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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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



Inaccessible Island rail[edit]

Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Another WP:BIRD nomination and another esoteric small rail (we do so love them on the project). Hopefully you'll enjoy the story of its discovery, and the variety of images we're grateful people have released on Wikipedia friendly licences or such a hard to see species. Just passed WP:GAN. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Riley[edit]

As always, some quick comments and if I stop the review and all comments of mine are either done or have an explanation as to why they are not done, feel free to disregard this or count this as a weak support.

  • Maybe change the section entitled "Discovery and description" to something else, as a normal reader would think that you will include the actual description (plumage, voice, etc.) in that section.
I thought about that during the development of the article but decided it was fine. I've changed it now... Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in the Evolution and taxonomy section, "Prior to its collection it had been assumed by Thomson that the species was close to the other 'island hens' known in the Atlantic, possibly a gallinule, but on examination Lowe felt 'compelled to refer it to a new genus'. The generic name Atlantisia was named for the fabled island of Atlantis, destroyed by volcano. The specific name rogersi honours the Rev. Rogers who collected and sent the first specimens of the species to Lowe," feels like it would do better in the section above it. And honestly, one should likely just make the section above "Discovery" and then merge the description part of it with the taxonomy section.
It originally was up there but as it was taking about its placement in the rail family I felt t was better here and I stand by that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Instead of saying "destroyed by a volcano" in the sentence "The generic name Atlantisia was named for the fabled island of Atlantis, destroyed by volcano," it might be better to say "supposedly destroyed by a volcano", as the current sentence implies that it was in fact destroyed by a volcano, and in fact did exist.
I've changed the fabled island to mythical island which should make it explicit that it didn't exist. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

That is all for now, I will return with more later. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Smurrayinchester[edit]

Saw the title, thought it was the world's most pointless transport system. Good article - congratulations getting pictures of such literally inaccessible birds. A few comments:

  • A reference to insular dwarfism would be good (maybe essential) in the Evolution section - A. rogersi is one of the best examples of how living on islands can cause animals to change size drastically. This source would be a good citation, if Del Hoyo doesn't have the info.
  • "the genus Mundia was erected" - Are genuses really "erected"? (If that's a standard term, ignore this).
  • "and a red eye." - "red eyes"? (If it's normal to refer to the eyes in the singular, ignore this too)
  • "The Inaccessible Island rail is territorial, although given the high densities of the birds the boundaries may be loose and flexible." This doesn't make sense to me, and it seems to be contradicted a couple of sentences later by the claim that the birds frequently confront each other about boundaries.
  • " The scientists responsible for the study speculated that the low BMR was not as a result of flightlessness, as flightlessness does not result in this in other bird species, [...] A comparison of flighted and flightless rails, including the Inaccessible Island rail, found that rails that lose the ability to fly also have low BMRs" - Seems to contradict itself?
  • "The foraging method used by the Inaccessible Island rail is slow and deliberate and has been compared to that of a mouse. In fact the species has actually been compared ecologically to a mouse as well." This would probably would work better as a single sentence, and a link to ecological niche might help explain what "compared ecologically" actually means.
  • Might be a good idea to crop File:Nesocichla eremita -Inaccessible Island, British overseas territory-8.jpg - the bird is barely visible at thumbnail size, and the humans in the background are distracting.
  • Thanks for the interesting article! Smurrayinchester 10:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Ada[edit]

