Follansbee) and specified May 1864. I can't, unfortunately, expand much on "openly condemned." That source doesn't elaborate. I went to the primary source he cited which states that the previous unit was particularly harsh and the 6th Mass "spoke contemptuously of the actions of their predecessors." It's a memoir, though, and I don't think I can cite it here. So, I tried to specify a bit as to what the previous poor treatment entailed. If "condemned" is too vague a statement, I'll certainly take out that sentence, as to sources, I have done my best to address the concerns with changes outlined above. Any suggestions in that regard would be appreciated. Many thanks, Historical Perspective 2 (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, I just tweaked a little. Re. sources, concur with PM's suggestion above -- will keep an eye on developments. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Jill Valentine[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a popular character from the Resident Evil video games and films. Article is currently GA, and has received a peer review and a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors . Freikorp (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Bluesphere[edit]

No complains about the prose after a thorough reading; it's well-written, neutral and hardly written in-universe, engaging and complete. Just a few concerns, however:

  • In the lead, the "i" in Internet memes should be in caps since this is observed accordingly below the article.
  • I think Jill was voiced by Catherine Disher in Resident Evil 3 and Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Heidi Anderson voiced her in the 2002 GameCube remake of the first game is unsourced.
  • I also notice that the YouTube video in ref #32 is no longer available, so this has to be changed with another one.
  • Can't find a replacement. I'll continue my search tomorrow, may end up just removing this entirely. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Definitely can't find a replacement for that. I've removed everything that was attributed to that source and have added a new source to simply confirm the actress' roles. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Guillory was set to appear in the sequel, Resident Evil: Extinction, but she had commitments to other work. Instead, producers Paul W. S. Anderson and Jeremy Bolt - You already mentioned Paul W. S. Anderson's complete name in the first sentence, so in this one it should just be "Anderson".
  • That note you left which talks about a mistake made by Guinness should be referenced for the sake of verifiability.
  • Somebody else made that astute observation and left the note accordingly. I can't find a source which specifically says Guiness is wrong, which is a shame since they clearly are, this source ([4]) explicitly states Clock Tower came out before Resident Evil (which itself is also obvious but still unreferenced). Do you think that will be good enough? Or do you think I should remove the note and add a sentence to the prose along the lines of " recognized by Guinness World Records 2013: Gamer's Edition as "the first female player character in a survival-horror game, though the character Jennifer Simpson appeared in the survival horror game Clock Tower the year before [new reference]"? It seems a shame to remove this information since it's easily verifiable by the simple fact that Clock Tower came out first. Freikorp (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That source will do nicely; I'm afraid adding the sentence will just impede the flow of the prose. Bluesphere 16:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work on this article! I am also a fan of the Resident Evil games, (at least the first three, and five) and this article about one of the protagonists brings back a lot of memories. I can support this once you're done with 'em. Bluesphere 05:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Bluesphere. I've now attempted to address all concerns. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Good luck with the other editors, Freikorp. Bluesphere 04:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose, which is good enough that I lulled into just reading the thing. No clangers jumped out at me. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal[edit]

Great work on the prose! It is very well written. There is a little point that I would mention:

  • "...though she did not end up featuring in the film." This could be cited.

That's it from me, it is a really nice article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a citation for that point. Thanks for your comments. :) Freikorp (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Good work on the article, buddy! The prose is really cool, and interesting! Face-smile.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Homeostasis07[edit]

  • After spending most of the last two hours going through the entire article, I have to say it's one of the most immaculately sourced articles I've come across in quite a while. I tried my damnedest to find something I could complain about here, but couldn't for the life of me find any issues. Everything on the article is attributable to its cited source, and all sources seem to be reliable, have been archived, and have a consistent formatting style. Earwig's tool showed no copyright violation (two sources at slightly less than 25% - and those were quotes; everything else in the 5-15% range). Well done, Freikorp. Source review passed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Support from ProtoDrake[edit]

Support - This is one of the best character articles I've seen in a while, and that's speaking as someone whose seen and edited the best and worst of the category. Congrats for this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Looking good so far, just found a couple of nitpicks early on:

  • Demand from fans wishing to play as Jill led to two more downloadable content (DLC) scenarios (also included in the Gold Edition of Resident Evil 5): Lost in Nightmares, showing the events leading up to Jill's disappearance, and Desperate Escape, showing her fight to escape the facility she was being held in. Unsourced. This is especially important, as the statement about fans wanting to play as Jill is not in universe information, so there's no excuse there.
  • She is also one of the playable characters in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011), an action game based on "The Mercenaries" minigame from Resident Evil 4 and Resident Evil 5. While I do see Jill in one of the pictures, I think it would be better to have the source mention her name. I was able to find this article by Siliconera, which is considered a reliable source for video game articles.

That's all I've noticed so far. I'll come back in a bit with more comments. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Famous Hobo. I've addressed both concerns, adding sources and removing the 'demand from fans' statement. Freikorp (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Famous Hobo, just following up if you have any further comments. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Famous Hobo, just following this up one last time as comments on prose seem to be winding up. Do you have any further comments? No worries if you don't. Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been following your discussions with SarahSV for a while, and wanted to wait for her issues to be resolved before writing more comments. Let's get back into the swing of things.


  • Jill is a playable character in two more downloadable content (DLC) scenarios (also included in the Gold Edition of Resident Evil 5): Lost in Nightmares, showing the events leading up to Jill's disappearance, and Desperate Escape, showing her fight to escape the facility she was being held in. Downloadable content has just been introduced at this point, so you can't say "in two more DLC scenarios. Also, do we really need to know about the Gold Edition of RE5? This seems like random trivia, and may confuse some readers as to what a Gold Edition even is. My suggested rewrite: "Jill is a playable character in two downloadable content (DLC) scenarios for Resident Evil 5: Lost in Nightmares, showing the events leading up to Jill's disappearance, and Desperate Escape, showing her fight to escape the facility she was being held in."
 Done Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Link Resident Evil 4 at the end of the third paragraph
 Done Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In Resident Evil: Revelations (2012),[19] set in 2005... You haven't mentioned the year any of the other games take place in, so why bother including the year for this game?
  • Because it's the only game not set in the present day, setting it apart from all the others. Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • At the end of the fourth paragraph, Rely on Horror is not a reliable source. To be honest, do you even need to include her absence in RE6? I'm sure fans are displeased when any major character is not in a new game from the series. For example, I'm sure that fans were unhappy when she wasn't in RE4, after checking through the first 8 google pages, no reliable source even mentions Jill's absence in RE6, so it's probably not that big of a deal.
  • In January 2016, Voth released pictures of herself cosplaying as Jill, and stated her intention to appear at conventions as the character and Capcom producer Jun Takeuchi said Jill's unlockable "classic look" STARS uniform from the original game was his favorite extra costume in Resident Evil 5. I'll be completely blunt, why should I even care about these two statements. So Voth cosplays as Jill, okay. Cool I guess but ultimately not important. Same goes for Takeuchi's favorite extra costume, every developer and fan are bound to have their favorite costumes, why should I care? You should just remove these two statements since they don't add much.
  • I've removed the statement about Takeuchi's favorite costume. In retrospect that wasn't important. I do like the statement about Voth, mainly because it appears next to a public domain image of exactly what is being described, this is the only public domain image of 'Jill', and assuming this nomination passes it will be the image that it featured on the main page when this is Wikipedia's article of the day. I'd strongly prefer that the free image is given some context within the article. Also I do think it's extremely cool. Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Link Clair Redfield in the In films section.
 Done Freikorp (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


  • Gamingbolt is not considered a reliable source. Both instances should be removed, for the Jill Sandwich meme, just source the specific scene in the game, although no reliable sources discuss this scene, so you may want to consider removing it entirely.
  • I'll try to take a more in depth look at this section soon, but this section appears to suffer greatly from listicles. Why do I care that Complex ranked her as the 30th greatest video game heroine? I want to know why they thought she was a good heroine (as a side note, you might want to look at the Complex source again, since they straight up call her one of the many idiotic female characters in the game, and that the only reason she's endearing is that she was the original idiotic female character. I'm not saying remove it, I'm just saying build upon these statements and explain why Complex thought she was endearing.) Even though I don't personally agree with some of Sarkeesian's views, I at least appreciate that these paragraphs discuss the specific aspects of the character, and not just that she's a great heroine.

Alright, here's more comments. I'll take a closer look at the reception section hopefully tomorrow (though knowing me, I more than likely will forget about it. So just ping me, and if I don't respond, just keep pinging me, the little number above the bell icon is really the only way of getting my attention). Famous Hobo (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

  • @SlimVirgin: Why do we need to remove the words 'cock tease'? It's sourced. I've even added quote marks around it now to highlight this is the case. Freikorp (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    • She's triggered, that's why... Bluesphere 00:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I've added the information from those sources by Anita Sarkeesian; thanks for finding that it improves the article and was very interesting. Look, I'm going to assume you don't like the 'cock tease' comment because it would rightly be considered by a good chunk of the populace to be in poor taste. I wouldn't disagree with that assessment, but I'm not going to remove it unless consensus rules against me, and not just because I giggled like a schoolboy for an embarrassing amount of time when I stumbled across it. I think it's important to convey to the reader how feminists comment on the character, but also how chauvinistic male gamers talk about her as well. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "Cock tease" is a misogynist insult and should be removed.

The article reflects the sources' sexism, rather than contextualizing it or simply not repeating it so much. I can find only two other FAs that focus on female characters in games. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII manages to avoid sexism almost entirely. Cortana (Halo) has problems, but fewer than in this article. Both have much shorter reception sections.

  • I'll trim down the repetition of sexualisation. Being somewhat of a subject matter expert on gaming, neither Cortana nor Characters of Final Fantasy are a good comparison to this article. My perception of the Final Fantasy series is that the female characters in it are designed to be cute, rather than sexual, and coverage on that article is spread out over several characters anyway. And Cortana isn't even human. Freikorp (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The article uses the word "hottest" seven times (in one paragraph); "sexy/sexier/sexiest" seven times; "babe" five times; "attractive" four times; "beauty/beautiful" three times; "hottie" twice; "vixen" twice; "gorgeous" once; "cock teasing" once; "slutty" once; and "douche bag's girlfriend".
  • Another example of it speaking to a heterosexual male readership: "In the 2011 GameZone poll that asked 'who would you rather?', Jill was pitted against Tomb Raider's Lara and won." The source: "Every week we will put two lovely ladies against each other, and it will be up to you to vote on...well, Who would you rather obviously!"
  • Regarding the above two points, and the term 'cock tease', your issues seems to be less with this article and more with society in general. I don't disagree that it's a shame people focus more on Jill's attractiveness and less on her skill, but that's a reflection of society at large. Sure we can trim down coverage from the less notable sources, but the terms 'hottest', 'babe', 'vixen' etc appear multiple time's because that's how she is received within the gaming community. Are you suggesting we pretend that Jill wasn't pitted in a sexist 'who would you rather?' competition? If we remove all the terms that are perceived as sexist, this article will cease being an accurate reflection of how Jill is actually perceived within the gaming community. I am not going to pretend sexist things don't happen. Also Wikipedia is Not censored; I'm not going to remove the term "Cock tease" purely because it is misogynist. Freikorp (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • That Anita Sarkeesian was absent has made me wonder, given her prominence, whether there are other sources missing that could offer context.
  • When I work on an article on a video game character, I search for information on things inherently associated with video game characters. Design, appearances, reception among gaming websites etc, it didn't cross my mind to search for what feminist websites had to say about her. Quite frankly I was quite surprised to see any coverage at all, but thanks again for finding it. Freikorp (talk) 01:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The reception section is too long.
  • I've trimmed several sentences out of it. Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The "acclaim" sub-section is 1,239 words, plus the long quote box; two of the paragraphs are c. 450 words each. It should be cut to one paragraph, focusing on the best sources. It's currently a quote farm, full of "me too", low-quality sources, including the Daily Record. "Bad ass" is used three times in one paragraph.
  • The "memes" sub-section seems long-winded.
  • I'm not seeing a problem here. Can you be more specific? Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The article mixes up logical quotation and aesthetic, e.g. "50 hottest game babes", but "babe in games,". Please check them all and make them consistent, the MoS favours LQ; see MOS:LQ.
  • Good find.  Done Freikorp (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • There are still a few, e.g. "hottest pics". but "fetishizing their lithe bodies." SarahSV (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure I've got all of them now. Freikorp (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This article by Stephen Harper, Senior Lecturer in Media Studies at the University of Portsmouth, discusses the fetishization of Jill Valentine's body. It's cited in Nick Lacey, Introduction to Film, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, p. 327, also mentioning Jill Valentine. I can see quite a few similar sources, these all need to be mined. SarahSV (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added info from both of these sources. Freikorp (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at the history, the current version, including the problematic reception section, is very similar to this version of December 2014, before you began editing the article in January 2015 (see WikiHistory). That means you're trying to clean up someone else's writing and choice of sources, which is always difficult; in your shoes, I would rewrite the reception section from scratch, keeping it tight, using only the best sources and making full use of any scholarly sources. SarahSV (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I adopted this article after the previous writer was permanently banned from editing (for something unrelated to this article), recognising the potential it had underneath all the chaff that had been added to it. If you think the article had a few lower quality sources in it when you first reviewed it, take a close look at how many it had before I started editing it :). It was pretty ridiculous. Anyway I think I did a pretty good job trimming it down before I nominated it for GA, let along FA, and after reading it over again and trimming a little more I am quite pleased with it, so I'm not seeing a need to start from scratch. I've removed several more sentences and sources today. Have a look over all my replies and the article as it stands now and let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding Harper and Sarkeesian. You summarized them well.
The problem is that the article acts out the sexism, rather than contexualizing it. It's as if the last 10–20 years of scholarship on women in games doesn't exist.
The current FAs on video-game characters are: Arbiter (Halo)], Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Cortana (Halo), Flood (Halo), Lightning (Final Fantasy), Master Chief (Halo), MissingNo., Tidus. None have quote farms in the reception/cultural impact sections, the argument that a source said something and therefore it must be included—because NOTCENSORED—is never valid, least of all at FAC. One 343-word paragraph consists entirely of things like she's 26th of the 50 hottest babes, 43rd hottest woman, 12th-hottest girl, etc.
The article contains 71 instances of deadurl=yes, 38 in the "cultural impact" section, which seems a lot. Does that suggest that the sources are low quality and out-of-date? Have you checked them all? Picking one at random (citation 68, supporting that GameDaily "used her as an example for the archetype of a 'smart and sexy heroine'"), I can't find her name in it.
Part of the reception section was in place by 2009, [5] and much of it by 2012. [6] It should be rewritten, and the acclaim/criticism division should go (calling someone a "vixen" and asking "who would you rather?" isn't really acclaim, by the way). Is "who would you rather?" addressed to female gamers too? How would the female zombies be "cock-teased to death"? The article seems to exclude a lot of readers.
The reception section should show familiarity with the scholarship on women in games, and ideally should be framed by it. What was the cultural impact of Jill Valentine? There's something about her in Grimes (from the 2003 DiGRA conference). The following doesn't mention her, but it's an interesting overview: "Sexy, Strong, and Secondary: A Content Analysis of Female Characters in Video Games across 31 Years". I got it from WP:RX and can send you a copy if you like. SarahSV (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I archive all sources before nominating an article for GA, let alone FAC. I always use If you look at the version of the article you linked to before I first edited it, you'll see the current citation 68 is one of only seven archived sources at the time, and when you mentioned it, was the only source archived to Somehow it must have slipped through the cracks while I was archiving everything else. I am very confident all the sources I archived myself (being well over 100) accurately back up what is attributed to them. You seem to have found the only exception at random, as indicated above this article has already received a rather thorough source review. I've removed citation 68 now.
I don't think any of the sources remaining in the article are low quality. I understand that a high number of them are dead, this may be because I simply found an archived version of the original page rather than where the URL was moved to. Also several formerly prominent video game website, such as, have since been closed down. In my experience video game sources are frequently going down or being moved. It's very frustrating. Does that suggest the sources are out-of-date? Probably. Does that suggest the information they once contained is no longer relevant to the subject? I don't think so. Granted a high percentage of sources are dead, but I've never heard anyone suggest dead urls (that are archived) present a problem before.
What is and isn't acclaim and what is and isn't sexist is completely open to interpretation. When I originally started trimming less-notable mentions I specifically left the 'who would you rather' source in because I think its a fantastic way to demonstrate Jill's overwhelming popularity to the reader, she was pitted against Lara Croft, arguably the biggest sex symbol in video gaming, and won. Incidentally the rather large 'Sex symbol' sub-section at the Lara Croft article is an interesting read. Is the 'who would you rather' question addressed at female gamers? It doesn't specifically say male voters only. Granted I believe responses would have been overwhelmingly from males, but I'm absolutely certain some women would have voted in it. One of my best friends happens to be a lesbian gamer and now I'm curious to ask her if she'd prefer Jill or Lara, as the reception section states, Sarah Warn and Lisa Foiles both rank Jill as one of the "hottest" characters. Is it still sexist for women to find women sexual? Would you prefer instances of women sexualising her to be removed also? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm actually honestly quite curious.
I was quite happy to trim the section down, but I'm going to have to wait for a third opinion before I consider completely re-writing an entire section that four other FAC reviewers effectively gave a tick of approval to. Same deal with the cock-tease comment. I might end up pinging all the other reviewers back here as none of them specifically commented on either. I'll probably do that once I finish looking at the sources you've provided and ones like them; I hope I find good information in there to further improve the article. Freikorp (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Okeydokey. I've added information from the source you provided. If nothing else, the section on gender issues now rivals the size of the paragraph on her attractiveness. I've reorganised the 'Criticism' section, during which I removed the cock-tease comment, purely because it didn't fit well with how the paragraph is now structured. Can you suggest a new title for this section? I was thinking something along the lines of 'Gender role and sexualisation', but I'm sure there's something more appropriate and catchy. Thanks for offering to send me the other source, I have access to it via my university though. I downloaded a copy and have added it to my reading list:). Freikorp (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for making those changes. It would help if you would mark your minor edits as minor; e.g. [7]. Lots of unmarked minor edits give a misleading impression of authorship when the page history is checked.
As you said, most of the article has been written by other editors over several years, and it hasn't changed that much for FAC. Here's the diff of the reception section on 18 Dec 2014 (before your first edit), and the version promoted to GA in January 2015; and the diff of GA and the version you brought to FAC. (I removed the quote boxes because they'd been moved and would have made the diffs unreadable.) The three versions are very similiar; most of the difference is related to citation style.
I would get rid of the acclaim/criticism headings and merge the sections under "reception". Remove the paragraph beginning "Jill has been often regarded as ...", which is unreadable, and summarize it in a couple of sentences in your own words rather than quoting, or highlight the most notable sources and leave it there.
Re: sources. It's unlikely that I randomly found the only problematic source. Have you checked all the offline sources? For example, 31, 34, 44, 62, 77. SarahSV (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: sources. I don't think it's fair to assume other sources are 'problematic'. There's never been any accusation that the sources are misleading, the issue with the one you picked at random was that it was dead and the archival program used didn't appear to save the version properly. No I haven't checked the offline sources, I have assumed good faith of the editor who added them, he had a reputation for accuracy. Freikorp (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Who did add the offline sources? SarahSV (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
User:SNAAAAKE!! was the previous 'custodian' of this article. Here is him adding one of the offline sources: [8]. I'm a bit concerned about why you're even looking into this. I mean, are you suggesting someone would add over 100 accurate online sources and then try and sneak in something maliciously via an offline source? The offline sources are not used for anything that is libelous, outrageous, or inconsistent with what other sources say. It strikes me as bad faith. Also just for the record I've never claimed to have written the reception section. I claim to have trimmed, tidied and formatted it consistently to a level I believed was FAC worthy. I don't take credit for other people's work. My userpage clearly states Jill Valentine was a B class article before I touched it.
Can you please explain why you removed the Dave Cook source? [9] I think it's relevant to convey to the reader how popular the memes were.
I'm also concerned you removed information from the source regarding the Resident Evil 3 outfit. You appear to be bowdlerizing the article of anything you perceive to be sexist, and I'm not sure how appropriate it would be considered to be making contested edits to an article as a reviewer. I think it's relevant to convey to the reader that while the male writer found the costume attractive, he still thought it was inappropriate, this shows that even the target audience for her sexualisation thinks she is being over-sexualised - not just feminists and academics. I think this offers unique insight into her reception that academic sources simply cannot provide. Also calling it a 'Slutty-cop' costume isn't putting the character down, if anything it's a badge of shame on the people who came up with it. Freikorp (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I removed "14th-greatest video game meme in 2014" because it's silly, and the article is full of it: "'43rd-hottest' woman in video games"; "ninth on their list of top 'video game vixens'", on and on for whole paragraphs. But you're welcome to restore anything. I'm going to leave it there for now. Feel free to ping me if you make substantial changes and if you want me to look again. SarahSV (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: What's your opinion on this kind of restructuring? [10] Freikorp (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
That's better, but it needs to be cut down further. Some of the sources seem odd choices, e.g. Daily Record, Thanh Niên, Wirtualna Polska, especially when it's so repetitive (hot, hotter, hottest). SarahSV (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I did a very quick copy edit of the Reception section. That's roughly how I would do it if I had to copy edit that section (without being too radical) rather than rewrite it. I reverted the edit, but note that there are a few LQ errors in the text (LQ doesn't mean always outside), some other punctuation errors (e.g. video game needs a hyphen in "video game mascots"), and some awkward writing. And too many quotes. It's written as if for a tabloid newspaper or press release. SarahSV (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I've reinstated your edit, with a couple minor tweaks. If the issue of sex appeal was oversized before, conversely I think it's undersized now, which undervalues the character's overwhelming reception in the area. I'll probably trawl through all the old sources later and pick the most relevant quote and source combo I can find and add it in there as well, maybe two at most. I've replaced a couple of the direct quotes with prose. Do you have any other concerns about this article? I'm not good at copy-editing, which is why I always run articles through the Guild of Copy Editors prior to FAC nomination; unless you explicitly point a copy-edit issue (or where you think the wording is awkward) out to me I probably won't find it. Freikorp (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Three of the four images are fair use.

  • The free image, File:Julia Voth as Jill Valentine crop.jpg, is fine; it's from Flickr and is cc-by.
  • It's fine to claim fair use for the lead image, File:Jill Valentine.png, and the page has an appropriate fair-use rationale.
  • I can't see how File:Jill valentine battlesuit.png, a second fair-use image with a similar costume, would be justified, and the fair-use rationale doesn't explain.
  • File:Sienna and Jill.png are two fair-use images in one (Jill Valentine and an actor). The source for one is a YouTube video, but with no indication where the image is, so that should be fixed, the source for the other is a dead link, which should be fixed too. If reliable sources have discussed this clothing or this particular image, those sources should be added to the image page and the discussion should be made clear in the text around the image. Otherwise it isn't clear why fair use is being claimed for both images next to the paragraph that discusses the actor, or why these images were chosen and not some other.