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a natural disaster that can be considered a precursor to the subject of my most recent FAC, Cyclone Althea. Taking place one year earlier and a little to the south, Ada destroyed just about every resort in the booming Whitsunday Islands, ruining lots of holidays/vacations. Though all traces of the cyclone are long gone, it still periodically breaches the surface of the public consciousness when politicians talk about how nice it would be to erect a memorial somewhere, or belatedly honor particularly brave helpers in the storm's aftermath. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Isabelle Eberhardt[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an incredibly unique woman. Eberhardt challenged both gender and racial norms, explored extensively, spoke five language fluently, survived an assassination attempt and became a successful writer before a tragic death in 1904 at the age of 27. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Isabelle_Eberhardt.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
I've no idea when this was first published. It was the only image already in this Wikipedia article before I started working on it. See my last comment below regarding author death.
  • File:IsEberhardt.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
Done (regarding tag). See my comments below regarding author death.
  • File:Slimane_Ehnni.png: when/where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The image of Slimane Ehni is the only one I uploaded. As per the details at the file, I got it from a book published in 1968. The author met with people who knew Isabelle in order to write the book; I assume he got it from one of them. To the best of my knowledge, this is where it was first published, though I can't prove this.
@Nikkimaria: As for all the images in regards to the author being dead for 70 years: I can't explicitly prove the authors died more than 70 years since we don't know who the author is. That being said the images were taken at the very latest in 1897, 1904 and 1907 respectively, but in all three cases probably several years prior to that. The average life expectancy in the year 1900 was 31. Personally I think it's a reasonable assumption the authors died before 1947 (70 years ago), but as no author is given for any image this cannot be explicitly proven. If this is an issue, I'm happy to delete all the images and upload the infobox one again under fair-use, which I'm sure would be justifiable since the subject has been dead for 113 years. Let me know what the best course of action is considering the circumstances. Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Death of Leelah Alcorn[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a transgender teenager living in Ohio who committed suicide in 2014, attracting international attention. It is not a particularly long article but it is comprehensive and has been GA-rated since October 2015. Some additional tweaking and formatting has since taken place, and I believe that it is worthy of Featured Article status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I think there needs to be an ALT text for the infobox image. ALT text should also be applied for the rest of the images in the article.
  • I would suggest using Leelah Alcorn’s full first name in the caption for the infobox image.
  • In the quote box in the “Life” section, I would suggest clearly marking that it is a part of her suicide note.
  • In the sentence about the Boston Globe’s response to the sucide note, I would recommend saying the writer’s name (Maura Johnston) rather than referencing the entire newspaper as a while.
  • I think the caption for the memorial/vigil image should include the year (and ideally the month if known) to better contextually it for the reader.

This is a very wonderful and important article; it was an interesting read (not to sound belittling or inappropriate). I only have a few relatively minor notes, and I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your suggestions and kind comments, Aoba47. I am glad that you found the article to be of interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. 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) 01:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Support. I've read the article two times and didn't find anything to change. About the prose, I can say the article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and focused. Moisejp (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Thanks Nikki. I've changed the licensing tag to the one that you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Name-letter effect[edit]

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an interesting effect from psychology: it turns out that people tend to, unknowingly, prefer letters from their own name. I have documented the origin and current state of research into the effect, as well as the research into wider implications into real life, e.g., Does St. Louis have a disproportional number of residents called Louis? Do baseball players with a 'K' in their name strike out more often than those who don't? Were people called Kate or Kyle over-represented in the list of people who donated to disaster relief after hurricane Katrina? I look forward to your comments to improve the article. Edwininlondon (talk) 05:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support A fascinating article, well researched and clearly written. One very minor quibble is that multiple references should be in numerical order, several instances where that is not the case Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words, Jimfbleak. I have put the ones you refer to in the right chronological order now. Good spot. Thanks Edwininlondon (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Gospel of Jesus' Wife[edit]

Nominator(s): MagicatthemovieS

This article is about the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, a text which implies that Jesus was married, but that scholars believe is a modern forgery.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • The citations are a little all-over-the-place in terms of format. They really should be fully standardised if we are to have this as an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we have any academic sources that can be cited? At present we lean very heavily on the mainstream media? For me this is a real concern and a barrier to this article reaching FA status. If there are academic sources out there, they must be used. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The article has a quotation in the lede: "a gospel probably written in Greek in the second half of the second century." Do we really need this quotation here, or can it just be paraphrased? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is also quite a lot of direct quotation throughout he article. In many of these cases, we can paraphrase what the cited individual says just as easily. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the papyrus is medieval" - "medieval in origin"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Both of the "Notes" contain no references to support the information contained within them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of "Provenance" is largely unreferenced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "then-communist East Germany" - a minor point, but the term "communist" may be regarded as misleading at this point (East Germany never regarded itself as communist per se, but rather a socialist state etc). I would cut the "then-communist". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "claimed that the Gospel of Jesus' Wife was real." - again, a minor point, but the artefact is of course real in that it exists. Perhaps better wording would be "was a genuine ancient text" or something like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "to make The Da Vinci Code a reality" - I think it best to explain that this is a novel, as some readers will not be aware of what this is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Professor Craig A. Evans of the Acadia Divinity College, suggested that the "oddly written letters" were "probably modern"." - There is no direct citation presented for this statement. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "By the end of 2014 there was a general consensus that the papyrus was a fake"... and several sentences later "By the end of 2014, there was widespread scholarly consensus that the papyrus was "a fake."" Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The whole "Initial evaluations" section could do with a re-organisation; at present it feels a bit all-over-the-place, jumping back and forward in time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Dungeon Siege[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Dungeon Siege is a bit of an odd duck of a video game, beginning with the title, as the game contains no besieging of dungeons. It got great reviews and sold 1.7 million copies, enough to still be the 70th-best selling PC game even as the market continues to expand... and yet it's considered only the 3rd-best computer RPG of 2002, behind Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind, both of which had better reviews and higher sales. And today, 15 years later... Dungeon Siege is less remembered than either of them: its plot was almost nonexistent, Chris Taylor's favorite word seems to have been "cliché" when it came to designing anything, and its sequels seem to have gotten progressively worse. In fact, the first thing I found when researching this article was a claim that Dungeon Siege represented the turning point where RPGs shifted from experiences focused on deep stories and characters to shallow thrill rides that emphasized "loot", number treadmills, and massacring hordes of enemies for paper-thin reasons.

And yet, Chris Taylor did one thing incredibly right by pushing so hard to release extensive modding tools and documentation—because some of the mods and total conversions people made with this game are still some of my fondest gaming memories, and therefore despite all its flaws Dungeon Siege will always have a place in my heart. I hope this article represents the game well, and if it inspires you to play it... well, you should probably play Morrowind instead, honestly, but I hope you like it anyways. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I believe the infobox image needs an ALT text. I believe ALT text is required for all of the images in the article.
  • The Media data and Non-free use rationale box needs to be completed for the image in the "Gameplay" section. There are a few spots with "n.a." shown that need to be filled in.
  • When you describe how you can change the main character's appearance, I was wondering if you could change the character's gender as well. Would it be worth to noting that? This is more of a clarification question.
  • In the lead, you mention that the Krug are "resurgent after being trapped for 300 years" yet that information does not appear to be directly present in the "Plot" section (at least to my knowledge). Could you possibly clarify this?
  • This is not a major issue, but I am a little curious about the image used in the "Development" section. It is definitely appropriate for the content, but the image's quality seems rather low. I am leaving this point for whoever does the image review, but I was curious if you could possibly get a higher-quality image. If not, then it is fine; just wanted to point this part out.
  • IGN should not be shown in italics in the Reference section. Same for Metacritic.
  • Would it be worth noting that the films were directed by Uwe Boll considering that he directed many films based on video games and has a rather infamous reputation?

Wonderful job with this article; it was an interesting read. There is not much that I noticed that needed improvement. I would be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Responding in order:
  • Alt text added to all 3 images
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Updated the FUR
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes you can, added
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a combination of a couple lines from Plot- that the Seck brought down the Empire of Stars and were then imprisoned underneath Castle Ehb, and the first line that the kingdom of Ehb was created 300 years prior at the dissolution of the Empire of Stars.
  • That makes sense to me; I assumed that it was addressed somewhere in the section and that I was just overlooking it. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I went searching before nominating, but I couldn't find a better free-use image of Taylor (or fair-use I could ask to be re-licensed)
  • Just wanted to make sure; the image appears appropriate for the section, but just wanted to check on the quality. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (handled below)
  • Yes, I think so. Added. --PresN 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; this was a very fascinating read. I will support this nomination. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could add some comments for my current FAC. I completely understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so though. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from TheSandDoctor
  • I have added an ALT text to the infobox image as mentioned by Aoba47.
  • Regarding the comment by Aoba47 about IGN and Metacritic being italicized, isn't that something just to do with the cite template used? I looked at the source and at the references and saw a lot of |work=[[IGN]] but no '' (which would indicate it being italicized).

--TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • It was a small factor that I noticed while reading through the article. If it is something caused by the cite template used, then I understand and it is fine as it currently stands. Thank you for adding the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: About to run to a meeting so I haven't gotten to these yet, but yes, any website that's in italics in the references is because the cite web template italicizes whatever's in "work", which IGN is with Ziff Davis as the "publisher". My understanding is that trying to counter it by italicizing it again inside the parameter is contraindicated as it makes some very weird html as the output. --PresN 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries, thank you for clarifying this for me; then I will strike out my comment as it has already been addressed. Good luck with your meeting! Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Its been awhile since I listened to them, so I do not know if they provide additional information to your other sources, but Matt Barton has interviewed both Chris Taylor and Neal Hallford in his Matt Chat Youtube series. Might be worth checking out. Indrian (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were a couple sentences in there that I didn't have, added. Thanks! --PresN 17:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Great white shark[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Jim[edit]

The text is in need of a copy edit. So far, I've come across the following issues

  • There are a few duplicate links, some of which, like California, barely needing to be linked once
  • "however" is seriously overworked and nearly always unnecessary
  • According to a 2014 study the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated to be as long as 70 years or more, well above older estimates->According to a 2014 study the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated as 70 years or more, well above earlier estimates
  • 59,413 kg (130,983 lb).— tonnes/tons seems more natural
  • It is also known to prey upon->it preys upon
  • ranked first in having the most recorded shark bite incidents on human->has the most recorded shark bite incidents on human
  • its first scientific name, Squalus carcharias—something missing there
  • which means sharp or jagged, and odous, which means— close repetition of something that doesn't need to be there anyway
  • According to J. E. Randall— he and other people are given without a link, nationality, profession, or any indication of why what they think is significant.
I'd like to see the text tightened up before I continue reviewing, I'm picking up infelicities which may be minor but seem too numerous as it stands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: on the count of the nominator has not been a major contributor. LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The major contributor has not been involved in anything Wikipedia for about a year......Pvmoutside (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, you are clearly not equipped to deal with the problems this article may have like a major contributor would. LittleJerry (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On the face of it, I would suggest sending this to copy edit and peer review before nominating for FAC. In addition to the problems mentioned by others, I also see many paragraphs ending without citations. The GA nominator, who may have written much of the article, should also have been contacted. --FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The peer review in Wikiproject fishes is non-existent. Other featured article candidates have had copy edits performed during the featured article nomination process. I still intend to work through the copy edit process to get this article up to snuff..... The article is well citationed with most sentences cited. This article at present is cited far more than other featured articles....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I think you misunderstand; you have sentences hanging at the end of paragraphs that have no citations (for example the last under "Size", and the first under "Examples of large etc"). It is impossible to know what these sentences are based on. As for peer review, it doesn't have to be project based, there's a general one:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)[edit]

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

This article is about the fourth studio album by American rock group Marilyn Manson. I've edited the article significantly since it was last nominated here (it's been nominated a total of 6 times since 2011). I've gone through every archive with a fine tooth comb and dealt with everything that was ever raised—except the issue in archive3 about converting the Mercury logo from *.jpg format to *.svg (I have no idea what an svg is, and none of my image editing software has the ability to create svg's). Aside from this, I believe the article meets the FA criteria. This would be my second FA, after The Pale Emperor. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Damn. I've accidentally created an eighth archive. Can an admin please delete it? Sorry. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