SarahSV (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the image review. I've removed the battlesuit image. I've updated the dead sources for the fourth image (it wasn't actually sourcing a YouTube video, the old link was just redirecting there). I've also relocated said image to the discussion about the costume and added additional sources and text into the caption. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the battlesuit and updating the links. File:Sienna and Jill.png is now next to the quote-farm paragraph, which doesn't mention Sienna Guillory. To claim fair use you have to show either that the images (both of them) are the subject of commentary or that their "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and [their] omission would be detrimental to that understanding". See WP:NFCI, for what to include in the rationale, see WP:FUR. SarahSV (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, so considering that I've moved it back up to the 'Films' section, adding commentary on how it was a faithful adaptation of the original. I can add information back in on the costumes reception as well if you like. Freikorp (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a fair-use hardliner by any means, but I'm having difficulty seeing how both images (her and the actor) could be justified, and I'm not sure even one could. The issue is that she was supposed to be a cop but was wearing a short skirt and tube top. That's easy to explain in words. Was this her regular uniform or was she going undercover or something? The article doesn't say.
If I were writing this, I would probably have a section called "Costumes", where I'd explain what she wore and when (including the alternative costumes Sarkeesian mentions), whether the outfits were controversial, and whether they differed from other female characters, using scholarly sources about the representation of women in games to frame the discussion. Also, whether they differed over time, and how that fits with the development of other female characters. How is your reading of the scholarly sources progressing, by the way, and do you intend to add more from them? SarahSV (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The concept of a 'Costume' section is certainly interesting. I had a bit of a look around and I can't find any other video game character that has one, this does not to suggest in itself that it shouldn't be done, but I think it does suggest that such a section is not a priority for an article on this subject. I read through all the sources you provided. I thought I'd harvested enough out of each one to a point where any more might be considered undue weight. I wasn't planning on searching for any more. More may exist, but that's beside the point. There are well over 20 articles that sexualise Jill as one of the "hottest" or sexiest characters, that are now not being used in that manner. I think we can both agree an article should just have an adequate sampling of the sources available on a particular issue, and I think the article has good coverage from feminist and academic sources now. I've actually previously been criticised for adding too much coverage to feminist views in an article before.
Back to the issue at hand, I'm no expert on image licensing. Normally my image portion of FAC reviews just consists of me complying with whatever Nikkimaria says (Incidentally if you could weigh in on this Nikki that would be appreciated). Considering the amount of coverage in the article about both the costume, the costume reception, the live-action adaptation of it, and the response to the live-action adaptation, I certainly think the image improves the article. Freikorp (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
IMO there's sufficient commentary there to justify the inclusion of the comparative image. However, the lead image needs more detail in the FUR - "all OK" and "n.a" should definitely be replaced, and purpose expanded. It would also be far better to provide original source details for both parts of the comparison rather than a third-party site with no such details. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've added better FUR for the lead image. I did some serious digging and actually found the original source for one of the images, archived from June 2004 [11]. I can't find the original source of the other one. Freikorp (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Starship Troopers[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a hugely popular, hugely influential, and hugely controversial science fiction novel from 1959, it has been through a GA review, and has also had its reception section looked over by Mike Christie, who knows what's what with science-fiction. Since then I've been over the prose again, and have added more views from commentators to the article. Between the large number of sci-fi authors and scholars, I believe I have covered every significant theme among reliable sources. I think I am also supposed to disclose that I am a Wikicup participant. Have at it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Riley[edit]

This will probably be a quick review. Anyways, here goes:

  • In the sentence "The novel explores the theme of coming-of-age, and also critiques U.S. society of the 1950s, arguing that a lack of discipline had led to a moral decline, and advocating corporal and capital punishment", who is doing the "advocating"?
    The novel itself/Heinlein. "The novel explores....arguing that...and advocating..." How may I clarify this?
Removing the comma would certainly help, as one could interpret it as "The novel explores...critiques U.S. society of the 1950s...and advocating..." But, I guess that still means that the novel would apply to advocating. Regardless, it is a bit confusing when first reading. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I've tweaked the wording: does this help?
  • Citations in the lead? Is there any reason for this?
    In dealing with controversial material (which I do a lot of) I find it generally helpful to have lead citations, where these may be found for the summary style statements that the lead generally contains. Otherwise, you spend a very substantial amount of time reinstating content that drive-by editors have removed saying "unsourced," or removing cn tags for that material.
Sounds good, but in that case, could you reduce the number of citations to one each and only for the controversial stuff? Trust me, nobody will add any cn tags more than that—and if they do, you just revert them and explain why. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
My experience says otherwise, but okay. I've trimmed the refs.
  • Some stuff needs to be fixed per MOS:LQ. For example, "Ken MacLeodstated that 'the political strand in [science fiction] can be described as a dialogue with Heinlein.'" to "Ken MacLeodstated that 'the political strand in [science fiction] can be described as a dialogue with Heinlein'."
    I'm not certain about this: MOS:LQ, and what I remember of high-school grammar, says that if the punctuation was part of the quote, then it should be included within the quotation marks. As far as I can tell, I have adhered to this: MacLeod is ending his sentence there, for instance.
Oh, well I'm a true idiot. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

And that is all for now. Maybe I will comment more, I don't know. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: I've responded to your points. Vanamonde (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@RileyBugz: I've responded, FYI. Vanamonde (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Comment I'm mostly looking at images (see below), but I wanted to flag for your attention MOS issues (eg. WP:NOTUSA), inconsistencies in citation formatting (eg. some works are italicized and others not), and Wikipedia:Review_aggregators#Limitations. These should be addressed before the article is promoted. Also, at the time this work was first published the ISBN system did not exist - typically in these cases one wouldn't be included in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: I have addressed most of your issues. I will double check the italicization issues, but honestly I've used the citation templates in every case without introducing extra italicization of my own, so not sure what I can do here...Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:StarshipSoldier.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Starship_Troopers_(novel).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added archive links for both images. Vanamonde (talk) 09:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I've read the book, I have the book, I've seen the movie, I have opinions. A few comments:

Wehwalt, good to see you here. I was hoping to have you review this. I'll do my best with your suggestions.
  • "It is one of the only Heinlein novels which intersperses his typical linear narrative structure with a series of flashbacks." I would say "few", not "only".
  • Done.
  • "Rico is depicted as a man of Filipino ancestry, although there has been disagreement on this matter among fans." It might be worth noting this is not made clear until the end of the novel.
  • Hmm. I'm not too happy doing this, because there aren't any sources that mention this...d'you think the novel is enough of a source?
I wouldn't use the novel as a source to say something that would effectively require reading the book to prove. So I'll drop this.
  • "Carmencita Ibanez" My edition of the book has the last name as Ibañez. Also, Rico refers to her as "Carmen" when he re-encounters her during OCS, making it likely that "Carmencita" is a childhood nickname.
  • Folks don't seem to be clear on this, do they? The novel uses "Carmencita" four times and "Carmen" 12 times, but never in a context that would make it absolutely clear which is the nickname...indeed from the first use, it seems as though "carmen" may have been intended as the nickname. Based on common sense, though, I've gone along with your suggestion.
  • "The letter Rico receives from Dubois, partly responsible for Rico "crossing the hump" with his training, is shown as a turning point in his development.[19] This is especially true of the parts of his training that involve indoctrination," The "This" that starts the second sentence is a bit unclear. Are they meant to be turning points? I don't think they are all turning points. It was only in the incident with the Dubois letter that Rico rejects a course of action to leave the military, they do help Rico understand the moral framework that underlies his society and why when told he should go out and shoot bugs, he should go out and shoot bugs.
  • I think this was a case of a sentence being unintentionally moved by later additions. I've reorganized it a little. Does it read better now?
  • "Rico, who does poorly in school," when he meets Mr. Weiss, the placement officer, Rico's pleased by Weiss having his high school transcript, "I had stood high enough without standing so high as to be marked as a greasy grind". He's also slated for Harvard Business School.
  • I guess you're right about that part, it struck me as odd, too. The trouble is this is the Magill source speaking. I've removed that phrase at the moment, let me know if it does not read well.
  • "The novel is also highly controversial. Heinlein scholar James Gifford called it one of the most controversial science fiction books ever published.[4][3]" refs in wrong order. Also "Starship Troopers has been acknowledged as one of the best known and most influential works of science fiction.[10][2][21]" and "Heinlein's discussions of his political beliefs were criticized as being "didactic",[78][11][79] " and probably more given how many reference chains you use.
  • Thanks for pointing that out. It's a consequence, I think, of significant revisions being made to the text. I used search for the string "][", so I should have got them all.
  • The section marked Reception says almost nothing about how it was reviewed in 1959.
  • That's not quite true: I use a number of views expressed in the PITFCS debate, which are from the period 1959 to 1961. The earliest in this article is, I think, from February 1960; between two and three months after the publication of the full-length book in December 1959.
  • Drop in a few more dates then. What about the regular SF magazines, did they review it?
  • I'd added a few per your comment below; I've added a few more now. I'm sure the mainstream SF magazines did review it, but that material has generally been swamped by the flood from high-profile authors and scholarly sources. Nonetheless, there are some in here; the "Ten books of 1959" comes from Damon Knight in F&SF; and Anthony Boucher founded the Magazine of SF, though his review is not from there. If you think it a problem, I'll try to find more; though the reception section's pretty beefy already.
  • "A review in The Herald Tribune " probably the full name of the newspaper should be given.
  • Done.
  • "Panshin, a veteran of the peacetime military, argued that Heinlein glossed over the reality of military life, and that the Terran Federation-Arachnid conflict existed simply because, "Starship troopers are not half so glorious sitting on their butts polishing their weapons for the tenth time for lack of anything else to do."[83] Some of Rico's dialogue in the novel suggests that the novel is contemptuous of a government without an active military.[84]" Doesn't Rico Sr. make clear in the "trip to Mars" conversation that the Terran Federation has never fought a war? Do the sources consider that?
  • I think Rico senior says that the TF has not fought a war for a while. In general, though, even the sources that are broadly supportive of Heinlein do not appear to mention that fact.
  • I looked at it and what he says is ambiguous. In fact, it's more suggestive of war in Rico Sr's memory.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Suvin called it an example of agitprop in favor of military values," this seems an unsourced fragment.
  • Neglected to duplicate the ref.
  • I haven't read through the entire article yet, but I'm surprised not to see discussion of the symbolism of the fact that Johnny is named "Rico".
  • This isn't in any of the sources that I have seen; what are you referring to?
  • Rico means "Rich" in Spanish, and he was rich (likely still is).
  • Yeah that's beyond my Spanish abilities (not more than 50 words). I've looked, though, and I cannot find sources which mention this; the only one I've found so far is a reading guide from the St. Louis public library.
  • Well, never mind then. Pretty sure I've read that somewhere though. I read through whatever analyses of Heinlein my university library had in the 1980s, so it may be an outdated view.
  • You don't very often use dates to say when the commentary on the book occurred. You're closer to the sources than I am, but I have the sense that there's more hostility to the novel today than in Heinlein's lifetime, but it's hard to separate out when these things were said, especially since it's sometimes sort of hidden behind "commentators say" or the like.
  • Fair point. I've added dates in a few more places.
  • More's always welcome :)
  • You sort of dance around the point, but in the Race/gender section, I would more clearly state that the Mobile Infantry is entirely male.
  • Done.
  • "Though Rico says he finds women "marvelous", he shows no desire for sexual activity; the war seems to have subsumed sex in this respect." This is 1959, and Stranger hadn't happened yet. There wasn't much sex in SF in 1959.
  • Huh, that's a point that had escaped me. The Magill source is quite insistent about it, though...
  • Well, so be it then.
  • "Despite the gestures towards women's equality, women are still objects, to be protected, and to fight wars over." This is very opiniony, and it's terribly broad (no pun intended) to be based on a 1979 book.
  • I've added in-text attribution. Let me know if that is enough, or whether you'd rather I removed it altogether.
  • " compares the battle room in Ender's Game to Heinlein's prosthetic suits" This isn't terribly clear. It's likely not the battle room itself, but the uniforms worn by the child-soldiers that can "freeze" them if hit by the "weapons".
  • Actually this is the battle room itself; Hantke makes that quite clear. "The Battle Room appears to be, for now, the last incarnation of the combat prosthesis whose development I have been tracing from Starship Troopers on." There's a lot more of this, a page or more. If this is rather too highbrow for Wikipedia (I'm not sure I understand it myself...) I could just remove that bit.
  • No, I'd let it stand.
  • "dedicates his efforts to protection his erstwhile enemies" possibly "devotes his efforts to protect his onetime enemies. I would also pipe somewhere to Ender Wiggin. If the source mentions that both enemies are insectoid (after all, "buggers"?), that is worth including. I'm not sure the word "enemies" is the right word given Ender doesn't know he's fighting real beings and from what I recall, the Hive Queen makes it clear that the Buggers did not hate Ender.
  • I've added the link, and used "targets" in place of "enemies".
  • The last three subsections of the article are in the form of bulleted lists. I would say you should stay with straight prose.
  • alright.
  • I would make clearer that Uchū no Senshi was based on Starship Troopers.
  • Added a little.
  • The second in that bulleted list is unsourced.
  • It hasn't really received too much attention in mainstream sources. I've added sources for now, but I'd like your opinion on whether axing that bullet altogether isn't the best option.
  • Feel free. I don't consider game adaptions etc 100 percent necessary to the article.
  • Removed. Given that the last three sub-sections of adaptations are now quite short, I'm wondering if it would make more sense to bring them together into an "Other media" section.
  • I would favor that. This article is about the book, and lumping them together de-emphasizes it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Combined.
  • The reference in the bulleted list to Starship Troopers: Invasion is introduced, including link, as if it had not been mentioned before when in fact it is mentioned a couple of paragraphs before. I would straighten this out.
  • Done.
  • You are not consistent on whether you italicize the names of games.
  • Fixed.
  • That's it for now. Ping me when you want me to give it a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Wehwalt: I believe I have either fixed or responded to all the points you have raised. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I will give its second look today or tomorrow. Just replying for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Take your time. Just so you know, I've responded to your responses. Vanamonde (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Second read. I'm doing some hands-on editing.
  • "Rico enters Officer Candidate School for a second course of training, including further courses in "History and Moral Philosophy"." This might mistakenly imply to the reader that Rico had History and Moral Philosophy during his first course of training, since you haven't mentioned the course yet.
  • I've added a mention earlier, with Dubois' letter
  • You mention that Heinlein wrote 13 Scribner's juveniles. The box at the foot of the article lists only twelve. Possibly Podkayne, but that was later and not Scribner's.
  • Hmm. I hadn't counted, I'd just gone off of Gifford; so I've just gone with "several", because saying 12 and citing 13 is dodgy.
  • "His training, both at boot camp and at officer candidate school," I'm minded to say that since you capitalize Officer Candidate School in the plot summary you should do so here, but I can see it either way since a plot summary is a bit different from the rest of the article.
  • Well in my head this was the generic, as with boot camp, but I too can see it both ways..
  • "German soldiers in the First World War." I'd go with "World War I" here since it is the more usual American style.
  • Done.
  • "Heinlein's young protagonists attain manhood by confronting a hostile "wilderness" in space." Very true, but you should make it clear that you're not just talking about Starship Troopers here.
  • Tweaked.
  • "The concept of the American frontier is also related to the coming-of-age theme. Heinlein's young protagonists attain manhood by confronting a hostile "wilderness" in space. Coming-of-age in a military, alien context is a common theme in Heinlein's earlier works as well.[66] Rico's coming of age has also been described as being related to his relationship with his father;" these hyphens can be tricky but the second and third are both nouns. Shouldn't they be hyphenated the same? (or you could replace the "Rico's coming of age" with "Rico's journey to maturity" or similar, which would spare the phrase from too much wear on the tires.
  • I've gone with the hyphens, since I've used journey later in the sentence.
  • "Rico's history teacher" I would spell out History and Moral Philosophy.
  • Done.
  • She went on to argue "Heinlein was absolutely at his peak when he wrote this in 1959. He had so much technical stylistic mastery of the craft of writing science fiction that he could [tell the story "backwards and in high heels"] and get away with it."[18] I don't quite see what you're doing here. First, single bracket words convey to me you're supplying words needed to convey a quote's meaning, this seems to be far more than that and include even a quote (which, in allusion to Hchc's comment below, should properly be in single quotes :)
  • Yeah that's just an unintentional error on my part: [tell the story] is all that should have been in square brackets.
  • "and that only retired veterans could vote or hold office" Is it necessary to say this? It's not contradicted by the critics, and Rico says (the musings after his conversation with Ace about going career) "as long as you were still in uniform you weren't entitled to vote". (p. 127 of my hardcover)
  • You're right, not needed.
  • "There has been disagreement among commentators over whether the "Federal Service" required in the book is service in the military and its support systems, or work in any government service. Though Heinlein himself has stated the latter is true, most analyses of the text have supported the former position.[4]" Isn't this effectively a duplicate of what is stated (likely better) under Allegations of Fascism? I think you should consider merging the two one place or the other (or simply cut this).
  • Fair enough: I've cut it. You're right, it's rather repetitive. I've also moved the remainder of the paragraph up a bit.
Hope to finish later today. Don't take the length of this review as reflective. You've done a fine job here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "with both protagonists initially bent on destroying insect-like aliens" I don't think that's true of Ender who thinks that if he is to fight in the war, it will be many years in the future, meantime Dragon Army needs to win its next battle. I might phrase it in terms of humanity being at war against the insectoids. I'd use "against" rather than "with", considering what develops concerning the Buggers.
  • True. Done.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Many thanks, as always. I've addressed all your comments, I believe. If you have the time, would you mind taking a look at Ealdgyth's source comments below? I got the impression she wanted more eyes on it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Support Very well done on a difficult subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • The url is simply a hosting site. The author is described by the Heinlein society as among the first Heinlein scholars, his work on Heinlein, including this particular analysis, has been cited by other scholarly sources: see [12], [13]. Potentially a little close to the Heinlein society, which is why I have tried to limit its use to cases where it does not seem to be promoting the author.
  • Yeah, same guy. Alexei Panshin. Writer, science fiction critic, influential enough to have been cited frequently, the book in question has 63 citations on google scholar, which is probably under counting a bit. Not sure why those were not sfn citations, though. Fixed that.
  • It's an online news portal for science-related topics, including science fiction; analogous, for instance, to Salon. It's not critical to the article, though, so if you'd rather I removed it, I will do so.
  • It's an interview with Steakley; therefore, for Steakley's own opinion, it's a reliable source. Steakley himself is a Sci-Fi author, whose work is notable enough to have an article; therefore, if he says in an interview that it was directly influenced by Starship Troopers, that seems worth including.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Many thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Support from Hchc2009[edit]

  • Nice work. Some minor points below...
  • Some inconsistency in the use of single and double speechmarks, e.g. "Mico commands a platoon during 'Operation Royalty': a raid to capture members of the Arachnid' 'brain caste' and 'queens'", but "serving with the platoon known as "Rasczak's Roughnecks"."
  • Thanks for pointing this out: I've always been a bit doubtful about quotation styles. I believe I have fixed the inconsistancy.
  • I'd normally expect quotes to be given in-line attribution, which doesn't always happen, e.g. "the discussion of political views is a recurring feature of the "ideologically intense" book" - this doesn't explain who actually said the line. In contrast, see "In a 2009 retrospective, Jo Walton wrote that Starship Troopers was "military SF done extremely well."" Hchc2009 (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I used a quote without the author's name, instead choosing to cite at the end of that sentence fragment, just to break up the style a bit; otherwise, we have a lot of "he said, she said" going on. If you think it's an issue, I can use in-text attribution in this case as well.
  • NB: I'm generally familiar with the literature around this novel, and the account/analysis here seems balanced and complete. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hchc2009: Thanks for the support. I've responded to your points. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments a nice read. Only quibble is para 2 of Reception section. First sentence is redundant - as "controversial/y" is mentioned 3 times in 3 sentences, some of the analysis strikes me at first impression as slightly repetitive but on looking again I can't find any bits specifically repeated so not actionable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

1998 NFC Championship Game[edit]

Nominator(s): Helltopay-27 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Second attempt at a FA nomination, now with a new title, this article is about the championship game in 1998 NFL season to determine the NFC representative for the Super Bowl, a famous game in NFL lore due to the Falcons' upset victory. Helltopay-27 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments (briefly)[edit]

I don't know anything about American football, but this nomination has waited a long time for its first comments, and I hope that these few remarks might kickstart some more general interest.

  • Despite my ignorance I found the article interesting, but I kind of got the impression I was reading a sports page, rather than an encyclopedia article. The essence of the encyclopedia is neutrality in tone; here, in the lead alone, we have an overdose of superlatives: "one of the best conference championship games in NFL history", "the proudest moment in Falcons history", and "devastating" twice in two lines. I'm not saying you should drain all life out of the prose, but care has to be taken not to go into overdrive.
  • There's quite a lot of verbatim quotes in the article, and here again one needs to take care to preserve a semblance of encyclopedic detachment. While some spontaneous reaction is OK, I question the need to include: "You fucked up, Gary! You fucking blew history, Gary!" – particularly as this comment came "years later".
  • Not knowing how football scoring works, I got rather tangled up when reading the match account. I wasn't helped by the frequent switchings of the teams' names – "Falcons" or "Atlanta", "Vikings" or "Minnesota" – and I found it difficult sometimes to relate the given scores to the play I was reading about; in particular I would like to have known what the points score was at the time of Anderson's kick, and also what the points score was at the end of regulation time.
  • Subject to these reservations, I think the article and its accompanying tables are well presented, and although I haven't checked the references in detail, there doesn't appear to be any obvious problem there. I'd be interested to hear what other reviewers have to say. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I've reworded the "best conference championship game" per Cas Liber's suggestion below, and removed the first instance of "devastating." (Also suggested by Cas.) Beyond that, I await more feedback on the issue; Wikipedia allows such superlatives as long as they are sourced, (which these are) and I believe that it properly contextualizes the sentiment of the game among NFL fans/writers. In the instances in the lead, these sentiments are expanded upon with direct sources later in the article.
    • I've removed the specific quote in question, as I agree, it doesn't really add to the article. As for other verbatim quotes, I again await more feedback. I modeled my article off of Heidi Game, a current featured article that uses a similar amount of verbatim quotes, which eliminates some subjectivity by providing the reader with the person's actual words.
    • I've added scores and consistency to the naming conventions. I fear that it may have made the prose clunky, so any feedback in that regard would be appreciated.
    • Much appreciated, thank you. Helltopay-27 (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
    • My plearure. I'll keep watching, to see what others make of it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look..

  • Try "most exciting" rather than "best" in the first sentence of 2nd para as more exact.
  • You use "devastating" twice in last segment of last para of lead. Just remove the first and meaning is preserved as second mention explains "effect" just before.
  • despite tremendous talent --> "despite his talent" explains context adequately
  • had initiated a complete roster overhaul - err, no, if it was then 53 of 53 players would be new. Just say "overhauled the roster"
  • All players should be linked at first instance in body of text and then not again. also use full name on first mention only then just surname (unless there are two of the same name such as Anderson)

Engaging read though and doesn't need too much work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

    • Done.
    • Removed.
    • Revised.
    • Revised.
    • I've edited the article to this guideline within reason; I've shortened "Gary Anderson" to "Anderson" in the paragraphs that established Gary Anderson is the subject. (Without referring to any other Andersons/sens.)Helltopay-27 (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay cool. I can't see any other outstanding prose-clangers, and for mine it strikes a good balance between neutral encyclopedic dryness and enthusiastic effusiveness. A nice read. And looks comprehensive..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Appian Way Productions[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Appian Way Productions founded by the actor-producer Leonardo DiCaprio in ca 2004, the company has produced a diverse slate of films. I tried hard to find about how the company was founded but did not find much to add, but other than that I believe the article is as comprehensive as it gets. Enjoy. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant
  • Is 2016 as recent as the activities of the production house get?
Added a 2017 telefilm.
  • You could say "screened at the 57th Cannes Film Festival", to avoid the repetition of 2004.
  • I believe that Public Enemies, Orphan and Shutter Island will need to be followed by their respective release years.
  • "The company had three releases in 2013, including the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) that was a critical and commercial success." to "The company had three releases in 2013, including the biopic The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), which was a critical and commercial success."
  • "Another highly successful film production followed, the western thriller The Revenant (2015)" - I don't believe this to be the best transition.
  • "assassinate president Richard Nixon in 1974." - US President.
  • Not sure how the mention of Kate Beckinsale being planned adds anything to the article, as she is never really mentioned otherwise.
  • Maybe rephrase the "lacks" bit from the Frank Scheck review to avoid the change of tense.
  • "A few months later, it released The 11th Hour," - "it" might not be the best choice here.
  • "a mob drama from Michael Mann" - from?
I suppose it would have been more clear with "from director Michael" but rephrased anyway.
  • You may want to use "Appian Way Productions" at place of "the company" at a few instances Some paragraph overuse the latter, and this could help.

The rest reads fine, good job. NumerounovedantTalk 18:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Vedant, thanks for the comments - resolved/replied to where necessary. – FrB.TG (talk) 21:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
It's a small yet comprehensive article, well done. i can Support this. NumerounovedantTalk 13:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "it performed modestly at the box-office": I don't know what that means. You could probably just say that it had a domestic box-office of $38 million.
  • "The film received positive reviews; one from Empire, wrote, "Entertaining while you're watching it but, as deceptive as a party's election promises, there's less to it than meets the eye".": That's not a positive review.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I'm not weighing in on comprehensiveness. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Dank - addressed both your comments. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the first article about a pterosaur (or "pterodactyl") to ever be nominated for FAC, the group is often overshadowed by dinosaurs (or incorrectly assumed to be dinosaurs), so this article can hopefully serve as an example of how such an article can be written (modelled on the structure of dinosaur articles). I picked this particular genus due to the, for pterosaur standards, not too confusing literature, and the many nice, free available images, it is also an interesting animal in its own right, as it may have been an inland scavenger, whereas pterosaurs have traditionally been considered fish-eaters. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from N Oneemuss[edit]

I've never reviewed an article before, so if you disagree with my comments then you're probably right :). Also, I am a layman when it comes to palaentology, but I do agree that it would be nice to promote a pterosaur to featured article.

  • I don't think England needs to be linked in the lead (and if it should, then China probably should be too)
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Naso-antorbital" in the lead should probably be defined (I can't find an article to link it to, unfortunately)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is "razor-edged" in quotation marks? If it is a quote, where is it from?
Because it is kind of a subjective description, it has also been described in other ways (listed in the description section), but I just picked the most descriptive one. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Family and should be linked to its taxonomic meaning if genus is. Is "group" a scientific term too?
Linked family, group is just informal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The reference to a "cookie cutter" seems quite informal to me
Yep, but it has been described like this by several writers, so it is an established way of describing it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is this article in British or American English? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "cookie cutter" seems American ("biscuit cutter" would be British), but your spelling of "palaeontology" is British
British. Most of the sources are by British scientists too, and they say "cookie cutter". FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Some references are out of order (not just in this section), e.g. "The hindlimbs were short compared to the forelimbs, and the feet were as long as the small third finger.[2][1][4]"
Yeah, not sure if they're required to be in order, though, I've not been told to do so before. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't find anything that says they have to be in order either, so I think it can stay as is N Oneemuss (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "a quite large pterosaur" sounds a bit odd to me; how about "quite a large pterosaur"?
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The first and last sentences of the first paragraph (and the first of the second paragraph) are very similar to sentences in the lead. I don't know enough about the Featured Article Criteria to know if this is a problem, but I would certainly change the very first sentence (which is copied almost word-for-word)
Shouldn't be an issue with the FAC criteria, it is just the most concise way to say it, and can't really be further condensed in the intro (though "quite" is gone). FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is "rediscovered" in quote marks? Also, the term suggests that there is more of a story behind this, which could be worth adding (perhaps as a note)
This was added by the copy-editor. I have changed it to the original version, the story is elaborated further in the history section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Pycnofibres is a redirect to pterosaur, so I think a definition in the article would be more useful
It redirects to the specific section about these structures, though, which makes it easier for the readers to find it. Also, it can't really be defined much further than "hairlike fibres", which is pretty much what the article already says. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Giving inches to two decimal places seems excessive (how about "0.2–0.3 in"?)
That's how the conversion template does it, not sure what parameters to add, but I wouldn't mind changing it if I did. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This works: 6–7 millimetres (0.2–0.3 in) N Oneemuss (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, added! FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe mention what language "odontoid" means "pseudo-tooth" in
The sources don't say what it directly translates as, and I don't even think it means pseudotooth, that's just an alternate term. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why "percent" is spelled out in the first paragraph and given as a symbol in the last?
Spelled out both times now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • All in all, this section seems very technical, but I suppose that is unavoidable with this sort of article
Yeah, with no external features known, most prehistoric animals can only be described from their skeletal features, and such descriptions are pretty technical by default. But it is much simplified from the sources anyhow, and many details most readers wouldn't understand are left out. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
History of discovery[edit]
  • Again, there are some out-of-order references in this section (e.g. after the second sentence)
  • I think palaeontologist and geologist need links
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "subsequently suggested" – do we know when?
Same year, added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how useful the mention of the Natural History Museum's previous name is, especially given as an abbreviation
That's how these specimens were referred to in the literature until it was changed relatively recently, so it is important to note, in case readers want to check out the given sources. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Why not, done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The link for Atherfield suggests that it is called Little Atherfield – do you know if this was different at the time?
Changed to Atherfield Ledge, which I think is the relevant one. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "sacra" could use a link or definition (or both)
Linked. It is already explained earlier (when synsacrum is mentioned). FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
That link goes to a disambiguation page; the link should be sacrum instead N Oneemuss (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • A couple of words explaining who Lyddeker was could be nice (same with Jenny A. Clack a bit later)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've read the first two paragraphs of this section so far. EDIT: Am now back to reviewing.
  • Seeing as the previous mentions were all specific to the Early Cretaceous, Cretaceous could be linked here
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ischium should be linked too, I think
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what "three-dimensionally preserved" means? How can something not be preserved in 3D?
Yes, most pterosaur fossils are squashed flat, compression fossils. Added a note. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, it might be useful to briefly note who Williston is
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Who is Bennett? (I assume that he isn't any of the people on the disambiguation page Chris Bennett)
Comment He doesn't have a Wikipedia page. [14] Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It might be useful to say "the palaeontologist Chris Bennett" (or something along those lines) N Oneemuss (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Presented. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think there's a mistake with the italics in "O." latidens (ignore if this is deliberate)
The quotation marks are to show that the genus and species do not belong together. Not sure if that's what you mean. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • More information about the additional finds on the Isle of Wight could be useful (e.g. a date)
Added a bit, but not much to find. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "the species name refers to the country" I think this needs clarifying, because the link between sinensis and China isn't immediately obvious
Changed the note, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I had to read this sentence three times to properly understand it: "They found the holotype specimen, a partial skeleton, very similar to I. latidens, though it was much smaller, with a wingspan of 2.7 metres (8.9 ft), and more teeth." The use of commas makes it hard to see that they found two things: the holotype specimen (which was the partial skeleton), and teeth. I think splitting this into two sentence could be useful (e.g. "They found the holotype specimen, as well as more teeth. The specimen was a partial skeleton, very similar...")
I shook the text around and shortened the sentence, better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Who is Jun-Chang (again, I think just calling him a "Chinese palaeontologist" or something similar could be useful)?
Comment He has a Polish page. The last name is Lü. IMO his name should still be included, because there are many, many Chinese pterosaur researchers. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
So many different Chinese studies are mentioned that it is good to be able to distinguish them somehow. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the use of "figured" in the last paragraph; it seems to be quite an unusual meaning of the word, so maybe something like "represented in a diagram" would be better. Also, that sentence could be recast into active voice
It is very common (if not the standard) in scientific literature ("fig. 1", etc.), but reworded anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think "schools" needs to be in quotes; it's a common use of the term
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Clade should probably be linked, as should taxa (and also maybe age, though that article is a bit useless)
Done, short articles may expand in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't know much about cladograms, but why is Pterodactylus there? It is only distantly related to the article subject, and appears only once in the article
Comment Pterodactylus is an outgroup taxon that provides phylogenetic context; it represents the sister group of the other species present in the cladogram. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Added a brief note with a link to outgroup. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "herons, storks and skimmers" – this may be too obvious, but it might be worth mentioning that they are all birds
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is "mosaic" a technical term here? It sounds strange and out of place to me
Comment Cf. mosaic evolution. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "rostrum" could use a link
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Two sentences in a row start with "scavenging birds" (how about starting the second one with "they"?)
I said "these birds", to still make it clear what we are talking about. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The link to "aspect ratio" seems unhelpful; it's about geometry, so a definition or a different link is needed
Changed to Aspect ratio (aeronautics). FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Soaring birds is a redirect to a list with only two sentences of explanation; maybe a definition could be more helpful
Hmmm, it is just birds that soar, added that such rarely flap their wings. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The reference to Nurhachius confused me, seeing as it was mentioned only much earlier in the article. Also, I'm not certain of its relevance here (is this to do with the fact that this is another name for I. sinensis, or what?)
Witton mentions it to make inferences about istiodactylids in general. Added "istiodactylid" in front of the name, if it helps. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The wings of istiodactylids...the wings of istiodactylids...the wing shape of istiodactylids" – repetitive paragraph
Changed the middle occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Linked. I think hands and feet are meant, but it isn't clarified in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If there had been suggestions about the feet being used for "climbing or suspension", then I think this could be mentioned elsewehere in the article (instead of just with reference to Witton's work)
The feet aren't known for this genus, so I'm not actually sure what Witton is referring to (perhaps inferred from some other istiodactylids). None of the other sources about this genus mention it. I know it has been proposed for pterosaurs in general, but it is hard to say what Witton meant. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I was meaning to look at this section later, but I just noted that "degrees" is mentioned on its own; I think it needs a unit (presumably Celsius) and a conversion
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I might be wrong, but is it necessary to mention that the first specimen might have been collected from the Wessex Formation? Seeing as there are two options, then the statement is obviously true (and the evidence seems weak). Also, is this from the source, or your guess?
Guesses by editors are not allowed, that would be WP:OR. But the exact circumstances and location where the holotype specimen was collected is unknown, since other specimens are known from both Wessex and Vectis, either option is possible. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The link to radius in the caption is about maths
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence about Hooley's specimens switches tenses, which seems a bit ugly; are the specimens still encrusted in pyrite?
The sources are not entirely clear, but it seems they are still coated in pyrite. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Done, didn't know there was an article with that exact title, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "crocodilians" could be linked to Crocodilia (to be honest, it should probably be a redirect anyway)
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ignore this if I'm wrong (which is likely), but I'm not sure about how useful this section's second paragraph is. It is as if an article about walruses listed twenty animals and plants that live in the same environment as they do. Also, why is the entire second paragraph about the Wessex Formation (surely there is information from other sites, like the Vectis Formation, where members of the genus have been found)? If this is standard for palaeontology articles, then ignore me.
Comment Listing fauna is standard for palaeontology articles. The Vectis Formation, however, is quite understudied; I tried to locate some adequate sources on the Vectis to help with this article's GAN, with no luck. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Such sections are good to put the animals into context. With articles about living animals, we know which other species they interact with and can write about such interactions, but here, we need to reconstruct everything descriptively. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Overall, this article seems very good to me so far, as a first-time reviewer, I don't really feel qualified to support or oppose, but I think that all of my comments are fairly minor. Again, feel free to use your judgement and ignore comments that you don't agree with. More to follow (within the next few hours).N Oneemuss (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, layman reviews are always more than welcome! Most readers will be laymen anyway. I'll start fixing issues later. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I've read through the whole thing now, and I must say that you have done an excellent job on this article. None of my issues are particularly important, to be honest.N Oneemuss (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright, everything should be addressed now (I think). Thanks for the thorough review! FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome! I have read through the article again, and I have only found a few more issues:
  • sacra in "history of discovery" links to a disambiguation page (I mentioned this above)
Linked to sacrum. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, why is (Seeley, 1901) in brackets in one place, but "Andres & Qiang, 2006" isn't in brackets?
Because though Seeley named the species, the current genus/species combination is not the same as the one he coined. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "agesof" appears as one word in the second paragraph of the "classification" section
Added space. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Near the end of the "classification" section, subfamily could use a link
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Once these are addressed, I think I will support this article. N Oneemuss (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I think all are addressed now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, well done for the good work on this article. It has my support. N Oneemuss (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I think you should have no problem reviewing other articles after this! FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I reviewed this at GAN and the prose has improved since then. Nice work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, luckily it didn't take long for a "layman" review this time around. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Support by Jens Lallensack[edit]

  • wingspan ranging from 4.3 to 5 metres (14 to 16 ft) long. – Not sure if you need the "long" here, as the word "span" already implies a length measure. But I'm not sure.
Not sure either, but makes sense. But to be sure, pinging Casliber and Sabine's Sunbird, as they might know the norm in bird literature. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
You might say "wingspan of 4.3 to 5 metres (14 to 16 ft)" or the above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, ok, I think I will retain the current wording, just to make it as clear as possible. But I have no problem with changing it on further objections. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, good to know that both wordings are possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure, but you perhaps should consider replacing "nostril" with "external naris". "Nostril" is misleading, as it refers to the soft-part anatomy of the nose, which is not preserved.
Stafford/Howse/Milner 2001 actually say "skull elongate but with short shout regon anterior to the nostrils" in their diagnosis. So I'm thinking the terms can actually be used synonymously? I have also seen the term "bony nostril" used in various places, including the 2001 Witmer nostril paper.[15] FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
You are right, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In the classification section: Maybe it would be easier for the reader if Istiodactylidae gets properly introduced (I know, there is already a sentence in the History of Discovery section). Do I understood it correctly that in both Unwin and Kellner classifications Istiodactylidae contains exclusively Istiodactylus itself?
At that time (2003), only Istiodactylus itself was known (as the sole member of the family, stated in history). Should I give dates for when the others were recognised? FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about adding a sentence like In 2001, Howse, Milner, and Martill placed the genus in its own family, Istiodactylidae. Just to make this section complete, and to improve on the information flow. Of course, this would be a redundancy. Just an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I added a brief note that the group was monotypic by 2003, is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (the first three species listed are outgroup or reference taxa) – I count five listed outgroup taxa.
I think the two others (Hongshanopterus, Haopterus) are there because they have previously been thought to be istiodactylids. Witton says "Pterodactylus, Coloborhynchus and Pteranodon were used as outgroup taxa", he also says "... suggests Istiodactylidae is constrained to five species (Liaoxipterus brachyognathus, Lonchengpterus zhoai, Nurhachius ignaciobritoi, Istiodactylus latidens and Istiodactylus sinensis) defined by their distinctive dentition, but excludes the putative istiodactylids Haopterus gracilis and Hongshanopterus lacustris." So he wanted to test their placement relative to istiodactylids. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Alright, never mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph in the classification section, especially the second sentence, is hard to read and understand, and could be a lot clearer.
Switched some things around, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Better, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Apart from the istiodactylids from China (the first known perhaps being Haopterus) – this might confuse some readers, as Haopterus is shown outside Istiodactylidae in the cladogram. What about adding a sentence listing the genera with are sometimes, but not always, included in the group?
Took it out of the parenthesis, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I will get to the rest tomorrow, as time allows! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have fixed some things and added some responses above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Two fossils from North America initially thought to have been istiodactylids are now believed to have been misidentified (Gwawinapterus is most likely a fish, for example). – When there are only two fossils, I would just mention both of them instead of chosing one as an example. What is the second anyway? I had a quick look at Witton (2013) but could not find it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Witton mentions it on page 145, it is a reference to this Bakker paper:[16] But I can see Bakker only compared it to Istiodactylus, so I have rewritten it accordingly... FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • trying to hide or to attack them with precision. – Are you refering to Mobbing (animal behavior) here? This could do well with a bit of additional info. And what about removing "with precision" here? Why is it important that the attac comes "with precision"? Just attac would be enough?
It is meant in a predatory sense. Witton says "Their orbits are also relatively small as, unlike predatory birds, they do not have to search for animals attempting to remain undetected nor carefully judge attacks on prey items", which I tried to simplify... But I have now reworded it, better? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Based on his long-jawed reconstruction, Hooley found the beak of Istiodactylus similar to … – I would add the year of Hooley's study here. I know, it is mentioned in other sections, but the reader does not know that this is referring to one and the same study (and will have forgotten the date already anyway). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • To sum up, a really great article, and I wasn't able to find any issues appart from these very minor quibbles. Great to see a pterosaur at FAC, finally. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, made some fixes. And by the way, no problem with delays, I was busy with planning a friend's Polterabend the last many days anyway... By the way, while searching for the Bakker paper mentioned above, I found this blog-post by Mark Witton[17] which explains some details not mentioned in his paper or book... So I might want to add it after I read it more thoroughly... FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes – I want to support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
And thanks again for the professional opinion! FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Image check: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the second studio album by Romanian singer Alexandra Stan, it was released following an alleged physical altercation with her former manager Marcel Prodan, thus lyrically delving on themes such as freedom, liberation and rediscovery. Commercially, Unlocked experienced success on Japanese charts.

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments from Aoba47
  • I would suggest splitting the second paragraph of the "Promotion and commercial performance" section as it is rather long. Maybe doing a new paragraph starting with the information on the fourth single?
  • I would suggest renaming the "Reception and composition" section to the "Composition and reception" section as the information on the album's composition comes before the information on the album's critical reception.
  • Do you think an audio sample in the "Composition and reception" section would be beneficial for the reader?

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Good luck with getting this promoted this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I done all your suggestions. Thank you VERY much for your time. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. You have done wonderful work with this, and I am happy that you kept working on this article and put it back up for FAC. I will support this nomination. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Marjorie Cameron[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This GA-rated article is about an American artist, actor, and occultist who was active in and around California in the period of the Beat Generation and the subsequent 60s counterculture. Cameron was a follower of the British occultist Aleister Crowley, the wife of the rocket scientist Jack Parsons, and a good friend of underground film-maker Kenneth Anger, she was involved in an array of sex magic rituals, experimented widely with hallucinogenic drugs, and made a wide range of apocalyptic predictions involving UFOs, comets, and Mexico conquering the US. The article is not particularly long but is (IMO) about a very interesting character, so if it tickles your fancy, please do give it a read and offer some comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

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

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

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

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

Comments from Hmlarson[edit]

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

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

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

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

Comments from JM[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've uploaded File:Marjorie Cameron in Night Tide.jpg and File:Marjorie Cameron in Night Tide (cropped).jpg, in case that's a shot you'd be happy to use. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... the quality of the image is pretty low. Most of the face is shrouded in dark and it is difficult to identify her. To be honest, I do not think that it would be of the appropriate quality for the visual identification of the individual, as is required for the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There's the possibility of another screen capture. I strongly suspect that this image is in the public domain, as I suspect that it was published as a publicity photo without a copyright notice. It'd be hard to prove, though. By the way, there are some valuable-looking sources listed here; in particular, this article by Peter Lunenfeld was in Artforum; perhaps a nice way to expand on coverage of Cameron's work in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

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

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

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

Final Destination 3[edit]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Final Destination 3, the third installment in the popular horror movie franchise. Released in 2006, it sees James Wong and Glen Morgan return as writers after having been absent during the second movie. Interestingly, unlike its predecessor, which was a direct sequel to the first film, FD3 was always intenteded to be a stand-alone sequel, the film focuses on Wendy Christensen as the film's visionary, played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Having foreseen the derailment of the Devil's Flight roller coaster, she manages to save some of her friends and realzes the pictures she took during the fair contain clues about their impending doom. (They never learn do they?)

I got the article to GA-status back in March and had it copyedited in April, since then I've made a few changed / additions and fixed all of the references, ensuring that there are no duplicates and all of them contain their archive links; among other things. After all of that work I believe the article has finally reached the point where it meets the FA criteria. I look forward to people's feedback on further improving the article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments from Aoba47
  • @PanagiotisZois: Just wanted to let you know that you are only allowed to have one FAC open at a time. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: But Aoba, I only have one FAC open xD. OK, I wasn't aware of this rule. I'll make sure to remember it for the future. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your note. When I posted my comment, your Boogeyman 2 FAC was still open so that is why I put this up. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments from Bluesphere[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Vedant[edit]

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

Comments from JM[edit]

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

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

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

@J Milburn: OK, I believe I've implemented or at least responded to all of your comments. And thank you for copy-editing the article, that was very helpful. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
@J Milburn: I have a proposition to make. I got both PDFs and they're working just fine. Thank you very much for both of them. I'm sure they'll be very useful with the "Analysis" section, the thing however is, it's going to take some time to read through both of them and write about them in the section. In a few days I'm going off on vacation and won't have WiFi around. And I'd rather not half-ass an analysis paragraph just for the sake of getting a support with this nomination, for this reason, I suggest to either leave the section as it is or remove it until I am able to write a better one. PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it's great that you're ready to spend the time to get it right. Perhaps the delegates would be willing to hold off on closing this nomination for a few weeks? I personally don't see the harm in pausing reviews like this for a time (I do it often with GA reviews). I would offer to do it myself, but I'm currently preparing for a move, next week is a complete write-off for me, and I'm not yet sure what the week after will look like! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

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

The Getaway (1972 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bluesphere 05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is The Getaway, a crime movie which is about two lovers (and ruthless outlaws) on the run; a classic film! I am nominating this for the FA status because, having just passed the GA status fairly recently and copy edited from one of the experts at GOCE, I believe the article is now comprehensive, complete, free from grammar issues, and what I believe should be an interesting read for people who are curious to know about the movie. This is my first FA nomination so hopefully everything goes well. Any comments from regulars here will truly be appreciated, so have at it! Bluesphere 05:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am not certain if the screenshot in the "Critical reception" subsection is really that necessary. Only one reviewer made note of this scene so using an image that emphasize it may qualify as giving that review undue weight in comparison to the others in the same subsection. Also, the reviewer that discussed the scene seems to have referenced it more as a part of a joke than actual commentary/criticism. Fixed
  • In the same subsection, you start off with "During its premiere, The Getaway got a negative reception from critics", but the second paragraph contains positive reviews of the film. Would it be more fair to say that it received a "mixed" reception, or are you trying to say that the film received more positive attention during retrospective reviews? This needs to be clarified. Fixed
  • I am not certain about the placement of the images in the "Cast" section as it awkwardly cuts between multiple sections. Maybe it would be better to relocate this to the "Development" subsection or the "Casting" subsection instead. Fixed
  • When you include the name of another film (i.e. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Last Picture Show, Junior Bonner, What's Up, Doc?, etc.), make sure to include the year in which it was released. A majority of these titles appear in the "Development" subsection and the "Casting" subsection. Fixed
  • Please specify what you mean by "$30,000 ($171,800 today)". I am assuming you are talking about the adjustments according to inflation, but this should be specified. Fixed

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for responding to this nomination early. I believe I've addressed these concerns you raised. How do you reckon it looks now? Bluesphere 10:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Great work with the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Freikorp[edit]

  • "During production, McQueen and MacGraw began an affair." I think you should merge this with the following sentence for better reading flow. I.e "began an affair, and McQueen and Peckinpah were involved ..."
  • Done
  • The third paragraph of the lead is too short. Perhaps a specific review quote from a notable reviewer could be mentioned here. You should definitely mention that it was the second highest grossing film of the year, as a gross of $36 million in itself does not convey to the reader overwhelming success by today's standards. A brief mention of the reception of the remake would also be of interest.
  • Done
  • The terms 'minions' and 'thugs' in the plot strike me as a bit colloquial, but I won't oppose over this.
  • I changed 'minions' to 'henchmen'
  • 'Shifty' seems like a redundant way to describe a con man.
  • Removed
  • I've never seen references for the cast section in a featured article. I don't think it's necessary. Having the same reference used for each person is a bit of an eyesore to be honest.
  • Removed
  • Can you give a time frame for Steve McQueen being encouraging by his publicist to become a film producer?
  • Added
  • "He was recently separated and free" she said, "and I was scared of my overwhelming attraction to him." - Can you indicate when MacGraw made this statement? Same issue with "I looked at what I had done in it..." and "The director recalled one such incident". When did he recall it?
  • No time frame indicated from where I got that first MacGraw quote. But the others I was able to find.
  • I'm guessing you couldn't find any information on the film's budget? Such information would be very interesting to know.
  • I've added it in the infobox
  • "It grossed $36,734,619 in the US alone." This statement raises questions of where else the film was released. Was it released worldwide? Can you find any indication at all of its success internationally?
  • I think this was released exclusively in the US. I can't find reports that this was released in other territories.
  • Can you find any coverage of the reception of the home media releases or any special features these releases contained?
  • Added
  • "Baldwin has later referred to it as a "bomb"." Specifying what year he referred to it as such would be better than saying 'has later'.
  • Added

Well done overall, it shouldn't take too much effort before I am able to support this. Freikorp (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks good. Supporting. Freikorp (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Panagiotis Zois[edit]

Lead section
  • Maybe you could add that while the initial reviews were negative, contemporary ones have been more positive.
  • Added
  • Saying "in prison in Texas" doesn't sound that good. Could you replace it with an alternative like "in a Texas prison".
  • Fixed
  • Did Rudy and the veterinarian's wife have sex consentually or did he rape her?
  • Consensual (and adulterous)
  • Is "screaming Fran" really necessary?
  • Removed
  • Reepeating the word "or" twice in close proximity to one another. Write instead "with Angie Dickson and Dyan Cannon as".
  • Fixed
  • "Peckinpah got along famously with Bright and cast him as the train station con man instead" also needs to be rewritten. Maybe something along the lines of "Due to his friendship with Bright, Peckinpah cast him as the con man."
  • Fixed
  • This might just be my opinion but "its bland and equally contrived retreading of the original" feels kind of unprofessional. Could you rewrite it somehow?
  • Rewrote
*One thing I noticed, the way the "Plot" section begins. Does the film offer any more info on who Carter is and why he's in prison? PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • PanagiotisZois, the movie does not provide a backstory on who Doc is other than a robber, which I already mention in the lead. However, I've added in the plot that he is sentenced 10 years for armed robbery. Bluesphere 03:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, now that my comments have been adressed I can support this article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[edit]

  • Reference 1 has no access date. Not an issue, really, because it seems the AFI film template isn't compatible with the |accessdate= value. I'm not all that familiar with movie pages: is it usual to have the AFI film template instead of a simple cite web one?
  • There were two references – 39 and 40 – which had no archiveURL's; I sorted this out myself.
  • I've gone through each and every reference, and everything on the article is attributable to its cited source. All the sources seem reliable, and consistent formatting is used throughout.
  • Also, no copyright violation to be found: Earwig's tool flagged the movie's IMBD bio page for possible copyvio, but those are represented in the article as direct quotations, so no problem there.
Source review passed Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:The Getaway 1972 poster.jpg: License and use seem fine for me, has the edit war been settled?
  • File:Sam Peckinpah.JPG: Use seems fine for me, license probably as well. Imma note that the fact that it's derived from another file should probably be marked with the dedicated "extracted" template, rather than to use the "source" parameter.
  • File:Steve McQueen 1959.jpg: License and use seem fine for me. Imma note that the fact that it's derived from another file should probably be marked with the dedicated "extracted" template, rather than to use the "source" parameter.
  • File:Ali MacGraw - 1972.jpg: Use seems fine for me, license probably as well.

All images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Jo-Jo Eumerus, I've added the extracted template where it's appropriate; and yea I believe the edit war in the poster had simmered down, considering the fact that that was two months ago. :) Bluesphere 04:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an ancient city in modern Syria named Qatna which, for a period of 400 years, was in control of half of Syria, the city's palace and royal grave presented us with magnificent artifacts that shed light on the extensive human contact in 1600 BC as they included pieces made with materials imported from as far as modern Sweden.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Brief comments: I hope that I can kickstart this review and get other reviewers interested in providing more detailed comments, because it is, in my view, an important and interesting article, well worth the time. These opening, minor points relate to the lead which is the only part of the text I've read in detail:

  • "By the 15th century BC, Qatna lost its hegemony and came under the authority of Mitanni, then changing hands between the former and Egypt until being conquered by the Hittites in the 14th century BC" – this reads rather clumsily and needs rewriting for grammar and clarity, probably as two sentences.
  • "Following its destruction, the city was abandoned." You've said that the Hittites "conquered" it, but not that they "destroyed" it. Did they? I see references to subsequent destructions and re-occupations, which suggests numerous rebuilds, though these are not mentioned. A little clarification would help.
  • "The artifacts of Qatna show high-quality workmanship, while its religion was complex and based on many cults in which ancestor worship played an important role." What follows "while" is a non-sequitur, having nothing to do with the earlier statement, so the serntence needs reconsideration.

I hope to return later – I'm certainly looking forward to reading more of this fascinating history. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I edited the lede, hope it looks good now.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the non-lead maps
  • Region map should still be scaled up. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Is it okay now ?
  • File:Qatna's_landmarks.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Same with File:Third_Mari.png
  • File:Qatna_chronology.jpg: why have this as an image rather than a table?
  • File:Sitting_god_Qatna_Louvre_AO3992.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work. Same with File:Louvres-antiquites-moyen-orient-p1020197.jpg, File:Antakya_Arkeoloji_Muzesi_1250344_nevit.jpg, File:Sphinx_dedicated_to_Ita_daugther_of_Amenemhat_II-AO_13075-IMG_1030-white.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I will work on your comments asap. Note:File:Qatna's_landmarks.png already have a source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, File:Qatna_chronology.jpg is more suitable. A table will take more space and increase the size of the article. About the other pictures, Is it okay now?--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Hi, I'll soon review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • At first glance "Known kings of Qatna are:" could need a citation.
  • You should provide conversions for all measurements.
  • " at least 80 rooms", "at least twenty rooms". Be consistent in whether you write numbers with letters or not.
  • "5 meters" Be consistent in whether you say m or meters.
  • "and remains of both sexes and different ages" I would add "people" or "bodies" somewhere in the sentence.
  • "reaching 18 m tall and 60 to 90 m wide" I would say "in height" and "in width".
  • "Investigations of Qatna's fortifications were not carried hindering the" Carried out?
Done. Thanks for those comments, waiting for more.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "perhaps the center of a king of prince" Or?
  • "that was used for ideological reasons as it was meant to echo Gilgamesh's deeds" Interesting, how is this known?
Yahdun-Lim ordered the details of his journey to be inscribed on bricks from the temple of Shamash. The language is very propagandistic and reminds the reader of gilgamesh's deeds as he also went to Lebanon (cedar mountains)...etc. This made scholars notice that Yahdun was actually comparing himself to gilgamesh just like other monarchs tried to compare themselves to Sargon of Akkad by crossing the Euphrates. You can read the inscription here if you are interested
  • "son Yasmah-Adad to lead them leadership" Seems something is wrong here.
  • "but Mari sources are silent" Mariote?
  • "for his relations which Mari were never hostile." Since/because/as instead of for?
  • "Mari, who was at war with Eshnunna" Which was at war? "Who" would indicate a person.
  • "participation of Yamhad, who was hegemonic" Which was.
Done. FunkMonk, what does she mean with scaling ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
That you should make the thumbnail image larger. See for example the first image on the left at Mascarene grey parakeet, it is so that small details will be more visible without readers having to click the image. FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Qatna still controlled the Lebanon Mountains 80 km from" Conversion still needed. Maybe there are others.
  • "Ḏj3wny" is 3 supposed to be there?
Its the Egyptian Aleph
  • "In the mid-19th century, a modern village was built within the ancient sit" What is the name of the original and resettled village?
Both Al-Mushrifah
I see it mentioned in the article once, but not linked. I also think it could be mentioned again all the way down in the "following periods" sections, I at least forgot the name had been mentioned when I reached that part. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No damage during then current war?
  • "and a secondary burial that was intended to transform the deceased into his ultimate form" Their? Or were only men interred this way?
  • "According to Pfälzner, a final burial stage can be noticed, which he calls the quaternary burial; tomb VII, which most probably contained remains taken out of the royal hypogeum,[20] seems to have worked as a storage for the remains of individuals whose Kispu cycle came to an end;[21] very few bowls were found in that tomb.[20]" This sentence is very long and could be broken in two.
Done. Thankfully, the city remained in the hands of the army, and no "freedom fighter" was able to loot it.
  • "used the sexagesimal system" I would say "numeral system" for clarity.
  • "Elephants, which lived in western Syria" Perhaps link Syrian elephant?
  • Photos of wall paintings might be in the public domain because they are two dimensional, perhaps worth looking if some can be found (then we can evaluate whether they are PD).
I tried in vain....... It was so frustrating but couldnt find any.
  • "were 9 m wide" Needs conversion.
  • "value was 470 g" Of what?
Hmmm just grams. Like one kilo is a 1000 grams. one mina is 470 grams
  • "which reduced it to a small village that eventually disappeared in the 6th century BC." No village is specifically mentioned in the article body (apart from the modern one), perhaps add the word to the relevant place? Which would be near "The site continued to be inhabited during the Iron Age III following the Assyrian destruction".
  • "the Syrian Desert towards the fertile Homs Basin." Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.
  • "This area was 5.5 x 3 meters in size" Needs conversion.
  • Support - everything nicely addressed, another great article that may help the world see Syria in a different light. --FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot :) .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, ancestor (singular) worship was correct![18] FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look...comments below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

and its impressive remains suggest... - I'd say "extensive" remains as neutral.
suggesting an abandonment of three centuries --> "suggesting it was uninhabited for three centuries"
..which was hegemonic over both Mari and Carchemish - why not just say, "which ruled over both Mari and Carchemish"?
Research done after 1999 excluded du Mesnil du Buisson's hypothesis - we'd more likely say, "Research done after 1999 ruled out (or disproved) du Mesnil du Buisson's hypothesis "
I'd link hypogeum - is it the correct target?