M-1 (Michigan highway)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

Eumerus. Hard to spell name? Anyhow, the query "Is that really the starting point of a highway?" was more an offtopic curiosity question seeing as as highways are a fairly alien thing for me. The problem with #8 is that it's not at all clear that the article would lose much if at all if it were removed. And non-free images are generally only kept if there is a good "keep" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Blame auto correct sneaking back in on that one, Jo-Jo Eumerus. As for the sign, it's illustrative of the National Scenic Byway/All-American Road status of the roadway, which is why it was put in the section discussing it, although it could be argued to be just as identification-based as the main M-1 marker in the infobox. Imzadi 1979  22:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if that logo is particularly helpful. The signs, sure, if that highway is well used many people driving on it are bound to see them. But the logo strikes me as useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pacific blue-eye[edit]

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

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

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

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

I bring no special knowledge of content to this review, but I can comment on prose, logic, and Manual of Style issues. I made a few minor edits to the article; please revert any you find to be misguided. Here are my questions and suggestions:
  • The date of Kner's description is given as 1866 in the lede and in the main text, but 1865 is the date in the infobox. Maybe they refer to different things, naming or describing, not sure.
'twas an error. Duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "British entomologist William Sharp Macleay named a "curious little fish" collected from the Bremer River, a tributary of the Brisbane River, by one Mr Jameson of Ipswich, Atherinosoma jamesonii in 1884, which was later classified as the same species by Australian ichthyologist James Douglas Ogilby in 1908." – A few too many clauses for comfort. Perhaps "In 1884, British entomologist William Sharp Macleay named a "curious little fish" Atherinosoma jamesonii that had been collected by one Mr Jameson of Ipswich from the Bremer River, a tributary of the Brisbane River. In 1908, Australian ichthyologist James Douglas Ogilby later classified it as the same species as Atherina signata."
'split sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "...though it has been split by some into northern signata and southern signifer, with the former found from Ross River northwards and the southern from the Calliope River south. The division occurs at a biogeographic dividing point known as the Burdekin Gap." – The gap isn't a point or a line. In addition to the link, it might be helpful to mention the width of the gap and perhaps briefly describe it.
have called it a "barrier", which it is. Looking for some more notes to embellish... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
having some trouble finding the dimensions of the savannah (as that's what it is). Might be better on target article page anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "were more highly variable than different to each other..." – Different "from" rather than "different to"?
Duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 In 1979, Hadfield and colleagues analysed the variations described and felt both species were more highly variable than different to each other, and that no characteristics enabled people to distinguish either species." - To eliminate repeating "variable", "variations", perhaps collapse this to "In 1979, Hadfield and colleagues analysed the variations described and felt that the species could not be distinguished from one another." Or something like that.
This was tricky. I tried rewording, how does that work? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That seems more clear. I took liberties and tweaked it a tiny further bit (spelling and flow). Finetooth (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1"Populations north of the Burdekin Gap become larger as they move further north, and exhibit no size difference between sexes." – This sentence might be taken to mean that a particular group of fish grows larger as it migrates north. Maybe "The size of Pacific blue-eyes found north of the Burdekin Gap varies directly with increasing distance from the gap and is the same for both sexes."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "However, south of the Burdekin Gap, the species exhibits marked size difference between sexes, which becomes more pronounced as one moves further south." – The Manual of Style frowns upon using the pronoun "one". Maybe "However, south of the Burdekin Gap, the species exhibits marked size difference between sexes, which becomes more pronounced as the distance from the gap increases."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 Link dorsal fin and pectoral fin?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Distribution and habitat
  • ¶2 "of slower-moving water (less than 20 cm (8 in) per second)" – I'd suggest a pair of em dashes instead of the outer parentheses in order to eliminate double nesting of parentheses.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. I have another nitpicky suggestion. The article has two one-sentence orphan paragraphs. My suggestion is to attach the one in the Taxonomy section to the end of the first paragraph of this section and to attach the one in the Description section to the section's other paragraph. My support stands whatever you decide. Finetooth (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
yeah, done. I hate one-sentence paras too...but was unsure where to put them... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Nothing worth quibbling about in a great article, although perhaps you should either remove "noxious" or explain why you so describe the mosquito fish Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thx. I added "highly invasive" - "noxious" adds the meaning that it is desctructive to native species and ecosystems Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Please expand abbreviations in the references - i.e. NSW
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. (Note I reviewed this article for GA status, so I inspected refs closely then) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Metallurgical Laboratory[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source review==== from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Be consistent on using states with publication locations, you sometimes give them and sometimes don't (i.e. Berkeley ...I understand not doing New York, but Berkeley is not a well known world city nor is Urbana (trust me, I live near Urbana!)
    I imagine that it is a university town. I have added states to the locations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:17, 27 May 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 14:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Jerome, Arizona[edit]