NB: I made these changes to help the prose flow more naturally. I hope they are satisfactory.

All in all, a nice read, and comprehensive. Just a few minor issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. I made the changes, as for the hegemony, Yamhad did not rule Mari or Carchemish, it was merely an influence similar to the one Russia have over, lets say, Belarus. So saying it ruled over them would be inaccurate.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
That is a fair point. If no simpler word can convey the exact meaning then it cannot be substituted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done, as always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Cordani 2011 has a bad isbn number.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows some serious issues that need to be addressed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ealdgyth. The ISBN is taken from the website of the publisher, its the only ISBN See here. As for the Earwig's tool, its certainly mistaken. For example, It says that there is 85% chance of a violation for this source However, I pressed compare and no sentence from Qatna is identical to the source at all !!!!! See here. This tool is detecting the source's editor name who is also the head of the archaeologist team in the city and its normal for his name to be mentioned a lot in the article. Its also detecting words like "bronze age" !! but Qatna flourished in the Bronze age and its normal that the bronze age will be mentioned. The tool is also showing the full titles of sources listed in the sources section of the article as copyvio because they match the titles in the content section of the original sources !!!!!! I cant change the title of an article so it wont match the original title !!! Thats a not very reliable tool to be honest

The results of Earwig's tool should be neglected. They are false and I cant address them cause they are false. Any editor is welcome to do a manual check. I have provided links to all the sources with pages numbers and its very easy to compare sentences from the article with the original sources.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

As for the ISBN, it's logged wrong in WorldCat, that's all I know. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Its not just sentences that need to be paraphrased. Phrases are a concern too. We have to avoid too close paraphrasing, and while, yes, we can ignore names and titles of works, we need to be concerned with phrasing such as "the scarcity of written sources" "is based on the assumption that" "amber was imported from the Baltic region, while carnelian and lapis-lazuli" "to participate in rituals for". It's not a big crisis, but it does need some work to alleviate the highlighted phrases so they aren't so close. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I cant provide another ISBN since the publisher do not provide another one and I hope worldcat will fix their mistake. As for that tool, its hilighting the sentnce "is based on the assumption that" as being a copyvio of the 2007 source (the allegedly 85% chance of violation source). But, this sentence in the article is citated by a totally different source from 2012 ! After all, there is only one english language and some sentences are not paraphrased, even if a scholar decided to use a similar sentence in his article which is not being used in Qatna's article. Another example is the sentence: the Royal Palace of Qatna... I cant change that, its the name of the palace. I will fix the sentences you higlighted and try to see if there are other sentences of that nature, but that tool is really not the smartest.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ealdgyth, can you take a look now ? I changed all the sentences highlighted. However, some are general sentnces every one use, and some like "Late Bronze Age", "The royal palace"...etc cant be changed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Fort Vancouver Centennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the rarer half dollars in the series, which was authorized almost by chance. It did give another opportunity for the only woman to design more than one classic commemorative coin, Laura Gardin Fraser, the first woman to design a coin (some years earlier) to display her skill. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Usually when I get to your articles a bunch of folks have been by, but this is looking a little lonely. Taking a squiz now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The coin was designed by Laura Gardin Fraser, and on its obverse depicts Dr. John McLoughlin, who was in charge of Fort Vancouver (near present-day Vancouver, Washington) from its construction in 1825 until 1846. - sentence is a bit long and has a run-on "and" it'd be good to eliminate if possible.
The coins sell for at least in the hundreds of dollars today, depending on condition - aayyy, the "for at least in" sounds a bit weird to mine ears. I know what you're trying to say though and should be an easy tweak...
link "Great Plains"
He and Senator Wesley Jones, also of Washington state, in May 1924 introduced legislation in their houses of Congress for a half dollar commemorating the centennial of Fort Vancouver. - the "in May 1924" sounds odd where it is - I think it'd flow better after either "legislation" or "Congress"
Johnson realized that such a simple amendment might not result in a coin being issued, and returned to the House floor soon thereafter, asking that the bill be reconsidered, so he could couch his amendment in the same phrasing as for the other two coins. - long sentence. recommend splitting
link quorum
Only 50,000 of the authorized mintage of 300,000 was coined "were coined"?

Looks fine otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've got those things, though you may want to take a second look at the one ending the lede as I wasn't thrilled by what I came up with. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Right, what I would do is, "The coins can sell for hundreds of dollars, depending on condition"

In any case, looks alright so support on prose and comprehensiveness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That might imply to some that they can sell for less, though. I'll keep working on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "what became the Oregon Territory": That's my language. You know more about it than I do, but I'm not sure if we can call it that before 1846. Oregon Country may be an option you prefer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm trying to ground the reader in something more familiar. I don't say when it became the Oregon Territory, so it's what happened to it later. Oregon Country is unnecessarily vague. --Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Having reviewed our coverage, I think "Oregon Country" will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Looks good.
Thank you for the review and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Moise[edit]

Hi Wehwalt. Just working my way through this article, which seems very interesting! One comment so far:

  • The lead mentions that Fort Vancouver is near Vancouver, Washington, but I didn't spot any explicit mention of that in the article (although Vancouver, Washington is discussed a couple of times without anything about it being close to the fort). Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Moishe. Thanks. I've made that clearer and sourced it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Three more comments:

  • Lead: "Due to the low number of surviving pieces, the coins are valuable today." Is this definitely stated clearly enough in the body of the article? It says they were scarce in 1925, then lists a bunch of values until the present, then that today they are worth between $300 and $975. I presume from the context that this is possibly a high price range compared with other fifty-cent pieces, but someone else might presume that such prices aren't unusual for old coins.
Something worth several hundred dollars is, I think, of itself valuable. I'm open to suggestions. I did not mean by comparison with other commemorative coins and such is not stated.
  • Background: "Fort Vancouver, on the north bank of the Columbia River in what is today Washington state, lay across the river from what would become Portland, Oregon, and is today in Vancouver, Washington." Thank you for adding the clarification from my comment above. But the new version mentions twice in the same sentence that it is in what is today Washington state. I wonder if there's a good way to combine the two, for example by saying "Fort Vancouver, on the north bank of the Columbia River in what is today Vancouver, Washington, lay across the river from what would become Portland, Oregon."
  • Legislation: As you know, I did a copy-edit at the end of this section and changed "Coolidge" to "President Calvin Coolidge". But then I noticed in the previous sentence it talks about "Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon urged the president to veto it". I wasn't sure whether that was referring to the president of the USA or possibly the president of something else. If it's the former, I guess "President Calvin Coolidge" should actually be moved to the previous sentence.

Those are all of my comments. Moisejp (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Moisejp, sorry to be so slow in responding. I've done those. Thank you for the thorough going over.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes Flynn Authoritative Reference a high quality reliable source? According to World Cat, its only held by one library...
He is a well-published author on numismatics, see here.
Leaving this out for other reviewers to see. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged, thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

There are four images, all of which are properly licensed, it seems the John McLoughlin image still requires alt text. Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

That's done, thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Gens[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC) and User:Renata3

This article is about... semi-controversial figure from the Holocaust. Gens was the head of the Jewish ghetto in Vilnius who was put in place by the Germans, he is controversial because he believed that by cooperating with the Germans, some Jews could be saved. In the end, he was shot and the ghetto was liquidated, the article is as complete as I could make it, and I've tried to present all views about his activities. Renata's a co-nom because they were incredibly helpful with finding some information and helping to improve the content and other maters, its had a copy-edit by John, and I hope it's ready for FA status. It's been a while since I've nominated anything, but I should have more nominations coming soon, this article is certainly a change from my usual subjects, but it's also an important subject that needs careful work to ensure balanced coverage. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I looked for the horses and bishops but didn't see them. A few comments.

  • I might suggest moving his controversial role in the ghetto to the lede paragraph. It's what he's known for.
  • You are not consistent in your italicization of Judenrat. Or Aktion.
  • Judenrat is consistently not italicized (it generally isn't in the sources). I've made Aktion always italicized. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly a little more could be said to the effect he was born in the Russian Empire and after WWI, Lithuania was independent.
  • I've added explanatory footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After the formation of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Gens was fired from his job." I might toss a "in 1940" after "Republic".
  • Done (and of course, had to add a source for that since the previous source for that phrase didn't have a date...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Gens was not on the official payroll, which spared him from deportation from the city." Was the rest of the health department deported then? This is a bit opaque.
  • Probably because the sources are opaque. It's not clear in the sources what happened - they just mention that he wasn't deported because he wasn't on the payroll. I will try to double-check Arad's Ghetto in Flames, but it may or may not have further details. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Have clarified at bit - it was Gens who was in trouble, not the health department. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After their arrival, Gens remained in charge of the Jewish hospital." the last we heard of him, he had an unregistered job with the health department. Was this it?
  • It isn't clear if there is a job missing in the record or if the job with the health department was in the hospital. Again, I suspect our sources are reconstructing events after the fact from second-hand sources, so there is probably some confusion, the liklyhood of any records from either the hospital or health department surviving are vanishingly slim, given the confusion of the times and the destruction that came later. That is unfortunate, of course, but does tend to make things a bit... confused. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Further research shows that Beinfield is out of synch with the other sources, which state that Gens was appointed to head of the hospital after the Germans arrived, so have changed accordingly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure you need a hyphen in "Revisitionist-Zionist"
  • Arad (the source here) used one, but have removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The smaller ghetto was liquidated " I might more explicitly say what happened to the residents.
  • Added explanatory footnote. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " the ghetto's rabbis, who argued " I might use "ruled". They would have been regarded as the final authority on Jewish law, ordinarily.
  • Dawidowicz says that "the rabbis sent a delegation to tell him [Gens] that he was contravening Jewish law. To support their position, they cited Maimonides. Gens, who knew little, if anything, of Jewish law, responded that it was justifiable to surrender a part if the others would thereby be saved." I can't quite see this as supporting "ruled". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspect if we argue about this, we'll wind up chasing our own tails. I have no doubt they intended a ruling as to halachah (after all, they wanted him to stop), but will let it go.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gens was afraid that the actions of the Germans would result in a widespread massacre." Maybe "Gens was afraid the Germans would kill all of the Jews in the ghetto, and sought to save some at the price of others" if the source will justify.
  • Source says "German and Lithuanian united invaded then unexpectedly the ghetto and Gens feared that the snatching of people in the streets would end in a general massacre." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • He persuaded the Gestapo man in charge of the roundup to let the Jewish police gather together the deportees during the late-1941 deportations" Possibly "He persuaded the Gestapo officer in charge of the late-1941 roundup to let the Jewish police secure the deportees" or similar. I'm trying to avoid the near-repetition.
  • Changed to ".... roundup to let the Jewish police gather together the deportees during the late-1941 Aktions." which does get rid of one deportation. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In an Aktion on 3–5 November, where the entire ghetto was checked against their paperwork," Possibly "During the Aktion on 3–5 November, in which the paperwork of everyone in the ghetto was checked".
  • Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "This incident took place under the supervision of German officials," I might say "gaze" rather than "supervision".
  • Arad says "scrutiny" so I'm trying to stick to the sense of his phrasing. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Germans backed Gens' efforts to secure more power, and implied that he was not responsible to the Judenrat, nor that the Judenrat had any power over Gens or the Jewish policemen." I might change "nor" to "and" and"any" to "no"
  • The Weisskopf anecdote seems a rather minor incident, an intramural squabble that in the grand scheme of things did not matter, since it does not appear anyone was deported or killed. The fact that Gens was in charge of selecting who is to live and who to die, raises the question of did he abuse the power
  • I could remove it, but it occurs in other sources, so they must think its important. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "He was allowed to enter and leave the ghetto at any time and his daughter was not required to live in the ghetto, even though other half-Jews were confined within the ghetto." I might change "within the ghetto" to "there", but also, I would either use or link to from "half-Jews", mischling.
  • I changed the half-Jew link to mischling, but left the other. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "From there they moved to West Germany as Jewish aliyah." Aliyah, when used to refer to a person outside the context of Jewish synagogue ritual, is usually in reference to immigration to Israel by a Jew. They would not have been regarded as Jewish, I suspect.
  • @Renata3: - you added this bit, as I recall, can you address it? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • They stretched the definitions of "Jewish" and "Polish" to get the necessary papers to be allowed across the Iron Curtain. Did they meet the technical definition of "aliyah", I don't know, but that's how they got across the border. Renata (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Can I ask, if you have it handy, for how the source refers to this? I'm just trying to figure a better phrasing. Aliyah is the single form of the noun anyway, the female plural is "aliyot" (I would not change it immediately).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • All of the people in the Legacy section who comment on Gens seem favorably disposed to him. How then is it stated that his role was controversial?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll address this quickly and will work on the rest of these comments tomorrow. Gens himself is not singled out by historians as a particularly "bad" person, but the Judenrats as a whole are controversial. Raoul Hilberg, in particular, saw all the members of any Judenrat as collaborators and that they prevented active resistance to the Germans, since Hilberg, there has been much more of a swing in historical thought to the fact that resistance came in other varieties than just armed uprisings (the only kind Hilberg recognized) and recognition of the fact that the Judenrat (as well as the Jews as a whole) didn't really have any choices, much less good choices. There has been a definite swing away from the idea that the Jews just passively acquised in their murder (or in Hoess' opinion, were just like sheep to a slaughterhouse). And the play that is about Vilnius, casts him in a rather negative light. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clearer (and more concise), the role of member of the Judenrat or head of the Jewish police is considered controversial, thus why I wrote that in my nomination statement. There isn't nearly as much written specifically on Gens as an individual that sees him as controversial beyond the norm for the positions he held, he certainly is not considered as difficult as Chaim Rumkowski, but he's not nearly as "sainted" as Adam Czerniakow. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I might put in a little bit about how they in general have been regarded, then. As you point out, it is controversial. I'm not sure a play does it, after all, it's not a historical paper. If these favorable opinions of Gens are fruit of a reaction against a hard-line position, than I don't think it's a bad idea to mention what that position is.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • OKay, I think I've addressed all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Just the points on legacy and aliyah,the rest looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Look over the introductory bits I've added. I'll add that even the worst critics of the councils don't generally think Gens was as corrupt as Rumkowski. I'll leave the aliyah bit for a while longer, but if @Renata3: doesn't have something within a reasonable time period, I'll just cut phrase, and leave in that they did go to West Germany. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've read the source. Good enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll keep it watchlisted, but at this time I feel comfortable Supporting. Very interesting and well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

Very interesting article; thanks for bringing it this far. Just a few points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm surprised that the term "Ashkenazi" makes no appearance in this article. Do we have any sources that could be used to bring in Gens' ethnicity in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I've seen nothing that gives his ethnic background. It's pretty clear that he was not really a very religiously observant person nor that he came from an observant family, but that can only be inferred from the lack of information on he and the family doing religious things. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "His father was a merchant and Gens was the oldest of four sons. Gens attended a Russian-language primary school and then a secondary school in Šiauliai.[2]" I appreciate that both sentences are likely bolstered by the same source, but both sentences are saying quite different things and it can give the appearance that the first sentence is simply unreferenced. For that reason I would definitely duplicate that citation at the end of both sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I prefer to NOT do such, as it's frankly silly and we wouldn't do that in a scholarly publication. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "mood." and that" - best be rid of that full stop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I left it, but rephrased "Dr. N. Karni, who was a cadet with Gens, said that he "had great personal charm. I do not remember him ever being in a bad mood." Karni also felt Gens had "leadership qualities..." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "His participation in the" - the His could be read as a reference to Karni, rather than Gens, so I would change "His" to "Gens'" (and accordingly replace the later "Gens" to "his"). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • "He belonged to Brith ha-Hayal, an organization for military reservists" - perhaps "He belonged to Brith ha-Hayal, a Jewish organization for military reservists"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gens was fired from his job." - do we know why? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Not the exact reason, no. I'd assume that it was because he was a Lithuanian nationalist and army reservist, but it is never explicitly stated as such in the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Germans entered Vilnius" - perhaps make it clear that this was the German Army. And perhaps add a bit more about this being part of World War 2. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Germans murdered" - semantic quibble on what is a very sensitive subject (so apologies upfront), but would "killed" be more appropriate here? "Murdered" implies a sense of illegality, and I'm not sure if this act was technically illegal under German law in this period? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Since many Germans were convicted for crimes against humanity after the war for their participation in the Holocaust, I'm pretty comfortable with "murdered" here (and elsewhere). The legal morass of whether German law was actually legally binding during Hitler's rule (especially those parts where Hitler simply ruled by decree or worse, did not issue a decree but still ordered something done) is bad enough, but then you get into the whole problem of that morass of legal issues being applied to conquered territory and the "laws of war"; in general, most historians of the Holocaust have no problem with using "murdered" to refer to the killing of Jews (and others) during the Holocaust. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "for a Nazi-period ghetto" - this is the first time that the Nazis have been mentioned in any form, so perhaps it would be best to introduce them briefly beforehand, for instance when mentioning the German invasion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • In general, I've followed recent historians of the Holocaust who generally use "Germans" rather than "Nazis" to refer to those people who were perpetrators of the Holocaust. Here, we're not referring to the period, but the time, so we can stick with "Nazi-era" or we can just go with "an unusual arrangement for a ghetto during World War II", which ever you prefer. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • More forthcoming (and ping me in a week if I've forgotten). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to add my Support! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:JewishGhettoPlaque_Vilnius_(cutted).JPG: since Lithuania doesn't have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    • No clue, since I didn't take it. We can replace with File:Vilna1.jpg, but we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for the ghetto and pictures. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

A very interesting if disturbing read. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a short list of minor suggestions mostly related to prose and style.
  • The 10-digit ISBNs should be converted to 13 digits. A converter lives here.
  • I'm unaware that we require that for the FA criteria. I've used the ISBNs that were in the given work. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, you may be right. During a recent FAC, I was asked by another editor to change the 10s to 13s, and I assumed that was now the case with all FAs. (Years had passed between my last FA nom and this recent one). The change seemed to me to have no downside. Is there a good reason not to convert them? I ask this partly because since the nom in question, I've been converting the 10s in my other FAs as well as elsewhere when I have time. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The two images need alt text.
  • Per Niki's comments above, I've removed the plaque image, so it's down to one image. I'm not sure that I can improve on the caption for alt text - suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I might try alt=A faded rectangular work permit issued in 1941 to Uri Elichski. Finetooth (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I just added "faded" and the name to the caption, which makes the caption fit the alt text proposed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Early life
  • ¶1 "Dr. N. Karni" – Rather than the academic title, "Dr.", can he be identified as "N. Karni, a physician" or something like that? Or is the title necessary or meaningful at all in this context?
  • Removed the "Dr." as it's not necessary. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Aktions of 1941
  • ¶2 "with Gens pulling aside the third child" – Replace "with plus -ing" construction with "and Gens pulled aside the third child"?
  • ¶4 "when survivors began arriving back in the ghetto..." – Trim by one word? "returning to" rather than "arriving back in"?
  • ¶4 "all of them female" – If they were all adults, I'd prefer "women" to "female". Female often sounds slightly dehumanizing to me even when that's not the speaker's (writer's) conscious intent.
  • As a female, I don't see it, honestly. If you're really concerned about it, I can change it, but I really don't see the dehumanizing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. Not really concerned. Finetooth (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Relations with the Judenrat
  • ¶3 "Previous to this... ". – Trim by one word to "Before this..."?
  • ¶3 "Previous to this, justice was administered solely by Gens and his policemen, and still retained some judicial functions over injuries to policemen, escapes from the jail, or leaving the ghetto without leave." – I find this confusing. Should the second part of the sentence say, "after this, Gens' department still retained some judicial functions over injuries to policemen, escapes from the jail, or leaving the ghetto without leave."?
  • Yes, changed to your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "The Jewish police force was accused by some residents of taking bribes at the gates leading into the ghetto." – Flip to active voice: "Some residents accused the Jewish police force of taking bribes at the gates leading into the ghetto."?
  • ¶4 "Weisskopf's house was then searched by the ghetto police and when contraband was found, the tailor was arrested, held in jail for four days, and lost his position running the workshop." – Flip to active voice? "The ghetto police then searched Weisskopf's house, found contraband, arrested him, and jailed him for four days, after which he lost his position running the workshop."
Views and policies
  • ¶1 "His leadership style is described by historian Michael Marrus... " – Flip to active voice: "Historian Michael Marrus describes... "?
  • ¶1 "bringing together some of the community leaders for a colloquia to discuss Jewish history..." – Either "a colloquium" or "colloquia" with no "a" before it.
Welfare and cultural efforts
  • ¶1 "in charge of supervising employers who utilized children" – "Used", a good four-letter word, rather than "utilized"?
  • Went with "charge of supervising bosses who employed children" instead... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "property they left with gentiles outside the ghetto..." – Link gentiles?
Personal privileges and family
  • "One was that he was not required to wear the yellow badge... " – Tighten by deleting "One was that"?
  • ¶1 "The Gestapo said that he was killed for being in contact with the FPO and funneling money to them." – Since Gens had to be in contact with the FPO to funnel money to them, shorten to "The Gestapo said they killed him for funneling money to the FPO."?
  • ¶2 "The ghetto was liquidated between 22 and 24 September 1943,[21] with 3,600 residents going to labor camps (including 2,000 sent to labor camps in Vilnius), 5,000 women and children going to Majdanek where they were gassed to death, and a few hundred elderly and sick were sent to Ponary and shot." – Non-parallel construction. Delete "were" from "elderly and sick were sent to Ponary". Or, perhaps better, split the complicated sentence: "The ghetto was liquidated between 22 and 24 September 1943. Three thousand six hundred residents went to labor camps (including 2,000 sent to labor camps in Vilnius); 5,000 women and children went to Majdanek, where they were gassed to death; and a few hundred elderly and sick were sent to Ponary and shot."
  • Took your suggestion, thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "They were informed by a Jewish policeman that Gens had been shot and that the Gestapo was looking for them." – Flip to active voice: "A Jewish policeman informed them that... "?
  • ¶3 "In 1945, they managed to obtain papers..." – Trim to "In 1945, they obtained papers..."? This change would eliminate the repetition of "managed to".
  • ¶1 "The role of the Judenrats has been a controversial one." – Tighten to "The role of the Judenrats has been controversial."?
  • ¶1 "... they faced conflicting sets of goals and that had essentially no power to change the demands the Germans made of them." – Something's amiss. Perhaps "... they faced conflicting sets of goals and had essentially no power to change the demands the Germans made of them."?
  • Took your suggestion, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I've addressed almost all of these. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • All looks good. I leave the two open questions about ISBNs and alt text to your discretion, though I would appreciate knowing your thoughts about converting 10s to 13s. Happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

support by auntieruth[edit]

This is superb, and yes, it's necessary to seek some balance about this controversial man. I agree with finetooth's comments (above). And I'll reread after you've finished addressing the unfinished ones; in the meantime, I also have a couple of questions:

  • why is "unregistered" (as in unregistered job) in quotes? Is this simply an off the books job? a black market job? why cannot it just be unregistered?
    • I've removed the quotes. I no longer remember why it went in quotes to begin with... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • second, I hiccuped on the word "illegals" in one of the notes. Could you clarify this but not use the word "illegals" (or the quotes)? Undocumented probably isn't sufficient, but .... auntieruth (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    • The sentence the footnote is attached to defines the "illegals". I can remove the quotes, but the term is pretty common in the sources for ghetto residents without work permits/papers/etc. I'll go ahead and remove the quotes, but the alternatives are much more wordy ... i.e. "residents without work permits". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • given how common the term is today to refer to people present in a state space illegally, I'd be inclined to say residents without work permits....
  • I've gone with "Most of without permits were able to secure them during 1942." in the explanatory footnote and left the article text alone. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • remaining residents were "chased" to Ponary again, quotes around a word--pursued to Ponary? auntieruth (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll check this in a minute but given normal German procedures, I'm guessing the quotes were in the original and they really mean "pursued to Ponary on foot at a too-fast pace while being beaten and shot and abused"... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's "chased" in the source. I've removed the quote marks because there really isn't a better word to use for what would have happened. I could use "driven" but that might lead to confusion with readers thinking they were taken in vehicles, when they weren't. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I've seen both of ya'lls comments but am out of town until Wednesday night, so I'll get to these Thursday morning. Happy Fourth of July! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
And think I've got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as long as the comments by others above are addressed. auntieruth (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • I haven't read all the others, so may conflict. Anyway:
  • " He married a non-Jew and worked at several jobs, including teaching, accountancy, and as an administrator." Rather awkward grammatical twist. "worked at several jobs, including as a teacher, accountant, and an administrator." maybe.
    • Took your wording. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "He was sent to officers' school and completed the schooling as a junior lieutenant" - officers usually get trained not schooled - also avoids near-repetition.
  • "In May 1942, Gens secured German permission for residents of the ghetto to sell belongings or property they left with gentiles outside the ghetto." gentiles used and linked, but we have had 2 "non-Jewish" unlinked before. I suppose that is ok.
    • I"m only seeing the one "non-Jewish" mentions, describing Gens' wife... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gens started a theater in the ghetto, which was the site of poetry readings as well as the production of new and old plays." site is a bit odd to me - "where .... took place" or something might be better.
    • Now "Gens started a theater in the ghetto, where poetry readings as well as the production of new and old plays took place." Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I wonder if "Legacy" is the right word for the last section (except for the play). "Historians' analysis" or something maybe. I'd be tempted to move the historians higher up, maybe even some into the lead.
    • Maybe "Historical legacy"? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Grim stuff, but a fine article. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pretty much; happy to Support Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

  • References formatted consistently.
  • Why the entry in the further reading section?
  • Earwigs copyvio clear.
  • FN 59. material is cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 221. material is cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 70. material is cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 73. material is cited and faithful to source.
  • FN 77. material is cited and faithful to source.

Spot check ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Mainly because it's one of the few other entries for him. It doesn't add anything, but it does corroborate the information here. I'd rather cover my behind by having it listed to show I did consult it, than not. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Cas, are you signing off on source reliability too? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes - they look good/reliable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


Nominator(s): 1989 & Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Japanese manga series that focus on Naruto Uzumaki, a character who wishes for acknowledgement from the people in his hometown and to become their new leader, after the second nomination, Mike Christie has been a big help to his contribution to the article, making the article shorter and easier to read. From our part, we would like to have this article given a second chance on FAC this year, and hopefully it could pass. 1989 16:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I have a question about the "Original video animations" and the "Films" subsections. Would it be better to have this information represented in prose rather than a bulleted list? Also some aspects of the list feel a little incomplete to me (i.e. Focuses on the children of the main characters) and could use further context and information for the reader.
    On the article talk page, Mike felt that a list would look better and more organized. As for the incompleteness and context, I fixed it. -- 1989 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    It used to be in prose; see this version, for example. It was essentially a list then, too, but was harder to read, some of the details are at List of Naruto media, and since there's little more to say about the films and OVAs than their name, release date, and a sentence of summary, I don't think leaving it as prose is really beneficial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Rather than "Commercial success" as a name of a section, wouldn't it be better to have "Commercial performance" just to avoid any misinterpretations of POV issues? While it is clear that this is successful, it may be better to let the sources speak for itself rather than putting it up in the section title.
    I changed it. -- 1989 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. I only have two rather minor comments to make about this. I will promote this article once my comments are addressed. Good luck with this article this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Replies above. -- 1989 19:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I support this for promotion. Good luck with this and great work with the article as a whole. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Hopefully, this time the nomination will be successful for you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

After translating the Japanese reference I added, I think the article passes its source review. All urls are archived whereas the books indicate page numbers. References in the both the series' success as well as critical response appear to be WP:Reliable sources approved by the project of manga and anime. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Image review - the fair use rationale for the single, low-res image is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Vedant
  • The "addictiveness" bit in the lead is a little vague IMO. What exctly was addictive?
    I changed it. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Kishimoto subsequently decided to make Naruto a child in ninja training who could transform into a fox, and he created a one-shot of Naruto for the summer 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump, in which Naruto is a fox" - The phrasing could be better. "Naruto" is overused in the sentence; the whole fox bit also feels repetitive.
    I changed it. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite the positive feedback it received in a readers' poll, Kishimoto was unhappy with the art and the story." - "it" might not be appropriate it here as the subject should be introduced sepaartely in a new paragraph.
    Fixed. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The first eight chapters of the follow-up series were planned before it appeared in the magazine" - again, the magazine isn't really as obvious as one might think. Unfamiliar readers might not follow the lead. I think it might be easier if you merge the paragraphs as they talk about the same thing.
    Fixed. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " but in the event there was little room for romantic plotlines as he considered Naruto to be primarily a fighting series" - this could be phrased better as well.
    Fixed. -- 1989 14:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have made some very basic fixes in prose while reading through the article, and will go through the rest of the sections soon. Also, are there no relevant images available for any of the sections? NumerounovedantTalk 13:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

1989 will be the expert on this, not me, but I doubt there are any free images, and we can't really justify more than one as fair use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, there are no free images of the author Masashi Kishimoto. In some volumes he showed some sketches about the characters but I doubt they are that important here.Tintor2 (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this sketch of Naruto from the pilot series could help?Tintor2 (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Not really. -- 1989 16:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe a little bit on the rather unknown journalists/critics' actual professions just to put things in perspective? (Eg. Amy Plumb and Christopher A. Born, among others.)

The prose generally reads alright to me (although it could use some polishing), I might make some changes (if need be) directly. Other than that, I can Support this. Good luck with the nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 18:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jackdude101[edit]

Support: the article is good to go, as far as I can see. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'll be reviewing this in parts, just starting with the lede here. Looks generally good, just one comment:

  • "Reviewers praised the manga's character development, strong storylines, and well-executed fight scenes, though some felt the fight scenes slowed the story down. The anime also received positive comments, though a couple of reviewers felt the animation was weak." Consecutive sentences with similar (and noticeable) structures. Also, "couple" seems informal.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
    I cut the second sentence -- the anime is secondary to the manga, and I don't think it has to be discussed in the lead; and it wasn't going to be easy to rephrase this without getting more specific or mentioning reviewer names, which is more than the lead requires. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Third Hokage is liked on a second or later usage but not on the first.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • " Shortly afterwards, Naruto becomes a ninja and teams with Sasuke Uchiha, whom he often competes against, and Sakura Haruno, whom he has a crush on, to form a three-person team, Team 7" "team" is used three times in this sentence. The two not in a proper noun can probably be changed.
    Agreed; done. I think if we say X joins Y and Z to form a team we don't need to say there were three people in the team. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • More paragraph breaks in the plot summary strike me as a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Tsunade herself, who is a figure of authority in Naruto, is portrayed as ridiculous in a way that men in the same position are not. Fujimoto suggests this conservative and old-fashioned presentation of women" The "conservative and old-fashioned ..." seems to stray into authorial voice rather than a source's opinion.
    I cut the adjectives; I think it could be altered to make it clear this is Fujimoto's opinion but there's no need. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I might give the reader a bit more background on Rock Lee, either in the plot summary or where they are introduced.
    Done. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "A monthly sequel series titled Boruto: Naruto Next Generations began in the Japanese and English editions of Weekly Shōnen Jump in Spring 2016," the "Spring" seems inconsistent with "monthly" I think it would be OK if you would lower case "Spring" and change "in" to "during".
    I made it "in early 2016". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "It debuted on Japanese TV on February 15, 2007, on TV Tokyo, and concluded on March 23, 2017" Ok, swell, but then you're talking about stuff that happened in 2009, it's a bit confusing.
    Not sure what to do about this. If we split the end broadcast date from the debut date in order to keep things in chronological order, I think that would be confusing in a different way. How about making it "and eventually concluded" to prompt the reader that we're talking about a long time period, which might make the jump back to 2009 less confusing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "was released on December 16, 2009: featuring episodes 119–120, the story revolves around Kakashi Hatake's childhood." Likely that should be a semicolon.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Only the first 53 episodes were produced in this format" I might say "made available" for "produced"
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • On the original video productions, the capitalization seems inconsistent (compare #4 with the others). Also, why is "High School" capped?
    On the first point I'll have to defer to 1989 as I just realized that the source given only seems to cover the Playstation release, not the OVA itself, though perhaps the information is hidden in the Japanese. I fixed the other point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "While Team 7 are on the beach," "on the beach" is also an expression which I would avoid by saying "at the beach".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Sasuke sleeps and dreams of his brother Itachi making him breakfast, repeatedly until it is perfect." It strikes me that the English here could be improved (esp the second part).
    Made it "In his sleep, Sasuke dreams of his brother Itachi making him breakfast repeatedly until it is perfect". I think the comma was the real problem with the second part; is removing it enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Naruto Uzumaki is officially known to be the Seventh Hokage, but doesn't make it to the ceremony." Officially known?
    Changed to just "is officially the". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "A short original video animation titled Konoha Annual Sports Festival" this has the air of introducing something completely knew when you've just spoken of it a few paragraphs before.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Naruto is sent 20 years into the past as he explores a mystical tower for a rogue ninja with the Fourth Hokage." language could be improved especially the "for a rogue ninja" is it on behalf of the ninja?
    Fixed. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Naruto is framed for attempted murder of the Raikage; as he tries to break out of prison, he discovers its secrets." If it's the prison's secrets, I would put a "the" before prison. If it's something else, obviously you've fooled me.
    Done. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "but before he awakens his Mangekyō Sharingan" haven't a clue what this is and this is the only reference.
    Added description. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "light novels" I haven't encountered this expression before. It means?
    It's a Japanese publishing format; we have an article on it. It's linked in the lead. Do you think more explanation is needed, or perhaps another link in the body? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Various Drama CD series were released with voice actors performing original episodes." Drama CD? Odd caps, and odd phrase.
    The source calls them that, but I agree it looks odd. I think the intention is just to indicate that they are dramatic renditions; they're audio only so they can't say anime. The second half of the sentence makes it clear what's going on so I just cut "Drama". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Soundtracks from the Shippuden films have also been released, with the first one available in 2007.[145][146]" This is, effectively, a rehash of what you've just said.
    Actually this refers to the movie soundtracks as opposed to the anime soundtracks. Is this unclear? We could change the start of the paragraph to "Soundtracks for the anime Naruto: Shippuden..." if that would help highlight the difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • " a series of guidebooks called Naruto anime profiles was released." Shouldn't this be in title caps?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "In a review of volume 28 Brienza also praised Part II's storyline and characterization, though she commented that not every volume reached that level of quality." I would change "that" to "a high".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The date of the conference, at least the year, would be helpful.
    The proceedings come from two conferences, in 2009 and 2010, but after looking at it again I just cut the sentence; knowing that the conference existed tells the reader nothing about Naruto. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "and Derrick Tucker was also negative, though he felt that their best, the depictions "[left] little to be desired"." I'm not sure what "their best" really means here. Maybe "at their best"?
    That was just a typo; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "As with the manga, some reviewers, such as Martin Theron of ANN, along with Tucker, felt there were too many fight scenes,[201][200]" wrong order
    Fixed, though I believe this is not a requirement; I recall a recent discussion, maybe at VPM, about this. Some editors like to place the most important reference first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Naruto: Shippuden was well-reviewed by Activeanime's David C. Jones who commented animation had improved" Animation in general or in the Naruto series?
    Just the series; changed to "commented that the animation had improved". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
That's what I've got.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review. I've responded to most points above; 1989 is the subject matter expert so I've left some for them. 1989, can you take a look through the outstanding points above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Done. -- 1989 15:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Timothyjosephwood[edit]

  • I'm not an FA expert, but I looked through and made a few exceedingly minor corrections, and there's nothing jumping out at me as obvious issues that I can see. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Randall Flagg[edit]

Nominator(s): CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess this has been sort of my 'Moby Dick' on Wikipedia as I've been trying to get this to featured status for over a decade now. I believe that this article is as comprehensive as it's going to be, featuring in addition to the fictional character history Stephen King's own history in writing him as well as analysis from critics on the character. My hope is, if the article is good enough, to either get it as featured article for the day in time for the release of the Dark Tower film in August or on King's birthday in September.CyberGhostface (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

I've only taken a very quick skim through, but there are a few things that jump out immediately:

  • The referencing seems a little all over the place. Some paragraphs have citations, yet others don't. There are only two in the lede; I would go with either no citations or full citations in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There are still uncited paragraphs in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In quite a few cases, citations are separated from the sentence with a space. That needs sorting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a number of instances of ” which should be ". Similarly, there are instances of ’ rather than '. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Characteristic of Randall Flagg is his embodiment of evil." - pretty subjective statement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the subjective statement and I think I changed all of the quotation marks. I'll give a look at the references this weekend.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There are instances in which the citation comes after the period (correct) and before it (incorrect). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "created by Stephen King." - Who is Stephen King? We need to be more precise with these sorts of things. For instance, it would work better as "created by American horror writer Stephen King" or something of that nature. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • This may be more of a stylistic preference, but would it be better to move the quote box from the "Novels" subsection to the "The Stand" subsection as the quote directly deals with The Stand and the current positioning causes a somewhat awkward indentation in the subsection headings.
  • The second paragraph of the "The Stand" subsection does not have any references. Same goes for a majority of the "The Eyes of the Dragon" subsection. I would also ask you to look through the "The Dark Tower series" subsection to make sure that everything is properly cited there as well.
  • The subtitle on the Stephen King image needs a reference (for the "came out of nowhere" quote). The quote as used in the lead also needs to be cited.
  • Would it be appropriate to rename the "Characterization" section as the "Characterization and critical reception" section as you do include information on critical reception/feedback of the character.
  • In the following sentence (It was confirmed in 2016 that Matthew McConaughey would be playing the role of Walter o'Dim, Flagg's alter-ego, in the film adaptation of The Dark Tower.), please include the link to the article on the 2017 film.
  • I would assume that you would need a more complete caption for the Matthew McConaughey other than just the actor's name.

Wonderful work with this article, it is a very interesting read. I will support this for promotion as soon as my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I will try to go through the article and address those concerns when I am able to.--CyberGhostface (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The following sentence (Randall Flagg, appearing as Marten Broadcloak and Walter o'Dim, plays a significant role in the series.) requires a citation.

The above comment is the only thing that I have noticed when reading through the article an additional time. Once a citation is added to that part, then I will support this. Great work on this article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I added the citation.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting it promoted and great work on the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Hi, there is something "choppy' about the prose and it comes across on first read as disjointed in places. I need to digest it some more. I will try to copyedit it (please revert me if I accidentally change the meaning). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I have reworked the lead like this to give it some flow.
  • Flagg attracts people drawn to destruction, power and draconian rule - not fond of the last...maybe "Flagg attracts people drawn to destruction, power and tyranny"..?
  • I'd use an mdash instead of brackets in the prose.
  • Does King ever explain his epilogue to the Stand?
  • The reviewers in Characterization and critical reception need identifiers

Overall, the article lacks in analysis - google scholar yields some items, such as this, this, this and this for starters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Mia Hamm[edit]

Nominator(s): Hmlarson (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about American soccer icon Mia Hamm, it recently passed GAR and was suggested as a FAC. It is a level-4 vital article in People. Hmlarson (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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

  • This edit is fine, as long as you put the "and" back before "Texas". Some copyeditors call this "cannabalism"; one necessary "and" has eaten the other necessary "and". Does that make sense? - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I split it up into two sentences. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In addition to the 34,148 fans in attendance being greater than any MLS game that weekend, the Turner Network Television (TNT) broadcast reached 393,087 households: more than two MLS games broadcast on ESPN and ESPN2.": ?
  • What is your question? Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "that kept her out for the first half off the pitch": ?
  • "World Football Hall of Fame" (linked to Create a stub here on, if there isn't one already, and link to that.
  • Is there a guideline you can provide to support this? Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "<ref name="Today' ": ?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer, with the caveat that I stopped near the end, at Personal life; my wrist is bothering me and I'd like to stop here. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • {{u|Dank}} Thanks for your review and copyediting. I've added a few comments/questions above. Hmlarson (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for you work. See my standard disclaimer, which is more relevant now that I've hurt my wrist. - Dank (push to talk) 19:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I reviewed this at GAN and feel it satisfies FA criteria on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Source review:

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

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

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

Shine (Gwen Stefani song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! I am taking a break from my normal FACs on articles dealing with television and fictional characters to nominate one that focuses on a song. This article is about a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani and featuring vocals by American singer Pharrell Williams. Originally intended for the band No Doubt, it was written and produced by Williams, with additional songwriting from Stefani, as the theme song for the 2014 animated film Paddington. "Shine" is a pop song that incorporates elements of reggae pop and ska, and features lyrics that revolve around the lead character Paddington Bear's journey to London and his identity crisis.

The track was released on January 13, 2015, through a lyric video on The Weinstein Company's YouTube channel, in addition to a promotional CD, the song was also promoted in the American trailer for the film. While a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the song remains unavailable to the public, the lyric video is included on the DVD and Blu-ray releases of the film. Critical response to "Shine" was mixed, some critics praised Stefani and Williams' chemistry as a team, while others compared it negatively to their previous collaborations and singles. It was frequently compared to Willams' 2013 single "Happy", and Stefani and Williams' 2014 song "Spark the Fire".

I believe that the article satisfies all of the parts of the FA criteria. I have received notes in the previous two FAC attempts for this article that there were concerns about its comprehensiveness, but I firmly believe that I have mined all of the sources available on this topic (even reaching into information that was only presented in radio interviews). I really do not believe that there is more information about this song out there that is not already present in the article. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant[edit]

Resolved comments from NumerounovedantTalk

Will look at this soon. NumerounovedantTalk 18:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Having read the article mutiple times in the past two days, I am more than happy to offer my Support as per the standard of prose. I might offer some suggestions/minor c.e. in the future, but I have no comments at this point. I would leave the the technical aspects out of the review owing to my lack of familiarity with the area of concern here. Fine work with the article though. NumerounovedantTalk 19:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your support and comments. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Having read the article mutiple times in the past two days, I am more than happy to offer my Support as per the standard of prose. I might offer some suggestions/minor c.e. in the future, but I have no comments at this point. I would leave the the technical aspects out of the review owing to my lack of familiarity with the area of concern here. Fine work with the article though. NumerounovedantTalk 19:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989[edit]

Resolved comments from 1989
  • "a full version of the record remains unreleased digitally" I'd changed the word remains.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "They also served as judges on the American reality television singing competition The Voice in 2014." This may not be needed.
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Stefani later commented" Is later needed?
  • I believe that this part is necessary to situate that the following part of the sentence is something that she talked about directly in an interview to avoid accusations that I was doing original research or having it appear like I am narrating something rather than pointing to a source and citing it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Paddington Bear "; Stefani"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "his children's connection with Paddington Bear" How were Pharrell's children connected to the film?
  • Revised. They were fans of the books. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "mirror / That's your way home."[19]" Is a period needed?
  • The period is necessary as it is the end of the sentence, but I moved the period outside of the quotation marks. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "complete animations of the Paddington Bear character." animations?
  • Paddington Bear in the film was created using a combination of computer-generated imagery and animatronics. Stefani was commented on how she finally saw all of the animation work for the bear put together while watching the film with her sons. Let me know how you think that this should be clarified. I believe it is pretty clear in the article already, but I look forward to any feedback you have to give on this point in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Even though a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the record remains unreleased for consumer consumption." remains...
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Good work on the article, I didn't find too much error. 1989 20:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

  • @1989: Thank you for your comments. I believe that i have addressed everything, and I look forward to hearing your feedback. Have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    Support and File:ShineGwenPromoCoverLimitedEdition.jpg has an appropriate rationale and license, which passes the image review. -- 1989 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Support and File:ShineGwenPromoCoverLimitedEdition.jpg has an appropriate rationale and license, which passes the image review. -- 1989 21:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Krish![edit]

  • Support: After reading this twice, I think the article very much deserves that FA star. Aoba47 Well done my friend. Krish | Talk 17:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak[edit]

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak
  • Is it possible to add "Format" to the promotional single infobox?
  • I am not sure what you mean by this; the format is already in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • by American singer Gwen Stefani and featuring vocals by → by American singer Gwen Stefani, featuring collaborative vocals by American recording artist
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • with additional songwriting from Stefani, as the theme song for the 2014 animated film Paddington. → split the last sentence as it's too long. Write something like "It acts as the..."
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Link "pop" to pop music; I got confused as this genre doesn't appear in the infobox nor in the "Composition" section
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • like "bear" and "station" → including "bear" and "station"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • She reported that her → The singer reported that her (alternation)
  • I do not think that "the singer" would be appropriate in this context. It sounds odd to refer to a person through their profession. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • her then husband → her then-husband
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The track was released on January 13, 2015, through a lyric video → reads akwardly, try "A lyric video for the track was released on January 31, 2015..."
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • channel, in addition to a → comma not needed
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • a full version of the record → "record" is generally used for albums; use "recording"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • was not available → was not made available
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The lyric video is included → past tense
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It was frequently compared to → use "likened" here for alternation
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • and Stefani and Williams' 2014 song → William was just a writer on the track and you needn't go in such detail in the lead; remove his name
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • were collaborating on a record → ...recording
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • worked together on the singles: "Hella Good", → no ":" needed here + add release year in brackets for each song
  • Revised. The ":" is needed as it is a list. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Stefani commented → "She" for alternation
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • be released as a record → ... recording
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • She said the film → She further confessed that the film (alternation)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Williams considered the song to be: "a → no ":" needed here
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • as Paddington Bear"; Stefani said that she was: "honored → ...", while Stefani said that she was "honored
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Unlink Gwen Stefani in the box
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • twenty-four seconds → numbers above ten not spelled out; "24 seconds"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Instrumentation is provided by" → it would be better to say "Instrumentation is composed of"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Williams equated Stefani's → state "the singer" as alternation
  • I do not think that "the singer" would be appropriate in this context. It sounds odd to refer to a person through their profession. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Rolling Stone called it: "a pop → no ":"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • from Gigwise described the lyrics → I would say "noted" would fit better in this context
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It ends with Williams → say "Shine" here to clarify what we're talking about
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • that she disagreed initially → that she initially disagreed
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Stefani said that she "wanted → "confessed" for alternation
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • saying that he was: "the one who → no ":"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sample > A 22-second audio sample of the song. The audio sample → A 22-second sample of the song, showing
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Leave "and music video" out from the title of your "Promotion and music video" section and replace it with "and usage in media"
  • Since the entire second paragraph is devoted to the music video, I feel that the section title is more appropriate in its original phrasing. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • a full version of the record → ...recording
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • not made available for consumer consumption → "for the public" is less complicated and sounds better
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • but it did not receive a nomination → however not receiving a nomination
  • I think the original phrasing is better. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • thirty-five → 35
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • was uploaded to → was uploaded onto
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • from the film in which: "the iconic → no ":"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It is included → To clarify things: The visual was included
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • DVD and Blu-ray releases → releases of what??
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • a newspaper which is part of the USA Today Network → this information is superfluous and can be removed
  • The phrase was added to show the source is reliable. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Critical reception" needs to go before the "Promotion" section
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Link "Herbert Chappell" to his own article on Wikipedia
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Paddington" should be in italics as it was a television series
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Dewing praised Stefani and Willams' ability: "to compose → Dewing further praised Stefani and William's ability "to compose
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • of the BreatheHeavy website → just "BreatheHeavy"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • of the BreatheHeavy website called it: "a catchy → no ":" needed here
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Release year in brackets for "Baby Don't Lie"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • of TheWrap wrote that Stefani's vocal delivery → use "the singer" here for alternation
  • Read above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Please expand the title of the "Credits" section to "Credits and personnel"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • add a "the" before "American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers"
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Unlink label and format in "Release history" as previously mentioned in the article
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I now support this. You did a very good job, Aoba47! Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Panagiotis Zois[edit]

Resolved comments and image / audio clip review by Panagiotis Zois
  • Shouldn't Gwen Stefani be linked in the lead?
  • Linked. Not sure how I missed that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "and ska song, featuring lyrics that revolve..."
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, besides these two things, I didn't find any other problems with the article. Kickass job Aoba.

  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed both of them. I hope you are having a wonderful day so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Image / audio clip review[edit]

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to do this or if only a few select can, but I looked into both the picture and the audio clip and both of them have fair-use rationales, the picture is low resolution and the audio clip is only 22 seconds long; both of which are acceptable. I only have one question; while I understand that the song wasn't released as a single, not really, does a digital version of the infobox picture exist? PanagiotisZois (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • That is a very good question. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a digital version of the single cover, primarily because it was never made available for digital distribution (again, to the best of my knowledge, the cover is actually from the physical copy that was sent in for Oscar consideration). Thank you for bringing this up as it is a very good question to clarify. And to answer your first question, I am sure that anyone can be do the image review (as they will most likely be double-checked by the closing FAC coordinator). Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I understand. Alrighty, now that the changes have been implemented I can support the nomination. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support! Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

All the sources seem reliable but "Digital Sheet Music, Gwen Stefani 'Shine'". 2015." seems to miss an accessdate or archive. Still, that's most nitpicking so I'll support it knowing the user will archive it. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! I have added an archiveurl and archivedate to the reference. Aoba47 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Support from Adityavagarwal[edit]

I checked out a few sources, which does have the information present in the article, cited. I will support this. Excellent prose, and a really amazing read! Face-smile.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Status Update?[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Hello again; just wondering if I could get a status update on this? This has already received a source review and an image review, and has received attention/feedback from several users. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Just looking at the lead, I think some of the expression could be improved, so I'd prefer to leave it open longer -- I may even recuse and copyedit myself but will see how it goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. I just wanted to check in and see what in particular needs more work. I have done some revisions to the lead. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Noted -- I probably won't get to this in my current walk-thru the FAC list but shouldn't be too long. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time as always. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jackdude101[edit]

Support: the article appears to be completely ship-shape. I see that six other people have also declared support for this nomination, so there is no reason in my mind why this nomination should not be closed right now. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your support, and I appreciate your comment. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I'm seeing a few issues, and I'm afraid this FAC suffers from a common problem among song nominations of cursory review followed by a rapid support. For example, we have a typo in the lead ("She later praised this decision after seeing the completed animated for the Paddington Bear character while watching the film with her children") and parts that I'm struggling to make sense of ("No Doubt recorded their version in late 2014,[6][7] with Patrick Doyle from Rolling Stone reporting that Stefani was working with the band on a song for the Paddington soundtrack.[8] Despite the announcement, Doyle suggested that it may be released as a single by Williams and Stefani instead.": We have a noun verb-ing construction, which is less than ideal. Also, why do we need to know that Doyle reported this? Is it not just a fact? And despite what announcement? And why say that it may be released as a single when it wasn't released at all?); it also takes a long time to establish where this song was played in the film. Given how much fuss is made of the love that Williams and Stefani had for Paddington and what an honour it was, it is a little disconcerting to see that the song barely had a role in the film, and not at all in the UK, it would be good to know why that was. I could go on, but I think we need more review here as we're not quite there yet, it would help this nomination if reviewers would refer to WP:WIAFA so that we can be sure we meet the criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @Sarastro1: I have corrected the two points raised above. The "animated" typo came in as I have revised the lead several times throughout the review so I accidentally mistyped "animation" while making other corrections. I have also corrected the sentence you have mentioned above, it is important to clarify that Rolling Stone reported this to reflect on the accuracy of the information (especially since No Doubt ultimately did not take part in the song). The "announcement" is referencing the previous sentence in which it was reported that this would be a No Doubt song, the song in actually did not have any impact in the film. It was only featured in the American trailer and the credits for the American version of the film, and did not have a role in the film or its promotion anywhere outside of the United States, this makes sense considering that this is an unreleased song. There really isn't much information on why the studio ultimately did not release this song or use it prominently in the film; I have mined all of the references out there for this song and no-one has come forward to really say anything either way, and I highly doubt anyone involved with this will even acknowledge it again in the future. I hope this helps. Either way, thank you for your comments, and I am more than happy to have this open for further comments (I just did not want to come across as rude). Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Sarastro1: Just wanted to check in about the status of this nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AJona1992[edit]

  • Shouldn't the lead start off as saying "is a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani"? I understand you want to avoid using "recording" twice in the sentence, but a rewording would help strengthen it.
  • For the uninformed reader, a quick reference that Stefani is the lead singer of No Doubt should be included in the lead where it says "Originally intended for the band No Doubt"
  • I have added a short sentence after this, but I am open to suggestion. I am not sure how I could add it to the dependent clause that you mention above, but I am would more than happy to hear your thoughts. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "due to its submission" - could be reworded to "as a result of its submission". – jona 14:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Reworded. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I reworked the lead to best accommodate the new additions I raised here, if any additions were harmful to the article's original intent, then feel free to revert. As of my edit, I support this article's promotion. Best – jona 15:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review, and I greatly appreciate your edits as they have helped to improve the article a great deal. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

I empathise with Sarastro1's comments. There do appear to be some issues.