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

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

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

  • Thanks. That RfC, which I had never seen before, squares with what I think about trivia sections. I have eliminated the "In popular culture" section entirely. Finetooth (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Another editor has reverted my deletion, and I have written to him here to explain the section deletion and to ask him to reconsider. Finetooth (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Getting no reply from the editor who reverted, I reverted the revert. Fingers crossed. Finetooth (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moisejp[edit]

One comment so far:

  • "In the 21st century, the natural rock features in and around Jerome have been greatly altered by mining." I think this is meant to mean that the state of the rocks in the 21st century is changed compared to an earlier state due to mining in an unspecified period. But it kind of sounds like the mining occurred in the 21st century, while we later learn it actually ended in the 20th century. Could you consider removing this discrepancy for the reader? Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Quite right. I reworded to eliminate the confusion. Finetooth (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I've read through the article twice, and that was the only issue I found. I'm very happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review and support. Finetooth (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

As the ore deposits became exhausted.. - sounds a little funny to my ears, I'd say " As the ore deposits were exhausted" or " As the ore deposits ran out"...not a deal-breaker though
  • Changed to "ran out". Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
660 °F (349 °C), - err, probably wanna make this 350 C as it is rounded.....
After four major fires between 1894 and 1898 destroyed much of the business district and, in 1898, half of the community's homes, Jerome was incorporated as a town in 1899 - this sentence threw me. I realised on the third reading that its grammar was ok, but still might be better rejigged...
Probably better (if possible) not to use Precambrian any more as it is a bit of a broad band of time that has been since subdivided. However, we can't rejig if no source allows us to so this might not be actionable.
  • Interesting catch. I found and added a source for the more narrow band of time, Proterozoic, and inserted it into the Precambrian sentence, I hope not too awkwardly. Finetooth (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I recommend melding the several smaller paras in the Government section into fewer larger ones. Also, is there any source that says it is traditionally republican? Be good to add if true or findable, but not a deal-breaker if none exists.
  • Melded to three paras. Added two sentences, with citations, supporting the claim that Yavapai in recent years has generally voted Republican. Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the pop culture issue. I love pop culture so in my ideal I'd leave it in, but using primary sources only is generally a bit iffy in this situation. Still, it is a minor town so secondary sources are unlikely...anyway, just my 2c. Not a deal-breaker if not in.
  • Still working on this one. I may be able to rescue something from this set. Finetooth (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No luck. Batting zero. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Figured it'd be lean pickings. No biggie. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

All in all looks pretty good - all these are pretty minor. Nice work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review and your support. Finetooth (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.[edit]

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

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

Comments from Smurrayinchester[edit]