  • "Even though a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the recording was not released for public consumption." What about the lyric video and promotional single? Do they not count? I'm puzzled by this line.
  • A full version of the single was never made available for purchase. You can buy this song anywhere legally, the promotional single (as stated in the article itself) was sent out as part of a result of its submission for the Academy Award for Best Original Song so it was never made available to the public, and the lyric video only contains a portion of the song. As stated in the article, the video contains only "a minute and 35 seconds" of the song, and the promotional CD was "limited quantity" and intended only as part of the submission process for an award show. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, understood. I do wonder if this could be made a little clearer, but perhaps that's my problem. What I would like to add, though, is that if the song was never released to the public, I do not think the rationale on the non-free cover image is a good one. While I would not necessarily be opposed to a sound sample, I am inclined to think that a non-free cover image is not justified. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I see your point, but every image of a single cover is a non-free cover image so I am not sure how this is different from single covers used in other articles, such as S&M (song) and Please Don't Stop the Music? Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Because this was never released as a single. The standard rationale (and the rationale given on the image page for this particular image) refers to "identification ... to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for". I'm not sure how well that applies in this case. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood; it has been removed. Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was omitted from the film's soundtrack," What does this mean? It was previously described as the film's theme song.
  • It was promoted as the film's theme song in promotional interviews, but it was not included on the soundtrack for undisclosed reasons. Not much I can say there as there was never an official reason for the song's omission from the soundtrack. I have removed "theme song" from the lead though as it is misleading. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm still struggling with this, sorry. The third sentence of the article is "It is a reggae pop and ska song that is featured in the 2014 animated film Paddington." If it featured in the film, in what sense was it "omitted from the film's soundtrack"? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The "omitted from the film's soundtrack" part means that the song was not included in the film's physical soundtrack. It is just an instance in which a song that was featured in the trailer/film ultimately was not released on the physical soundtrack. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite this announcement, Doyle suggested" Who?
  • "When discussing the development of the single with MTV News, Stefani said that she initially disagreed with Williams' approach to the lyrics; while he "was very specific about the lyrics" and wanted to include words directly connected to the film and its character like "bear", "Paddington", "station", Stefani said that she "wanted it to be a little more abstract"." This sentence could do with some attention.

Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • "A reviewer from the website antiMusic described the recording as "even more feel good" than the pair's collaboration on "Spark the Fire".[29] After listening to the leaked version of the song, Aaron Butterfield of BreatheHeavy called it "a catchy tune which feels much more like vintage Stefani than anything we've seen so far this era".[13]" Are these good sources? I've never heard of either of them (not that that proves anything, of course). What about Music Times? TheWrap? Direct Lyrics? Fanlala? These don't really strike me as the best sources.
  • antiMusic has a team of editors, as shown here, so I would assume that they would be okay for use here. I have removed the BreatheHeavy website reference. Music Times has a team of editors, as shown here, as does TheWrap, as shown here. I have remove Direct Lyrics and Fanlala. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Even though a low-quality version leaked on December 31, 2014, a full version of the recording was not made available for the public." I'm still struggling to understand what is meant by this given the discussion in the rest of the section.
  • Read my above comment on this. A version of the song leaked online, but a full version was never made available on any outlets for purchase. To the best of my knowledge, the only full version of the song that is available is the leaked version (through questionable means of course). Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "A minute and 35 second video displaying clips from the film" Could this be rephrased?
  • "The song was excluded from the film's soundtrack" Again, I'm struggling to understand what is being claimed here.
  • Read my above comment on this. The song was heavily promoted as being featured in the movie through interviews with Stefani and Williams, but it was not included on the album for some reason or another (that is unknown and will most likely remain unknown). I want to make it clear to the reader that this song was not included on the soundtrack despite appearing in American/Canadian marketing/promotional materials. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think I might understand the confusion here; "the film's soundtrack" and "the soundtrack album for the film" are not the same thing. Are you meaning to say that it was not included on the soundtrack album? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I was trying to convey that it was not included on the soundtrack album/physical release of the soundtrack. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, this could be clearer; presumably (though I welcome being corrected; I'm no expert!) any song that is played on a release of a film is part of the soundtrack. Whether or not a song is included on the released soundtrack album (if a soundtrack album is released) is a different issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added the phrase "soundtrack album" so hopefully that helps out. Let me know if it can be further clarified. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "During an interview with Stefani and Williams on January 21, 2015, radio host Ryan Seacrest erroneously announced the track was available for purchase on the iTunes Store.[45]" Does that cited source include the claim that it was "erroneous"?
  • I would believe that this would fall under Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE. Seacrest made an announcement on his show that the song was available on iTunes, but it was never made available on that platform, this can be removed if you do not believe it is necessary for the article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bore; I appreciate that this is only a very minor release, but I feel that this article falls a little short of where it needs to be for FA status at this time, though it makes a perfectly reasonable GA. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Let me know if you have any other questions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @J Milburn: Thank you for your comments; I believe that I have addressed them above. Hope you had a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @J Milburn: Thank you again for the comments; I have addressed the comments above. I greatly appreciate you for taking the time to look through this article. I hope that I do not come across as rude in my replies as I am just trying to make sure that I understood everything correctly. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your changes, which have improved the article. I will aim to come back for another look, but I ask the delegates not to hold up the nomination on my behalf, as I may not have a chance to do this. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I've copyedited as I threatened to do earlier, and am pretty happy with the prose now -- I'd have no objections to promotion from that perspective, as far as comprehensiveness goes, I would just be interested in knowing why, if any reliable sources say so, the song didn't appear in the British version of the film (or even simply what the UK version's credit music was if not this song) and also why it wasn't included in the soundtrack album. I know these things happen, but nice to know the rationale(s) if possible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your help; I greatly appreciate your copyedits as they have improved the article a great deal. Unfortunately, there were not any reports made from reliable sources about why the song did not appear in the British version of the film. I think that the credit music for all of the releases outside of the U.S. and Canada was "London Is The Place for Me" by D Lime and Tobago Crusoe, but I am not entirely certain to be honest. I have seen people speculating online that "Shine" was recorded and rejected for the film, but was hastily promoted and added to certain releases of the film after it leaked on the internet (which would explain why a majority of the interviews with Stefani and Williams were done over a few days, and they have never performed the song live or addressed it since those batch of interviews), but that is just pure speculation. Thank you again for your input. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. As I say, no objections to promotion from the prose perspective -- one other thing though, "crawling beat" should really be attributed, especially as there are three citations supporting the sentence (perhaps something like 'what so-and-so described as a "crawling beat"'). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. It is definitely a weird release and production history. Maybe, one day in the future, we will finally get further information about this. I will attribute that part now as I completely agree with you. Hope you had a wonderful weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Loev (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an Indian film that was released on Netflix. I am looking for construvtive comments to improve the article, it recently went through a GAR conducted by Aoba47. I would also like to thank Kailash29792 and Ssven2 for their help with the article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Can you tell me (here, not by editing the article) a little bit about the tuberculosis? Although it's probably the leading cause of death in the world among respiratory diseases, it still strikes me as unusual in this case ... depending on what happened, it might need some explaining. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look Dank. Well, there aren't many details on it, this is the most detailed discussion oh Ganesh's death. I hope this helps. NumerounovedantTalk 17:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay thanks ... I've read all the links I can find and they don't talk about it, so I guess we can't in the article. Other than that, I don't have any comments to offer yet. Nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, looking forward to further comments. NumerounovedantTalk 17:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Not to be too nitpicky, but the ALT text for the infobox image (Pandit and Ganesh embracing in a bed on the film's poster.) reads a little awkwardly, specifically the "on the film's poster" part as it can read like the bed is literally on the poster. I would just remove that part and maybe add in the front of the text something along the lines of "An image of..." to get the same point across.
  • I would clarify in this part from the lead "who share a complicated relationship that takes center stage during a weekend getaway to" what you mean by "a complicated relationship" as that sounds a little too vague for my liking.
  • I still support this, but I am not certain that "complex" is needed in the description as it sounds a little off to me. I will leave this for other reviewers to discuss, but I just wanted to leave a note about this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: One last thing, I have rephrased the sentence, do you like this version better? NumerounovedantTalk 18:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that works better. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have any information on how exactly Saria drew from his personal experiences for this film? It is fine if there is not anything out there, but it just seems like a really broad claim without any specific example with it.
Not really.
  • That is what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure with you. It is fine as it stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Again this is very nitpicky but in the following phrase from the lead (Upon initial release), I would say (Upon its initial release) would be more appropriate.
  • I would break up the following sentence into two (The major praise was directed towards the script and the performances of Pandit and Ganesh, and the unconventional and fresh treatment of a taboo subject matter in India.), with a separate sentence for the treatment of the taboo subject matter. Also, this sentence is a little confusing as it never made clear what "taboo subject matter" you are discussing as it is not spelled out in the lead clearly (it can be clearly seen in the infobox image, but the lead skirts around the topic; this goes back to my point about the "complicated relationship" statement).
  • The part about the rape in the "Plot" section still reads very awkwardly to me, and I would suggest looking at that further and revise it more. This part in particular (He violently pressed him beside a wall and starts kissing him, to which Sahil responds initially, but later asks him to stop by saying that "this isn't what he (Jai) wants".) needs work.
  • In this sentence (who brings along his friend (Rishabh Chaddha) to the hotel), does the friend have a name?
I am not sure, I'll have to check, but he was never a significant character.
  • Makes sense, I just wanted to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have a clarification question for the following sentence (As he is walking away into the airport, Jai sends a text message to Sahil saying that he loves him.). How does Sahil respond to the text? Following this sentence, it appears that this is the final mention/part featuring Sahil in the film so I was a little confused by the jump.
Actually, I think he's never really shown reading his text. It's more for closure sake (more for the audience I believe).
  • Makes sense, I just wanted to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be beneficial to add a date/year to the following sentence rather than "eventually" for clarity (The worldwide rights of the film were eventually acquired by Netflix).
  • There is a citation error for Reference 26.
  • Just wanted to point out that "" was a red link in the References section. It is more than okay to have a red link, but I just wanted to let you know that it was there.

Wonderful job with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Good luck with this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed everything/left comments. Thanks, so really appreciate you going through this again. Also, thank you for all the previous help with the article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this; good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Image review

Wonderful work with this article, this passes all of the requirements for the image review. The minor issue with the infobox image's ALT text should be covered in my above review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this too. NumerounovedantTalk 16:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Anytime! Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose after these changes (pls review it and see if I have messed anything up or altered meaning). Sorry for taking so long to get to this (I caught a terrible cold, which lasted about two weeks), this looks well written, although I feel the article could do better without some quotes present in production. But other than that I believe it is a nice piece of work. Well done. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks FrB.TG, I'll see what i can do about the quotes. I'll try and incorporate them into the text more naturally. Also, I hope you are doing better now? NumerounovedantTalk 15:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from IndianBio

  • I find it a bit strange that we have a picture of Pandit in two sections of the article but no picture of Dhruv Ganesh? Surely Bollywood Hungama has a free image we can use? They are the principal cast so if we include Pandit's image, I believe Ganesh's image is also equally indicative. Please mind that the poster does not give a clear impression of who is who, being a painted imagery.
  • Can you please replace the normal dashses in the reference titles and in the article with the en-dash?
  • I have removed the track list from the Soundtrack section. I am even not sure that the section can be named as soundtrack when no album per definition was released, it was just a single with video.
  • I have made a left-right arrangement of the images as that breaks the monotony of the flow and is recommended.
  • File:Shiv Pandit at the special screening of Loev (cropped).jpg, who is Danish Aslam in relation to this film? I find this image to be completely unnecessary. What does it portray? He's not even mentioned anywhere in the text among the Bollywood personalities attending the premiere.

That's all for now currently. I would very much like to see a spotcheck review for this. —IB [ Poke ] 06:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed everything IndianBio, hopefully. NumerounovedantTalk 16:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash
  • Actors need not be linked in the plot as it will border on WP:OVERLINK.
  • Make sure there are sources for all actors in the film so that it complies with WP:FILMCAST.
  • Link UNESCO World Heritage in production section.
  • "In an interview with Manoj Sharma of Pandolin" - what is Pandolin? Anything without a Wiki article must be defined when first mentioned.
  • You could link "road trip film" to "road movie" (I wonder why the article on the genre uses "movie", not "film").
  • "The film's final cut ran for a total of 92 minutes" - you already mentioned early in the article, "With a total runtime of 92 minutes, the film was pitched under the labels of Bombay Berlin Film Productions, and Four Line Films". Omit at least one mention.
  • "another editorial in called it the least bit political" - the author of the article is Aseem Chhabra. Try avoiding cryptic mentions.
  • "While working in the US" - spell it out: United States.
  • "Film critic Subhash K. Jha gave the film four stars" - he has already been introduced and linked in "Themes", so you may de-link him here.
  • "DeepalI Singh of Daily News and Analysis also praised the movie" - say film.

That'll be all from me. Proof-reading and examining the reliability of sources may be done by any other editors. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed everything Kailash, hopefully. NumerounovedantTalk 06:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Vedant. Upon a second examination, I decided to say a few more things:

  • I think the film is better described in the lead as a romantic drama (that is the genre listed at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes). Even Brokeback Mountain is described as such.
  • There is a sentence, "only a core group were aware of the details of the plot, and to the rest of the crew it was a road trip film". It was here that I suggested linking "road trip film" to "road movie".
  • "it stars Shiv Pandit and Dhruv Ganesh". I believe Ganesh comes first in the credits, right? Then his name must come first here too.
  • Is Jasleen Marwah a producer on the film? I don't find that name mentioned anywhere apart from the infobox.
  •'s Wiki article has (unfortunately) been deleted, so it may be de-linked. I don't know if it yet passes WP:RS completely, but on the basis of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it does, since Nandini Ramnath (a veteran journalist) has previously written for reliable sources like Livemint and Indian Express, I think this Scroll source should pass RS.
  • I tried accessing the official website, but it redirects to this where it says "This Account Has Been Suspended". Is it the same way for you? If the link really doesn't work, best remove it from the "external links" section.
  • Regarding the addition of "English" in the infobox, Template:Infobox film says, "Only in rare cases of clearly bilingual or multilingual films, enter separate entries with {{unbulleted list}}". I think you can mention in the body of the article that the film, while primarily Hindi, features abundant English dialogue. Nandini Ramnath says the film has "Hindi-infused English dialogue", while IFFK lists its' language as "Hindi-English". In this source (which you have already added), he mentions something about the film's language(s), which you could write about here.
  • Add more categories, including "Indian independent films" (unless you feel it isn't exactly an indie).

That's all for now. If there's anything else, you'll know. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): DAP 💅 & Mike Christie 17:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator, since the failed nominations in the past year and after a lengthy hiatus, I've worked with Mike Christie on addressing the issues in previous FACs. He will thus be a conominator as he has made substantial improvements in the reception section, which was the main concern going forward. I believe this piece satisfies the FA criteria and hope for it to be a template for other media articles. DAP 💅 17:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging reviewers from the last three or four FACs: Aoba47, Brandt Luke Zorn, Tintor2, Jfhutson; would you mind taking another look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • Please link the show name (True Detective) on its first appearance in the body of the article.
Done . DAP 💅 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • For the sentence (The Sydney Morning Herald included the opening sequence in a list of ten of the best title sequences on television), wouldn't it be more correct to put the writer's name rather than attributing the publication as a whole as putting the opening sequence on this list? The same comment applies to the reviews in the "Reviews" subsection as they primarily attribute the reviews to the publication without naming the writer/reviewer directly.
I don't believe so. This was a subject of concern working with Mike and we believe declarative statements are more organized and heighten the reader experience rather than a summary of reviewer comments. DAP 💅 13:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

These are the only two questions/comments I had about the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Great work with this article; it is a very interesting read. Good luck with getting it promoted this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. I am still a little confused about the treatment of the reviews as I have received notes in the past that the quotes/content should be attributed to the writer/reviewer rather than the publication as a whole, but if you both feel that is best, then I will not push the issue. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or energy to look at it though; hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    I'd be happy to give feedback for your nom. I'll glimpse through the article and comment sometime next week. Cheers! DAP 💅 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    Aoba47, thanks for the review and support. Re the attribution of the content: I think the point of an inline attribution is to let the reader know the source, but if the source is a reviewer they'll never have heard of, the reader is none the wiser. Naming the publication gives the reader a better chance of evaluating the authority of the reviewer -- the New York Times is likely to carry more weight than Uproxx, for example; in some cases it might be worth giving the reviewer's name as well as the publication, for example if the reviewer is very well known -- Pauline Kael would be an example -- but I think this is rarely worth it. Eliminating the name makes the text a lot easier to read, the reader can still see the name by going to the footnotes, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It looks a lot better than the first time I saw. I can't find a single by having a big look so I support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks for the feedback! DAP 💅 20:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Awesome plot, and a very interesting read. Prose is great too! Good work! Face-smile.svg Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Seems like not all images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo; I've added more details as requested. I checked every image and I think there is alt text for all of them; did you spot one that was missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
File:TrueDetectivedigitaldouble.jpg: Which is the preferred size? Regarding ALT text, it seems like I miscounted the number of images... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Hart tracks down an associate of Ledoux's and forces him to name the Iron Crusaders, a biker gang out of East Texas for which Ledoux is now cooking meth." It isn't quite clear what you mean by "name". For what?
  • "an abandoned lightbulb warehouse near Elmwood." I would suggest "light bulb".
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "and Fort Macomb, a nineteenth-century fort outside New Orleans" I'd like to get you to get rid of the duplication of "Fort". Maybe "and nineteenth-century Fort Macomb, located outside New Orleans.
    That works; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • " disposable children's clothing" most children's clothing isn't disposable, disregarding the obvious. Do you mean secondhand?
  • "many of which are never reported or investigated by authorities." Possibly a "to" after "reported"
  • "insanity, decadence, and mental illness" sounds a bit duplicative.
    I made it just "insanity and decadence". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "both formats contain bonus content including interviews with McConaughey and Harrelson, Pizzolatto, and composer Burnett on the show's development; "Inside the Episode" featurettes; two audio commentaries; and deleted scenes from the season." I'm not a big fan of using semicolons in a list, especially on an American-themed article.
    I hadn't realized this was a UK punctuation habit. I do it when the list contains commas that are not list separators -- in "Harrelson, Pizzolatto, and" for example. How would this be done in US style? Wouldn't it make it harder to parse if they were all commas? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I won't pretend to be a fan, but very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I've responded to most points above; pinging DAP388 (talk · contribs) for the two points that require some knowledge of the show itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Steller's sea cow[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I nominated this article a couple months back, it failed, but Jens Lallensack has been working on it (but I don't think he's co-nominating it) and now I'm sure that it's ready for FAC. It was really close last time, there just wasn't really enough time, so I'm hoping that I can resolve all the problems left. Also, this article's about a species of dugong that went extinct in recent times. Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - the article has obviously been improved since last time I gave my review and support (feels more comprehensive now), so here it is again. FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

Okay then:

  • In the lead, maybe mention that the range was or may have been wider in pre-history
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, information about its size is split over two paragraphs. Consolidate perhaps?
I just removed it in the second paragraph because it was basically repeating info   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • the slow-moving and easily capturable Steller's sea cow maybe easily caught is plainer English?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The sea cow's spine is believed to have had 7 neck, 17 thoracic, 3 lumbar, and 34 caudal (tail) vertebrae. I'm curious why this is only believed.
the source said "axial skeleton probably consisted of"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • consuming the tougher stem and holdfast after they washed up on the shore in heaps. I'm curious about this, did they nearly beach themselves to reach it?
Oops, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Steller researched the wildlife of Bering Island while he was shipwrecked there; it would be good to know how long he was marooned there.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There are two taxonomic trees labeled Relations within Sirenia that show different things. Maybe the second one which excludes the manatees should be relabeled.
to what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The cladogram only shows relationships within Dugongidae, so probably that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • an extinct tropical sea cow that lived near California What does near California mean here? Off California? Oregon? Mexico?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I unlinked duplicated ice ages link, perhaps since there are multiple ice ages and you are referring the most recent one based on the piped link you could a) use the more technical name too or b) put a date range in there? Also ice age probably shouldn't be capped (technically neither should Dugong but it'll be a cold day in hell when I require that to pass)
fixed the dugong thing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
These are minor issues so support should be simple enough once they're addressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, support now. I replied above to the issue of the cladograms, its a simple fix. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, I made these changes (rather than listing them here) as they're all pretty straightforward. tentative support as nothing is jumping out at me to fix....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Why repeat the lead image?
it's relevant in both places   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Pallas_Sea_Cow.jpg needs a US PD tag
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What was the source of the data used to create File:Commander_Islands_Map_-_Russian.png?
I asked at the Commons and they said that contours of land masses (like the one pictured) are not protected by copyright so it doesn't need a source line   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asking about the source for copyright reasons, but for verifiability - think about this request as a {{citation needed}} tag on the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
added citation needed tag   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Steller_measuring_a_sea_cow.jpg: if this is dated 1925, it can't have been published before 1923 - tag needs reviewing
Added US non-renewal instead. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Extanstellersseacowea.jpg needs a US PD tag
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Ледяной_плен_с._097.png: where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
Russian Academy of Sciences, 1879   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Waxell_-_Stellersche_Seekuh.jpg needs a US PD tag and the source link is dead
added PD tag but I can't find another link, should I just remove it and leave the ref for it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Have you checked Nikkimaria (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
yes, I'll try asking the Village Pump at the Commons   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
They found it, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Hydrodamalis_gigas.jpeg needs a US PD tag
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:T2JB367_-_illustration.jpg needs a US PD tag and an author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
where do I put the author's date of death?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
With the author. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
If this was published in 1895, why use a 1923–1963 tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Oops, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by William Harris[edit]

In the section titled "Ecology and behavior", there are some dead hyperlinks (red) that would benefit from being unlinked. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 12:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks D. (I report that nothing exciting has been turned up through DNA analysis of the remains of this extinct mammal, including one conducted this year.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Current ref 1 has a major red flag "Überarb, Germany: Books on Demand". What makes this reliable?
The book seems pretty well-sourced to me, I don't see what the publisher's got to do with it. It cites only journals as far as I can see so I'd call it reliable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, "books on demand" is usually a self-publishing service. We consider self-published sources to be problematical, and often unreliable. See Wikipedia:RSSELF. See books on demand site, World Cat entry showing no libraries holding the book, and Other world cat entry showing one library in the whole world holding it. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm basically citing an encyclopedia rather than combing through all the German article sources he lists or American university publications. Basically, instead of trying to create 50 different sources of which most are inaccessible, I just bulk-cited one that's accessible and easy-to-read. I could try finding individual sources in the bibliography if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Unless the guy writing it is an expert in the field (and given the lack of libraries holding the book even if he was, it's pretty clear that this work isn't one that scholars are using) I'm going to have to say it's unreliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I'll replace it (but later, this might take a little bit)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Found the sources he used, done (and I moved the rothauscher link to the External links section)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Current ref 28 ( is this really needed? There are three other sources on the information it's attached to.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Portrayals in media section - why were these specific protrayals chosen out of other mentions? Per MOS:POPCULT, we need to be careful with these sorts of sections. I've always found a good rule of thumb is to only list those pop culture mentions where a third-party source discusses the impact that the portrayals have on our understanding of the article subject.
because that's all there is as far as I can tell (or at least the only ones that don't just take a small glance at them)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
But what do they tell us about the subject of the article? What commentary in third-party sources discuss how these poems/etc help our understanding of the article subject? Near as I can see, they are just trivial mentions without any coverage in sources to show how the sea cow information is informative. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I think a short film about them that got nominated for awards is definitely notable, as well as being discussed by W. G. Sebald   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: anything else?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: hello?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

One comment: The lead image should be of the skeleton, since it is a physical remain of the creature. This is the case for other extinct animal articles, the only better alternative would be the live animal itself (eg quagga). LittleJerry (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, may look better if you just use the one from the description section (and remove it from there), looks repetitive now, and the one in the taxobox is not as good. Drawings from life of actual specimens can be good for the taxobox sometimes, but in this case, it looked a bit weird that it was used two times.FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: As Dudley Miles raised a few concerns last time, I'd like to check if there is anything further they would like to add here? Additionally, I just noticed that the nominator's first FA never had the usual spot check for accurate use of sources and avoidance of close paraphrasing. As this article's first FAC only had a partial spot-check, I'd appreciate it if someone could do another, this can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Josh Milburn[edit]

I glanced at the article when it was first nominated and it now looks much better. I wouldn't call myself a sentimental person, but I have a real soft spot for these animals and I am saddened by their story, as such, I'm thrilled to see such a well-developed article, and I commend you for your work and tenaciousness in bringing this here a second time.

  • "however this may have been more expansive during the Pleistocene epoch" It's not clear what the this refers to.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "During the Holocene epoch it was among the largest mammals, reaching weights of 8–10 metric tons (8.8–11.0 short tons) and lengths of up to 9 metres (30 ft)." The tenses are odd, here. How about something like "Steller's sea cow would reach weights..., making it one of the largest mammals of the Holocene." Is the mention of the Holocene even necessary? I fear it will turn off some readers.
removed the Holocene part   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Steller's sea cow had a thicker layer of blubber than other members of the order." Orders are yet to be mentioned
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Its skin was brownish-black in color, with white patches on some individuals. Its skin" Repetition
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "As in all sirenians, the scapula of Steller's sea cow was fan-shaped-- larger on the posterior side and narrower towards the neck." Is that double dash in accordance with MOS:DASH?
I just replaced it with "being"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
it's a synonym   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Fossils of Pleistocene Aleutian Island sea cow populations were larger than those from the Commander Islands," The fossils were larger? I assume you mean that the fossils indicate that the animals were larger.
no, the bones they found were larger (which would mean that they themselves were larger)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Zoologist Eberhard von Zimmermann described the sea cow's specific name as gigas in 1780, and placed it in the genus Manati" Is this the first formal species description? If so, how about something like "Zoologist Eberhard von Zimmermann formally described Stellar's sea cow in 1780 as Manati gigas."?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "(shown below)" should probably be removed, per WP:SELF.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "a member of Vitus Bering's as a painter and surveyor" This needs attention!
I forgot the word "crew"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling with something, and the description section (and various pictures) have left me unclear: if the sea cow was upright, were its tail "fins" vertical (like a shark) or horizontal (like a whale)?
horizontal like a whale, but everyone drew it vertically (I assume) to emphasize the shape of the tail. One of the illustrations has it horizontal in perspective (which is noted)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Bone fragments and accounts by native Aleut people suggest that sea cows also historically inhabited the Near Islands,[33] potentially with viable populations that were in contact with humans in the western Aleutian Islands prior to Steller's discovery in 1741." I think this throws doubt on the first sentence of the lead. I wonder if the fact that Aleut people may have had contact with Stellar's sea cow could be added to the lead?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "A 2004 study reported that sea cow bones discovered on Adak and Buldir Islands were found to be around 1,700 and 1,600 years old respectively." Too much hedging; could this be simplified?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "The presence of Steller's sea cows in the Aleutian Islands may have caused the Aleut people to migrate westward to hunt them, possibly leading to the sea cow's extinction in that area, assuming the animals survived in that region into the Holocene epoch.[9]" This is interesting; what is the evidence that Aleut people hunted the animal? I'd like to hear more. Frankly, if we have any information, I'd support a whole subsection discussing the Aleut/sea cow relationship.
should that be a subsection of extinction or should there be a section with interactions with Europeans and another section with interactions with indigenous?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I split it into Interactions with Europeans, Interactions with aboriginals, and Other   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
there's no archaeological evidence but it's speculated   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "It has also been argued that the decline of Steller's sea cow may have been an indirect effect of the harvesting of sea otters by the aboriginal peoples." What aboriginal people? Where? (If you're talking about pre-Steller interactions, this could go in the section I proposed above.)
indigenous peoples of the arctic
  • "Another event potentially leading to extinction of Steller's sea cow, specifically off the coast of St. Lawrence Island, was the onset of the Medieval Warm Period which reduced the availability of kelp. However, the Siberian Yupik people who have inhabited St. Lawrence island for 2,000 years may have simply hunted the sea cows into extinction, as the natives have a dietary culture heavily dependent upon marine mammals.[29]" And this. I feel this section is a little bit all over the place.
  • "the sale of unfossilized bones is generally prohibited" How/why? I don't follow.
unfossilized bone and other marine mammal products are protected by the marine mammal protection act   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "In Alaska, however, native artisan products made from these bones are legal to sell in the United States. As some the material is not actually from Steller's sea cows, the trade is regulated.[43]" This doesn't read well, and seems oddly specific.
The one exception to the rule is native artisan products, which seems notable   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I reordered the sentences, and did a bunch of copy editing in this section to remove redundant sentences. Still might need a bit of work but it is much better now. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 04:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

This is still a tiny bit patchy for me, but it's clear that some great work has gone into it. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

For me, the current European/aboriginal split doesn't quite work; you could change it to something like "Pre-European contact" and "19th century". Changing the title of the section to "Interactions with humans and extinction" would also make sense, given as some of the discussion isn't really about humans at all. So I'd go for something like:

-Interactions with humans and extinction
--Pre-European contact
--18th century
--Later reported sightings
--Commercial value
--Portrayals in media [Or: Portrayals in fiction]

The information is good, it's just a matter of working out how to present it. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure? I thought the European/aboriginal split worked nicely   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not my place to force any changes, but I'm struggling to understand why you have placed the European material before the aboriginal material (and are all these people Europeans?), and it seems odd to group discussions of global climate with discussions of sea cow/aboriginal contact. (Also, if you have a source, it'd be great if you could open the aboriginal discussion by noting that information about contact with sea cows prior to Stellar's "discovery" is patchy.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
The aboriginals section is basically all speculation, but the European section is not really speculation at all, so it has more weight in my opinion. The global warming point just seemed relevant when discussing the St. Lawrence extirpation. I fixed the opening of the section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "discovered in 1741". This is Eurocentric. Perhaps "first encountered by Europeans in 1741".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "their range may have been more expansive during the Pleistocene epoch". This is over-cautious. According to the text below, Pleistocene fossils have been discovered in several areas.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "It is possible that Steller's sea cow and humans interacted before their discovery on the Commander Islands. This is also over-cautious, it seems clear below that there was interaction, and that the sea cow may already have been on the way to extinction from aboriginal hunting when Europeans arrived.
not really, it's sort of speculation (that's why it later says "...there is no archaeological evidence")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "and raising its young" Is this needed? Presumably all mammals raise their young.
mammals can be r-selectors   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "The tongue was only 30 centimetres (12 in) in length and remained in the back of the mouth, unable to reach the masticatory (chewing) pads." This suggests that the tongue was a vestigial organ, and appears to rely on the Miller translation of Steller's work, as I could not find it in the other works cited. I raised this in the previous FAC. Steller was clearly not reliable with figures as he gave alternative figures of 4 and 24.3 metric tons as the sea cow's weight. In addition, the translators comment that Steller's work contains errors as it was published after his death and consequently not revised, the translation was based on a type written copy of the original Latin, as the original was not then available, although it is now online. As there are many modern sources which can assess Steller's findings in relation to the 27 skeletons discovered and what is known about other syrenians, I do not think this should be regarded as an RS and should not be used as a source.
Are you sure? This is literally the only source anyone can really use to talk about behaviour and description beyond what can be seen from bones. Everyone who talks about Steller's sea cow cites this book. I'll take it down if you insist but I think you should reconsider   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Certainly everyone who talks about Steller's sea cow is bound to cite his book, but modern experts will select the points they accept. Forsten and Youngman cover behaviour, and you could have cited them for much of what you say. What they leave out such as the tongue they may not consider reliable. What points do you consider important and reliable which you cannot cite to a secondary source? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:23, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "gone extinct due to the onset of the Ice Ages". "Ice Ages" is vague. I think Quaternary or Pleistocene glaciation would be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "Many lineages died out". Lineages of what? You have only mentioned one species.
changed to "populations"
  • "The Pallas Picture is the only known drawing of Steller's sea cow believed to be from an actual specimen." This is worded as if you have already mentioned the Pallas Picture. I suggest "A drawing of Steller's sea cow by Peter Simon Pallas is belived to be the only illustration based on an actual specimen."
well that's just the opening sentence, the rest of the paragraph delves into its origins. It just starts out with why it's important (I can still change it if you want me to)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Commander Islands remained uninhabited until 1825 the Russian-American Company relocated Aleuts from Attu Island and Atka Island there." The grammar has gone wrong.
I forgot the "when," fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "However, the Siberian Yupik people who have inhabited St. Lawrence island for 2,000 years may have simply hunted the sea cows into extinction, as the natives have a dietary culture heavily dependent upon marine mammals." This is unreferenced. I see it is in the paper on the local extinction off St Lawrence Island, and is an alternative explanation to the decline of kelp in the medieval warm period, which you discuss in the next paragraph. I suggest you make clear that they are alternative explanations, and merge the two paragraphs, this would mean merging the 'Interactions with aboriginals' and 'Other' sub-sections.
@J Milburn: I literally just separated the Extinction section into those three sections because J told me to, and i think that it's much better because there are many factors as to why the sea cow went extinct (and basically all of it's speculation outside of sea otters and Europeans as far as I can tell)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Hunting and the medieval warm period are alternative explanations in a paper on the extinction of the St Lawrence population. Separating them is misleading. Also the first part is unreferenced, and the second suggests the warm period may have led to a wider extinction, which is not in the source, and is very unlikely as the sea cows had survived many earlier even warmer periods. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The flooding paragraph is speculation based on your interpretation of an original source. Steller did not suggest that deaths from flooding were significant enough to affect the population, the paragraph should be deleted.
Well it was one way they did die, and he did say that it wasn't that many. I made it more clear that it wasn't a major factor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Steller was in Kamchatka immediately after the 1737 tsunami, the largest and earliest ever recorded in the area. His speculation that it was a regular event and that these shaped the mountains are valueless, and illustrate the dangers of amateurs such as ourselves using original sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
okay fine it's been deleted   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The 'Other' sub-section is a ragbag. The first paragraph belongs with the one before, the second is POV speculation, the third is not 'other' at all but a summary of the situation when Steller arrived. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
That section's been deleted 15:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "collection died down after 1900". "died down" sounds a bit odd to me. How about "declined".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would leave out the 'Portrayals in media' section as none of the items seem notable, but other editors may disagree.
Well a mention by Kipling and W. G. Sebald seemed notable to me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This article is greatly improved since the previous nomination and looks close to FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks fine now, although I do not think the 'Interaction with humans' heading is helpful, and suggest deleting it and making sub-sections 5.1. to 5.4 into main sections. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

On the Mindless Menace of Violence[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about "On the Mindless Menace of Violence", a speech delivered by United States Senator Robert F. Kennedy on April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.. The speech has been greatly overshadowed by the famous remarks Kennedy delivered the night before in Indianapolis. Regardless, it was still considered by two of Kennedy's speechwriters, Jeff Greenfield and Frank Mankiewicz, and two prominent journalists, David Halberstam and Jack Newfield, to be one of the senator's best (it's my personal favorite, quite frankly). I've pulled together various sources to complete this article, including several journal and magazine pieces, as well as one book strictly devoted to analysis of the speech, at this point there are few improvements I see I could make without the suggestion of other editors. Other than that, I think it is ready for FA status. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Rkennedy05.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The original uploader didn't give me many details but forwarded me to the original photographer, who I have now contacted to confirm the copyright status of the photo. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I have received a reply from the creator of the photo, Evan Freed. I had emailed him "According to the license, "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice." Can you confirm that this is true[...]?" He responded, "I can confirm all on that." I also asked if he knew when/where/how it was originally published, which he didn't respond to, but said, "Give me a call." How should I proceed? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
If you feel comfortable doing so you could call him, but his statement should be sufficient for our purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • "and presidential candidate" - is this perhaps the right description, given that he had yet to receive the actual Democratic nomination? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • ""On the Mindless Menace of Violence" was a speech given by United States Senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy at the Sheraton-Cleveland Hotel before the City Club of Cleveland on April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.. " This is quite a long opening sentence. How about cutting it into two, shorter chunks. ""On the Mindless Menace of Violence" was a speech given by United States Senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, he delivered it in front of the City Club of Cleveland at the Sheraton-Cleveland Hotel on April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.."? Or something like that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "On April 4 civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated" - King's full name has already been mentioned, and the prose does appear to assume a fair bit of information on the behalf of the reader. Perhaps "On April 4, King—a prominent African-American civil rights leader—was assassinated" or something of that nature? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Kennedy dismissed politics" - I'm not sure that this is the best way to describe what Kennedy was saying. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "conditions in America" - I would definitely use "United States" over "America" here, given that the latter is also used in parts of Latin America to refer to the two American continents. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In the opening paragraph of "Background", the full name of "Martin Luther King Jr" appears three times. Only the first time is necessary; the others would probably work better as just "King". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " aide James Tolan and took place in his room.[" - Does this mean Tolan's room or Kennedy's room? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "turned heated as leaders began accusing " - perhaps this would read more smoothly as "became heated as leaders accused"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "replied. "Well," - why the full stop? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "a call Kennedy from on " - "a call from Kennedy on" Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Americans, especially regardless of race" - especially regardless? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "described how America", "violence in America would persist" - again, I'd change this to "United States". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Kennedy listed no specific programs and gave no specific solutions to the problems at hand,[19] as such would not bring an end to violence.[35]" - what does the latter part of this sentence mean? I think that it could be reworded for clarity. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1999 in Colorado" - "in... in". Let's reword this.
  • Perhaps an image of Martin Luther King Jr would be a good addition to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Midnightblueowl:

  1. I don't feel like that statement is inaccurate, and I'm not sure how it could be rephrased. He was campaigning for the presidency, even if it was without the endorsement of the Democratic Party.
  2. Done.
  3. Done.
  4. Agreed. Revised as "Speaking for only ten minutes before 2,200 people, Kennedy outlined his view on violence in American society, he criticized both the rioters..."
  5. Done.
  6. Done.
  7. Revised to now say the meeting "took place in Tolan's room."
  8. Done.
  9. Corrected.
  10. Done.
  11. Removed "especially".
  12. Done.
  13. Revised as "Kennedy listed no specific programs or proposals to address the problems at hand, as he believed there was no single solution that would bring an end to violence."
  14. Revised as "In 1999, Marian Wright Edelman delivered a speech in Colorado during which she quoted Kennedy's address."
  15. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Indy, on the basis of the prose, I am happy to offer my Support for this article becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I've copyedited a bit; fee free to revert if I made a mess of anything. Murphy is out of alphabetical order in the sources; can you fix that? Otherwise this looks FA-quality to me, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Mike Christie:

  • Fixed the source listing.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Giants2008[edit]

  • Aftermath: There's one date here that is formatted differently than the others (10 April). As this is an article on an American subject, I'd suggest switching this to April 10, as opposed to the current international-style formatting.
  • The full Drury and Crouch cite has all caps in the title that need to be fixed (the two dates). Other than those couple minor points, the article looks really good. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Giants2008:

  1. Done.
  2. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support – A very engaging article, which I think meets FA standards quite comfortably. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew[edit]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most devastating hurricanes in U.S. history. Since the failed nominations in 2012 and 2013, I have worked on addressing the issues brought up during those FACs. Additionally, practically every section has been revised to provide a better and more comprehensive summary of preparations, meteorological aspects, impacts, and aftermath related to the hurricane. I have also garnered information from a wider variety of sources, including several academic journal articles (a major issue raised in a previous FAC), the aftermath now includes info on topics barely or not at all mentioned previously. These are just a few examples of many improvements I've made to the article. I hope to have this article as TFA on August 24, the 25th anniversary of Hurricane Andrew's landfall in Florida.12george1 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


  • The watches and warnings could be summarized for the Gulf Coast. Also, given that the preps mention Alabama first and progress westward, shouldn't the other preps do the same? After mentioning watches/warnings, you could have Mississippi, then the Louisiana paragraph, then Texas.
  • "In New Orleans, Mayor Sidney Barthelemy ordered evacuation" - missing [the]?
  • You mention/link both "Eleuthera" and "North Eleuthera" in the Bahamas section. Given the hurricane-force winds reported at the latter, I'm guessing it was also the location of landfall?
  • Yes. The TCR does specify that it was North Eleuthera--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Harbour Island, also located near Eleuthera"
  • "Much of the northwestern Bahamas received damage,[46] with estimates reaching $250 million." - the $ figure is explained weirdly, and should be something like: "with estimated monetary losses of $250 million"
  • Poor intro to the Florida impact section. Move the 4th paragraph to be the first, as it feels like more of an intro.
    • Done. I wasn't sure if I should put it at the beginning or end, but at least it wasn't awkwardly in the middle like before--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Tides were generally between only 4 to 6 ft (1.2 to 1.8 m) above normal in the Biscayne Bay area" - this feels odd. There is no justification for the "only"
  • "Storm surge on the west coast was widespread, but mostly light, with a peak height of 6 ft (1.8 m), measured at both Everglades City and Goodland. The storm surge was reported as far north as Homosassa. " - feels like this could be condensed a bit.
    • Done. I left you a message on FB about why I'm removing the Homosassa part--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "At some locations, the instruments measuring wind speeds failed before the highest winds occurred." - since this follows the peak wind gust, perhaps this should be "At other locations" instead?
  • Actually, that instrument failed too (destroyed). So I'll have to come up with something else--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • When you mention "National Hurricane Center", it is the first time that it is implied that the agency is in Florida. Perhaps "At the National Hurricane Center building in Miami"?
  • "On the west coast of Florida, sustained winds did not exceed 39 mph (63 km/h) at Marco Island" - well did it not exceed 29 mph either?
  • "Additionally, 90% of mobile homes in the county were destroyed, while the destruction of 99% of mobile homes occurred in Homestead." - you should rewrite for active voice so you can trim it a bit.
  • At the Homestead Air Force Base, re-opened two years later as Homestead Air Reserve Base, most of the 2,000 buildings on the base became "severely damaged or unusable" - why the quotes? And you should make it clearer that the hurricane basically destroyed the base. The article for the base says as much.
  • Removed the quotes. I guess I could add more but I detailed rebuilding the base in the aftermath--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Nearby, the small town of Florida City suffered also heavily. Over 120 homes were demolished, while 700 others were damaged. City hall was damaged beyond repairs, with the roof being torn off and some walls collapsing." - three sentences for a small town? Make it one and summarize, since there is already a sub-article. And isn't "hall" usually capitalized?
  • "Due to poor construction, damage to homes in communities such as Country Walk and Saga Bay resembled that of an F3 tornado" - this implies the locations were part of Florida City. And find a different way of saying "poor construction" and better explain the F3 bit.
  • Rewrote. There's not much more specific details on the bit about the F3-level damage, though than that those communities likely didn't experience winds of that intensity (158-206 mph). Then again, the report could also be basing it on Andrew having been classified as a Category 4 at the time it was written--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Crop damage in the county totaled about $509 million." - you don't mention "county" once here.
  • What do you mean? I mentioned the county in the second sentence of the paragraph. I'll just switch with the sentence after that.--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "About 500 trees were downed in Deerfield Beach, while several roofs were damaged during the storm." - not sure this is needed, given the sentence two prior. Also, is this needed in this article? "Waves inflicted structural impacts on an incomplete fishing pier. "
  • You should specify whether counties were north of south of the storm, for better flow. Like, "In Collier County to the north of the path"
  • I fixed that. But technically, everywhere but Miami-Dade and Monroe (the hurricane crossed the mainland part) were north of the storm's path--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That's it through the end of Florida section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review (so far?).--12george1 (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks better already!
  • Throughout the parish, 477 homes and 890 mobile homes were demolished; 1,394 homes and 634 mobile homes were severely damaged; and 3,970 homes, 652 mobile homes, and 148 apartments were impacted to a minor degree. - seems just like a lot of statistics. I feel like the distinction between home and mobile home isn't terribly necessary, especially since you have the same breakdown a few sentences later, and you have a state breakdown in the next paragraph. It's just a lot of text without giving a lot of information.
  • I'm guessing you just want me to say like "...1,367 dwellings were destroyed, 2,028 others were severely damaged,..."--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • One company reported 13 platforms destroyed, 104 structures damaged, and 5 drilling wells blown off course. - which company?
  • At the Columbus Metropolitan Airport in Muscogee County, a building and several billboards and signs sustained moderate damage. - feels like the writing could be stronger.
  • A tornado in Howard County damaged several homes, some extensively; tossed and demolished a recreational vehicle and its trailer; downed numerous trees; and flattened some cornfields. - bit of a run-on
  • Despite swift structural rebuilding in some areas and Bahamas Director General of Tourism Baltron Bethel stating "the physical devastation affected about 2 percent of our rooms, cottages and apartments.", officials expected a 10%–20% decline in tourism. - poor sentence format. I'd split this into two sentence. First have the quote from Bethel, and the 2nd sentence could start with "Despite..."
  • I made a minor adjustment before adding Bethel's quote. I hope you're ok with it--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After the United States House of Representatives appropriated aid to victims of Hurricane Iniki in Hawaii and Typhoon Omar in Guam, the cost was later increased to $11.1 billion. " - was $11.1 billion just for Andrew?
  • No. Unfortunately I cannot find the specifics allotted for each storm, but Florida alone received $9 billion--12george1 (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Governor Chiles considered asking the Florida State Legislature to raise taxes, stating that "No matter how much Congress appropriates to repair damage from Hurricane Andrew, the state will face a substantial cleanup bill"." - did he?
  • It appears he did not. There was reserve fund set up instead--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "set up six tent cities, five in Florida City and Homestead, with an additional one later opened at the Miccosukee Indian Reservation." - so why not just say "set up seven tent cities"? Or was it 5 between Florida City and Homestead and the 6th was Miccosukee?
  • There were six. Five combined in Florida City and Homestead and the other at Miccosukee. I'll see if I can find a better way to write that--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • the United States Department of Defense eventually expended an initial amount of over $100 million for repairs. - weird wording
  • "Due to damage to the Homestead Sports Complex and fearing the relocation of their middle-class and affluent fans, the Cleveland Indians moved their spring training location to Chain of Lakes Park in Winter Haven." - this is different than most of the preceding paragraph. Maybe find elsewhere to put it?
  • I think I'll put it with the rebuilding stuff, because the Indians left even though the sports complex was being repaired--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Check references 30 and 32.

All in all, a really good article, and I'm close to supporting. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Much better all around. I support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "Andrew began as a tropical depression over the eastern Atlantic Ocean on August 16. " why is such a major body of water linked? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • ". A barometric pressure of 922 mbar (27.23 inHg) in the mainland Florida landfall made Andrew the fourth most intense hurricane to strike the United States." this reads as if the pressure itself made landfall. Could "With a barometric pressure of 922 mbar (27.23 inHg) at the time of landfall in Florida, Andrew is the fourth most intense hurricane to strike the United States." work? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Several hours later, the hurricane emerged over the Gulf of Mexico at Category 4 strength, with the Gulf Coast of the United States in its path. After additional weakening, Andrew moved ashore near Morgan City, Louisiana, as a low-end Category 3 storm." mind noting the storm turned north somewhere. In general, I feel direction changes should be noted in the lead. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "it is currently the fifth costliest hurricane in Atlantic hurricane history, behind only hurricanes Katrina, Sandy, Ike, and Wilma, and the fourth costliest hurricane in the United States, behind Katrina, Sandy, and Ike." link to List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "and on August 15, meteorologists began classifying the system with the Dvorak technique. " link meteorologists. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "which was upgraded to 155 mph (250 km/h) in a post-analysis after the season ended.[1]" "post-analysis"? so it was randomly upgraded after an analysis? Generally the term used here is "post-storm analysis". YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Major airports such as the Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood,[25] Key West,[26] Miami,[15] and Palm Beach international airports closed.[25]" a little nitpicky but is there a way you could avoid saying "airports" twice in a sentence; it's kinda annoying given that there a. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if I should do that. Actually I set up that sentence to avoid saying "airport" like five times (and "international airport" three times, might I add)--12george1 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Red Cross assisted with opening a shelter " which Red Cross? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Forgot to switch it after Hink suggested reordering the states--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is Port Arthur linked on first useage and not second? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you meant the other way around?--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The template page suggested cubic meters, so I went with that instead--12george1 (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The storm damaged 241 oil and gas facilities and toppled 33 platform off the coast of Louisiana,[75] causing significant disrutions in production." "platform" to "platforms". YE Pacific Hurricane
  • " Much of Mississippi reported 3 to 5 in (76 to 127 mm) of rain, while areas near the southwest corner of the state observed over 7 in (180 mm) of precipitation,[80] " a state doesn't "report" rain? Maybe try "received?" YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Any foreign aid given to the USA? YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I found a little bit from Canada, but not much else--12george1 (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Add stuff from ReliefWeb. I didn't use Relief Web in my older articles back in the day so I didn't bring this up in past FAC's. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Add a see also section. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Image review:
File:Andrew 23 aug 1992 1231Z.jpg: Good use, source temporarily offline.
File:Andrew 1992 track.png: License and use seem fine.
File:Hurricane Andrew sequence.jpg: Use is fine, source link broken.
File:Andrew-Floyd.jpg: Use is fine, source link broken.
File:HurricaneAndrew.jpg: License and use are fine.
File:Hurricaneandrewlouisiana.JPG: Use fine, source broken.
File:Destruction following hurricane andrew.jpg: License and use seem fine.
File:Dadeland Mobile Home Park after Andrew - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg neé File:Wea00566 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library.jpg: License and use seem fine, I've renamed the file on Commons to a clearer name however.
File:Andrewlaplacetornado.png: License and use seem fine.
File:Andrew 1992 rainfall.gif: License and use OK, but the file would profit from being linked to an explanation page rather than directly.
File:Hurricane andrew fema 2563.jpg: License and use seem fine.
File:FEMA - 1926 - Photograph by Bob Epstein taken on 08-24-1992 in Florida.jpg: License and use are fine.
File:FEMA - 2378 - Photograph by Bob Epstein taken on 08-24-1992 in Florida.jpg: License and use are fine.
File:FEMA - 2399 - Photograph by Bob Epstein taken on 08-24-1992 in Florida.jpg: License and use are fine.
File:FEMA - 2599 - Photograph by Bob Epstein taken on 08-24-1992 in Florida.jpg: License and use are fine.
Good ALT text. As it appears to be typical for such articles, many images come from the US government. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have taken action on all of the images requiring changes. Thank you for reviewing the images!--12george1 (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
    Seems like everything checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review—no issues with the reliability of the sources used. Turning toward formatting and consistency:

  • A few footnotes are using "Month DD, YYYY" formatting for dates while most of the rest are using "YYYY-MM-DD" where appropriate. They should be harmonized. (Personally, I prefer using the former format instead of the ISO-style latter format because you can't properly handle a publication date of "November 2004" in the ISO-style.)
    • Fixed with the former--12george1 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • In n. 10, you have separate authors listed as "National Hurricane Center; Hurricane Research Division". Is the latter a subunit of the former? If so, the semicolon should not be there. You could either have |publisher= National Hurricane Center |author=Hurricane Research Division or just |author= National Hurricane Center Hurricane Research Division and use |publisher= National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (United States is really superfluous unless there is another "National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration" in another country.)
    • That and n. 11 are both part of a template. Should I still fix both of them?--12george1 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, if the situation needs to be fixed. Reiterating, if they're separate authors, nothing needs to be changed. If, however, the one is a subunit of the other, then you need to fix this to avoid implying they're completely separate. Imzadi 1979  21:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In n. 15, UPI is a publisher, not a published work. It should not be rendered in italics, this would also apply to Knight-Ridder and the Associated Press, which are other wire services.
  • In n. 17, The Washington Post is not the publisher of The Tech, a separate newspaper/online publication several states away.
    • I have it as the agency. If that's not acceptable, how else can I include both?--12george1 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
      • You really don't need to include both. It's not needed for a reader to locate the article, and it's not really needed for attribution. Imzadi 1979  21:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • In n. 20, "Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc." is the author of that source, not the published work.
  • In n. 23, the Detroit Free Press is not published in Miami, Florida, unless there is a different paper with that same title. Miami may be the dateline for the article, but it is not the place of publication. Please audit other footnotes for similar misuse of the |location= parameter.
  • In n. 24, The Palm Beach Post should be in italics as a published long-form work, not in roman (plain) text as a publisher.
  • In n. 25, where is the Sun-Sentinel published? When a newspaper name omits its city of publication, it's traditional to give that city separately. That's the purpose of |location= in the citation template. (It's a form of disambiguation because there are multiple papers in the world named just The Times, for example.)
  • In n. 26, you don't need to include Miami as the location of The Miami Herald; that is a given based on the name of the paper.
  • In n. 89, you've included an access date for a source lacking a URL. That flags an error message, so either a URL needs to be added, or the access date needs to be commented out or removed. Ditto n. 103.
  • In n. 113, it appears that all of the authors were placed in the same |author= parameter, which actually corrupts the metadata generated by the citation template. They should be placed in separate |author1=, |author2=, etc parameters.
  • You only need to wikilink the first mention of in any footnote. Ditto the first mention of any newspaper name or publisher.
  • You should also audit the citations for the distinction between a publisher and a published work.
    • A publisher is the name of an organization, company or government agency. This would also be the call letters of a radio or TV station or the name of a TV network. (TV stations/networks publish individual TV series as works, such as 60 Minutes broadcast by CBS; an individual segment on that show would be analogous to an article in a magazine.) This is what goes in |publisher= and is rendered in roman text.
    • A published work is the name of a newspaper, a magazine, a news website (when not the same as the publisher), etc. This is what goes in |work= (or an alias like |newspaper=) and is rendered in italics. Not all websites have distinct names; Upper Michigan's Source is published by WLUC-TV, yet its competitor WBUP-TV lacks a distinct name for its local news website.
    • A republisher, like an archive site or, goes in |via= to indicate that you consulted a republished copy.
    • Just to single out one, look at n. 45. I'm reading the original publisher's name rendered in italics while the website that is republishing the source is listed where I expect to see the original publisher. Also, I disagree with using {{cite report}} and how it handles formatting the names of reports that should, as long-form documents of their own analogous to books, be rendered in italics. If you were to switch up the template and parameters, you could have:
      • Bahamas and U.S.A. – Hurricane Andrew Aug 1992 UN DHA Information Reports 1-3 (Report). New York: United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs. 1992-08-26. Retrieved 2012-06-20 – via ReliefWeb. 
      • {{cite book |url = |title = Bahamas and U.S.A. – Hurricane Andrew Aug 1992 UN DHA Information Reports 1-3 |publisher = United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs |type = Report |location= New York |via = ReliefWeb |date = 1992-08-26 |access-date = 2012-06-20}}

        It's up to you if you want to repeat the UN agency name as the author of the report in the absence of a specific person or subunit of the agency credited as the author.

  • You can simplify some of these publishers, but you need to fix how some are named to eliminate the possessive case. "United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service" is not proper. That can be either "United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service" or just "National Weather Service" because the agency is known well enough on its own. (Especially if you wikilink the first mention in a footnote.)
    • I'm gonna do the former without the United States part because earlier you suggested omitting that. The remaining two are part of a template--12george1 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
  • If you're going to credit for republishing content, why are you not crediting Google News?
  • Please audit for consistency regarding newspaper names that start with "The". You have dropped it from The New York Times and included it in The Washington Post, among others. Not every paper has it, so you'll need to check if you aren't sure.
  • If you're only citing Provenzo once, why not just list the full citation in the footnote instead of listing it separately below? It looks like all four of those sources listed below are cited just once, so I'd merge them into the footnotes for simplicity.
  • One last suggestion: it would give the overall citations an extra bit of polish if you were to harmonize the capitalization of the various titles. If one were to consult the APA style guide, he'd note that it says to render all article titles in sentence case (only the first first and proper names capitalized) regardless of how the source capitalized its own titles. Other style guides would say to render them all in title case (first word, last word, all nouns and verbs, etc capitalized but not shorter prepositions and articles under 5 letters, etc).

Overall, I'm not faulting the sources used, just the formatting for their presentation. I would not support promotion of the article until things are handled more consistently, and more importantly, more correctly. Imzadi 1979  21:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I've fixed or responded to everything except for the first two bulletins under "You should also audit the citations...". Are you just putting that information there or are there specific examples of what I need to fix in regards to those comments?--12george1 (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
    • You still have work to do yet. If I noted above that you should audit the article for something, it's because the issue is prevalent in multiple locations. I highlighted the first example and asked you to look through the rest for that same issue. Otherwise, I can list several dozen citations that need the same fixes, but that would make this source review rather lengthy and tedious.

      Looking at just the last 6 footnotes, "New Haven, Connecticut" does not need to be listed; it's implied by the name of the paper (n. 128). FEMA is the name of the author, not the published work in n. 129, so it should not be in italics. The archive could be the published work, and FEMA would again be the publisher (no need to use DHS there); in n. 130, I'm sure the residents of a notable town in Pennsylvania would be shocked to learn that The Gettysburg Times is actually published in Louisiana, although the paper may have run an article with Morgan City as the dateline. Likewise, I'm sure Kansas residents will be glad to know that The Salina Journal is really published in New Orleans (n. 131). As for the last two, you knew you needed to list a city for the Telegraph Herald, but that' published in Dubuque, Iowa, but you left out the city for The Daily News. Imzadi 1979  21:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

      • I fixed the locations and the FEMA references. But I'm still quite not sure what you're asking me to do with those two comments I didn't reply to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the first comment, I think you're asking me to reformat the references if my source is a TV segment, but I'm not citing a segment, as for the second comment, you're asking me to find the distinct website name for news website (e.g. Upper Michigan's Source and WLUC-TV), right? I think you're going to have to show me a few examples in the article because I can't find the references to news websites where the names differ--12george1 (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Smiley Smile[edit]

Nominator(s): Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the lo-fi stoner album by the Beach Boys, which celebrates its 50th anniversary later this year.

Smiley Smile was recorded at a difficult time in the band's history, with songwriter/leader Brian Wilson in the throes of paranoia and mental illness following the cancellation of the much-hyped album Smile. Famously described by brother Carl as "a bunt instead of a grand slam", Smiley Smile was produced DIY-style at Brian's makeshift home studio with the core set-up of a detuned piano, bass guitar, and theatre organ, the songs range from drugged-out singalongs to creepy dissonance and far-off background noise.

Coinciding with highly ambitious efforts like the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper and Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn, the majority of critics and fans who were promised another masterwork on the level of "Good Vibrations" didn't know what to make of the album's goofy doo-wop chants and marijuana ambiance. The record came and went, and the Beach Boys were soon rejected by the maturing youth market as washed-up surf-pop relics, as the legend goes, Wilson retreated to his bed and spent the ensuing years snorting cocaine. Smiley Smile has since earned a considerable cult following, particularly among enthusiasts of indie/outsider music. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee[edit]

I've made several minor edits to the article here, here and here; these are my comments:


  • No mention is made in the lead of Brian's creative role in the Beach Boys' music, and in particular the Smile project; statements like "Following Brian Wilson's declaration that most of the Smile tapes were off-limits" and "Its production was unusually credited to "the Beach Boys" rather than Brian alone" will puzzle the uninitiated.


  • Carl Wilson's quote explains how Smiley Smile came about (a homespun version of Smile) – it comes across to me as an afterthought; I feel there should be a direct statement in this section explaining what led to Smiley Smile.
The paragraphs before kinda already serve that function ("I decided not to try any more, and not try and do such great things, such big musical things. And we had so much fun, the Smiley Smile era was so great, it was unbelievable. Personally, spiritually, everything, it was great. I didn't have any paranoia feelings.").--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what the boxed quote ("Around '64 ...") has to do with this section; I can't relate it to anything in the text.

Style and content

  • The opening paragraph and blockquote: are those retrospective comments about the album or comments soon after it was released? I think that needs to be stated.

Differences from Smile

  • campfire song links to a disambiguation page – I think it should link elsewhere or the link removed.


  • "You heard the last of surfing music..." in Note 9: Of interest, Hendrix also said "And you'll never hear surf music again" in his song "Third Stone from the Sun" from earlier that year, although in a different context.

Initial reception

  • There's no link for Cheetah magazine – a little on what the magazine is and where it's from would help.
I'm not sure what's to be said--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I see you've created an article for it – thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Track listing

  • Should the writing credits not say "B. Wilson" to be clear which Wilson it is?
He's the only Wilson with writing credits so it seems superfluous.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


  • Is there nothing on each Beach Boy's contribution to the album?
    • ... and what about Paul McCartney on "Vegetables" (mentioned in the cited source)? Also, where any session musicians used? —Bruce1eetalk 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a comprehensive list of musicians that played on the album. There's a few sources for bit parts like Dennis playing Hammond on "Good Vibrations" and Jardine blowing a water bottle on "Vegetables", but the GA reviewer suggested that I remove the {{incomplete-list}} acknowledgement, so I did, and only included what the 1990 liner notes say, as for McCartney's contribution, it was unquestionably on the Smile version of "Vegetables", but I can't find an RS that makes that distinction.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)



  • There are several quotes in the article of over 40 words – they need to be blocked quoted.

Bruce1eetalk 13:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I've addressed most of these issues for now and will try to trim some excessive quotations later.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I see you've also done some quite substantial rewrites of some of the sections. One question about the picture caption of the group in Central Park: how do you know they're performing "Heroes and Villains"? I've looked at the picture source and nowhere is there any mention of what song they're performing. —Bruce1eetalk 10:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
They only played six songs at Central Park: "Heroes and Villains", "Okie from Muskogee", "Forever", "It's About Time", "I Get Around", and "Good Vibrations". All of these are on YouTube. "Heroes" is the only performance that matches the photo, with Al, Mike, and Carl each singing at the same time, Mike standing still with the tambourine at his side, the positions of the backup players, and so forth. They couldn't be playing "Good Vibrations" because Mike was on theremin for that, and on "I Get Around" he didn't have a tambourine, etc. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Then that caption should have a source – as it stands it comes across as original research. Considering all the changes that have been made to the article since my last review, I'm going to do a second pass through it. —Bruce1eetalk 11:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've gone through the prose again, and I think it's looking good. Just a few more comments:
  • Lead: "Discounting the inclusion of standalone single..." – should that not be "Discounting the inclusion of the standalone single..."?
  • The two pictures are missing alt texts.
  • There are still a couple of quotes over 40 words that should be reduced or blockquoted.
  • I've made some edits here. —Bruce1eetalk 12:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Done--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Support the prose. Thanks for your contribution to this article, and for all your hard work on Beach Boys related articles. —Bruce1eetalk 06:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Ian[edit]

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

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

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

John C. Breckinridge[edit]

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

John Cabell Breckinridge was an American statesman who served as vice president in the administration of James Buchanan. Though he had previously taken a moderate view on slavery, Breckinridge eventually came to believe that the Kansas Territory should legalize it before becoming a state, he was nominated by the Southern wing of the Democratic Party for president in 1860. He lost to Lincoln, he eventually ended up serving as a Confederate major general and as the Confederacy's final secretary of war. Display name 99 (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:John_C_Breckinridge-04775-restored.jpg: when/where was this first published?
According to the LOC, it was "created/published" between 1865 and 1880. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. The problem with that is, if it was only created and not published at that time, the current tag does not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, wouldn't the slash indicate that both took place during that time period? Also, this is a Brady/Handy portrait. I think that most of Brady's photographs were published during his lifetime. Display name 99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, having looked at LOC images before, I can say that the slash means "and/or" not "and". If you can find a publication during his lifetime, that would support the use of the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, Brady's biography on Civil War Trust includes the following sentence: "In 1850 he published "The Gallery of Illustrious Americans," which sold for $15, equivalent to about $400 today." It also states that in 1875 he sold his collection of photographs to the U.S. Government. Display name 99 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If this image was "created/published" between 1865 and 1880, it can't have been included in the 1850 publication, and may or may not have been sold in 1875. Any way to narrow this down a bit? And do we know whether the rights were included in the 1875 sale, or just the physical photos (or negatives?)? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, it seemed to me that, in your previous response, you said that if I could prove that if some of Brady's photographs were published at any point in his life, there would be some justification for using that tag. Per the Library of Congress [19], Brady photographs are considered to be in the public domain. Also, the source of the Breckinridge photograph is the Library of Congress. That, along with the fact that all sources that I've seen referring to the 1875 sale indicate that Brady sold all of his major works, makes it practically certain that the Breckinridge photograph was among those sold to the U.S. Congress in 1875. Display name 99 (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Confederate_States_of_America_General-collar.svg should include an explicit tag indicating that the design is out of copyright
I added a PD-1923 tag. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John-C.-Breckinridge-bust-by-James-Paxton-Voorhees.jpg: since the Licensing section is split, the tag in the Permissions field should be moved to the appropriate section. This was done but apparently incorrectly for File:John_C._Breckinridge_statue_Lexington_KY.jpg, and for that image to use the life+100 tag we need an author date of death
I've done the first part. However, the Wikipedia article for the Breckinridge statue in Lexington does not provide the name of a specific author, it merely states that the work was done by the "Henry-Bonnard Bronze Company" and that it was built in 1887. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I've rearranged this. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:John_C._Breckinridge_by_Nicola_Marschall.jpg has a life+100 tag, but the given death date for the author is less than 100 years ago
Done. I've removed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
  • File:JDavis.png (in template) needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. But I couldn't find that image in the article anywhere. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
It's in {{CSCabinet}}, and to use the tag you've added we need a pre-1923 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the tag. In my search to find a publication date using the URLS given in the file I eventually ended up here. Display name 99 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
...which unfortunately doesn't tell us much in regards to whether we can use it! Again, if we can find an early publication we're good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything, and thus replaced it with a cropped version of a Brady portrait, which appears to include the appropriate tags. Display name 99 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'm sorry for the delay. Please check my work above. Display name 99 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

I'll be reviewing this article. Preliminarily, I'm not sure that you can say he was convicted of treason by the Senate, the Senate's only significant right of trial that I'm aware of is impeachment. Looking ahead in the article, I see he was expelled by a resolution that called him a traitor, but that's not a conviction of treason. I would say "found to have committed treason".--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The source, Breckinridge's "Dictionary of America Biography" claims that he was indicted for treason in a Federal court. But it was not by the Senate, so I removed that sentence from the lead. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Infobox: Princeton University was Princeton College throughout his life.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Changed to "College of New Jersey." Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, you might want to put Princeton in parens or something. I fear my being pedantic conceals info from the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The lede is five paragraphs, and the limit is four. Just reading the lede, I see a number of sentences that are probably information that does not need to be in the lede. Consider some cutting. Examples of matters that do not need to be in the lede are who he was the son and grandson of (they are more obscure than he), what the sectional wings of the Democratic Party favored. That's not intended as a complete list, the description of the nominations of Breckinridge and Douglas could probably be boiled down to a long sentence. For the lede, it's generally sufficient to say what he did, and leave the context for the body of the article.
I knew it was a bit too long, but didn't want to shorten it without having first received proper advice. I took some of the advice that you gave, but decided to combine the last two paragraphs. Breckinridge's term as vice president and his presidential candidacy are both more historically significant than anything that he did after joining the Confederacy, so I felt it was best to leave that part in tact and shorten the aftermath. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I would use "doughface" as a noun, rather than an adjective.
Here are sources in which it used as an adjective: [20] [21] Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "which supported popular sovereignty for determining slave-holding status" I might say "which supported allowing local residents to decide if a new state should be slave or free". It's the "slave-holding status" that's getting me, as it seems an indirect way of putting it.
I added something similar to this. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "while anti-slavery Republican Abraham Lincoln" I don't think Lincoln was actually anti-slavery in 1860. He was certainly against its spread, but he had not publicly called for slavery's immediate end.
I added the word "more." He was definitely anti-slavery as far as southerners were concerned. But compared to some northerners, not quite so much. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Kentucky's neutrality was breached." I might tell the reader a bit more, and so substitute "Confederate forces moved into Kentucky"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The fourth of six children born to Joseph "Cabell" and Mary Clay (Smith) Breckinridge, he was their only son." I would add another Breckinridge after "Cabell".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In February, the family moved with Governor John Adair to the Governor's Mansion in Frankfort, Kentucky." Since it's long since you mentioned the year in question, I would either add it or say it happened the month after JCB's birth. It's also a bit obscure why they moved into the governor's mansion with the governor. Also, you could lose the word "Kentucky" here, it occurs three times in two sentences, and the other two seem needed to avoid ambiguity.
Done. I added that the move was done "so that his father could better attend to his duties as Secretary of State." Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "While in Lexington, Breckinridge attended Pisgah Academy in Woodford County.[7] His grandmother also taught him the political philosophies of her late husband, John Breckinridge, who served in the U.S. Senate ..." I'd lose the word "also" as not really needed.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge's uncle, William Breckinridge, was also on the faculty there, prompting him to enroll in November 1834." Was this the "decider" as it sounds? I mean, he's living in the house of the college president and doesn't have money to go away to school, wouldn't he have already been planning to attend Centre?
The sentence uses the word "also," indicating that more than one thing prompted him to attend. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in September 1838, he spent the winter of 1838–1839 as a "resident graduate" ..." to avoid the repetition, I would change, "winter of 1838–1839" to "following winter".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "he and former classmate Thomas W. Bullock resolved to relocate to Iowa Territory in October 1841." Ambiguous. Did the resolution take place then or did they plan the move for then? And when did they actually leave?
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "he decided to remain for the summer rather than returning to Iowa's colder climate" This sort of sounds like you are saying Iowa has cold summers.
That's what the source says. I think that the summers are at least colder than those in Kentucky. Display name 99 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In July 1847, he delivered an address" I would name Breckinridge here to avoid the possibility of ambiguity.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "to write The Bivouac of the Dead." why is the "The" capped and italicized if it's not part of the titie?
Done. I removed the word altogether. I don't think we need it. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "William Owsley, then Governor of Kentucky" I would substitute "the" for "then"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "John J. Crittenden " I would mention that he was a senator, and also a Whig.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "After several men became ill at Vera Cruz," this may not make clear enough that disease was as deadly as the Mexicans, if not more so, in that campaign. The reader may not get the sense of alarm.
Done. I also added that the disease was yellow fever. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "they participated in no military action" I would boil down to "they saw no fighting"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge's nominal military service" I'm not sure that does him enough credit for a difficult and dangerous task. I would rephrase as "Although he saw no combat, Breckinridge's military service"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge campaigned for Democratic presidential nominee James K. Polk during the 1844 campaign." I would change "campaigned" to "made speeches" or some such, to avoid the near repetition.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"Some local Democrats encouraged him to seek the Eighth District's congressional seat in 1845," The "in 1845" feels tacked on, I would move the phrase to the front of the sentence if I am interpreting the year correctly as saying when the encouragement (rather than the election) took place.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In August 1849, Kentuckians elected delegates to a state constitutional convention in addition to representatives and senators.[40]" I imagine that this is a reference to state legislators, as they wouldn't have elected a US senator.
Added the word "state" before representatives. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Frank H. Heck wrote that Breckinridge was the leader of the House Democratic caucus during the session, but most of the measures considered were "local or personal ... and in any case, petty"." I don't see where there is a contrast justifying the "but".
Replaced with "during which time." Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " a traditionally Whig stance" I might phrase this "a core Whig position" or similar. They agreed on this as much as Whigs ever agreed on anything.
I think that the word "traditionally" better conveys the irony of Breckinridge supporting it. The main purpose of this article is, of course, to discuss Breckinridge. Using the word "core" could even momentarily confuse the reader into thinking Breckinridge was a Whig. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Three days before the end of the session, Breckinridge took a leave of absence to care for his son, John Milton, who had become ill; he died on March 18, 1850." You may want to supply a couple of dates in the discussion of the session here and previously.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "The attacks came from the pages of George Nicholas Sanders's Democratic Review, and on the House floor from Florida's Edward Carrington Cabell, fellow Kentuckian Humphrey Marshall, Illinois' William A. Richardson, and California's Edward C. Marshall, who was Breckinridge's cousin, nearly all of whom supported Stephen Douglas for the nomination.[63] Their attacks, however, ultimately hurt Douglas's chances for the nomination and Breckinridge's defense of Butler enhanced his own reputation." is the list of conspirators necessary? This seems of importance only because it boosted Breckenridge.
I removed all mention of them specifically except for Marshall, because he was Breckinridge's cousin. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • At one of the mentions of Henry Clay, I would mention he was a senator. You don't seem to quite get there.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "During its debate on the House floor," I think "the" for "its". The subject is not in doubt.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I would mention somewhere around the time that Breckinridge's second house term expired in March 1855.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "any misdemeanors" maybe "any wrongdoing"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Even with this additional support, Douglas was also unable to garner a majority of the delegates' votes," Probably "still" for "also".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "suggested that nominating Breckinridge for vice-president would balance Buchanan's ticket and placate disgruntled supporters of Douglas or Pierce." I would substitute "the" for "Buchanan's" and "and" for "or".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
More soon, continuing with vice presidency. Sorry to be so segmented.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "they managed to alienate most Northern Democrats, including Douglas.[91][48]" refs in wrong order
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly something could be said about the limited role of 19th century vice presidents, with specific reference to Breckinridge.
I couldn't find anything. Breckinridge isn't considered one of the most notable VPs in history, for better or worse, based on what he did in office. I did, however, expand the paragraph on the speech that he gave in the Old Senate Chamber on January 4, 1859. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge endorsed the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford – which upheld the legality of slavery" That wasn't really the holding of Dred Scott, more that Congress couldn't restrict it in the territories.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I might toss a "recent" into the description of the Brown raid.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Among Breckinridge's supporters ... " since all of the gentlemen listed were Kentuckians, I see no need to use the name of the state twice. Also, by this time Powell was a senator. (you later mention his becoming a senator in the 1861 description, so you could cut that)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Douglas maintained a wide plurality, but failed to gain a majority;" Didn't he need two-thirds?
Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "To avoid detainment, " I might use the more common "detention".
To "detain" is a fairly widely-used word. I see no real advantage here. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "capturing several Union prisoners, destroying their supplies, and driving them from the city." this can be read he did all this to the Union prisoners.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "if [the attack] should result in disaster and I be among the killed, I want you to justice to my memory" It seems like there should be a word "do" before justice. If it's not in the quote, a bracketed word might be worth it.
I added "do" without the brackets. I couldn't access the source for this, but it definitely seemed left out. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "arguing that Kentucky's decision to stay in the Union denied Breckinridge the notion of states' rights to justify his siding with the Confederacy." maybe "suggesting that Breckinridge had been a hypocrite for supporting states' rights, then abandoning his home state when it chose to remain in the Union." Some such, anyway. As it is, it's a bit opaque.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Since then, many in the South viewed him as a "worthy successor" of the late Stonewall Jackson." This appears to need a "have" before "viewed".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Breckinridge would later set another example of this" maybe "Breckenridge would also show these skills"
Changed to "Breckinridge would draw more comparisons..." Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Lee ordered them to clear the Union forces from the Shenandoah Valley, then cross into Maryland and probed the defenses of Washington, D.C." likely "probe" for "probed".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "In the process, he ensured that the Confederate archives, both government and military, were captured intact by the Union forces.[130] By so doing, he ensured that a full account of the Confederate war effort would be preserved for history." I'm not sure you should use such introductory phrases, commenting on the same thing, in two consecutive sentences.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be worthwhile to mention how Breckinridge traveled as he fled in April 1865. Horseback?
Added that he rode into Abbeville on April 28. That was all I could find. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • " Sherman later praised Breckinridge's negotiating skills, and the surrender terms agreed to were later criticized by Sherman's colleagues as too generous." They were actually refused by Washington, who ordered the surrender done without all the political trimmings, as I recall.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Learning of Davis's capture, which left him as the highest-ranking former Confederate official still at large" Benjamin outranked him, so to speak, I believe.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • What were Breckenridge's means of support while in exile?
Davis (2010) doesn't say much. I did add that he lived in hotels and a rented house. People gave him stuff for free in Cuba, as the article mentions, that could have been the case elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) offered him a professorship, but he declined." Was this offered through Lee's influence?
Probably. But I could only find that he was urged to accept it by former Confederate Colonel William Preston Johnston, and added that into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Can anything be said about how Breckenridge is viewed by history? Being Buchanan's VP and a Confederate probably doesn't get you rave reviews.
I had difficulty finding sources on this. As I said before, nothing that Breckinridge did through his office of vice president stands out very much, in either a good or bad way. He's most famous for running for president in 1860, but people discussing the election seldom focus on Breckinridge the man. Instead they talk about the breakup of the Democratic Party and Lincoln and Douglas. Breckinridge had a very respectable career in the Confederacy, but he didn't become a legend the same way that Lee or Jackson did, the best I could do was insert a brief laudatory assessment of Breckinridge as a military commander, and another brief quote assessing his impact on the war.Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
That's all I have. Very nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I have finished responding to the review. Thank you for your assistance, as always, it is appreciated. Display name 99 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Support you're welcome. I have no objection if you collapse addressed comments, or move them to talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

All references appear of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited with the following notes:

  • Ref 7, the Congressional Biographical The reader should be led to a link in some manner there. It is linked both in biblio and as an EL, which I think is a no-no.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • You are not consistent on the use of title case for online resources, compare 32 and 120.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think we reproduce the all caps in newspaper headlines.
Most of today's newspapers don't use all caps, but ones back then did quite frequently. Newspapers from the 19th century don't seem to be cited too often on WP. Personally I do it in order to be as accurate as possible. I don't see it as a big deal. If you can point to any specific policy I would have no problem changing it. Display name 99 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
MOS:ALLCAPS--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)