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

  • In the intro, "assail" seems like too violent a word (although maybe it's normal in legal commentary).
  • "But in the process, the man lost the package, which dropped and exploded, apparently containing fireworks." Sentence seems to have got mangled in editing. The "apparently containing fireworks" should be earlier in the sentence, and presumably it fell and exploded.
  • "She testified to trembling for several days, and then the stammering started." As written, it sounds like the stammering started after the testifying.
  • "The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Benjamin N. Cardozo, was a judge who was greatly respected; he would end his life on the U.S. Supreme Court, the second Jew to serve there." "End his life there" sounds like he committed suicide there. "he would serve on the U.S. Supreme Court until his death" would be clearer. "The second Jew to serve there" is a dangling modifier (in general, I find the article's repeated mentions of the ethnic background of the judges odd, since it doesn't seem relevant to the case, but I guess it's no less relevant than the rest of their biographical history).
I felt Cardozo's Judaism was relevant and so mentioned it, I did not mention it in the case of Lazansky.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Another editor has cut it. I'm not putting it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Though some state courts outside New York approved it, others did not, sometimes feeling that foreseeability was a jury question." This feels like legalese that may not be clear to lay readers - it's not clear to me what a "jury question" means here.
Hope these are useful. Smurrayinchester 11:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, and images need alt text. Smurrayinchester 11:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I've dealt with those. I agree it is an odd case.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Smurrayinchester 08:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Smurrayinchester, do you feel able to take a position on whether the article should be promoted?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in case it wasn't clear, support. Smurrayinchester 07:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you indeed for that, and for returning.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

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

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

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

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

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

Support. A quite fascinating read. Just a couple of comments I hope you can clarify:

  • "The judge told the all-male jury that if the LIRR employees "did nothing which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees should do in regard to passengers moving upon their trains, then there can be no liability. " I understand this is a quotation but it seems to me—unless I'm missing something—that the judge said the opposite of what he meant to say. Logically shouldn't it be "if the LIRR employees did nothing which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees shouldn't do ... there can be no liability. " Or "if the LIRR employees did everything which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees should do ... there can be no liability. " If I'm correct, maybe it's okay for you to cut this first sentence, because the next sentence clearly spells out the case of where there would be liability.
I went back and looked at the trial record, and that's what he's recorded as saying. Your cut seems very sensible and I've made it.
  • "The plaintiff's brief also suggested that the failure of the railroad to call as witnesses the employees who had aided the man should resolve any inferences of negligence against it." My understanding of the first part of this is that the railroad should have called as witness the two train employees—and if the railroad was so confident of its employees' lack of liability, there would be no problem calling them as witnesses; hence, the fact that the railroad didn't does not reflect well on its presumed lack of liability. If so, why does the "failure [to do so] ... resolve any inferences of negligence against it"? Wouldn't it be the opposite, i.e., it increases inferences of negligence against it? Moisejp (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes terms mean one thing to lawyers, another to everyone else, and I guess this is one of them on "resolve". Changed to "decide"; you are of course correct in our interpretation. The LIRR was apparently not even willing to invest the cost of the day's wages for two employees in the case. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • isbn for Herzog?
  • Location for Noonan?
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations, as I checked out the "violations" its flagging, and they are all quotations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Notecardforfree[edit]

This is a very nice article and I commend Wehwalt's excellent work with this. Palsgraf is an incredibly important case and it certainly deserves a top-quality article on Wikipedia. I will offer a few more comments over the weekend, but I have a few preliminary recommendations:

  • It would be nice to include a discussion about the case's impact on other areas of tort law, such as claims for emotional distress for people within the zone of danger, products liability, and strict liability (i.e. for inherently dangerous activities). I can help identify law review articles that discuss these topics if you like.
Certainly, if you like. It's not something I would want to go too deep into.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You mentioned that "some state courts outside New York approved it, others did not . . . ." Prosser and Posner seem to suggest that at least some states followed Justice Andrews' approach. Do you know if any other jurisdictions still follow Justice Andrew's view? It might be helpful to give a few examples of states that have adopted Justice Andrews' framework.
The Little article you link below has an excellent discussion of Wisconsin's approach based on Andrews.
  • Have any subsequent New York Court of Appeals opinions attempted to distinguish or limit Palsgraf? If the answer is "yes," then you should probably mention this as well.
Undoubtedly, in ninety years, but I'll see if there's something scholarly.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It might be helpful to include a background section that provides a general overview of the basic principles of tort law that were adjudicated in this case. For example, you may want to explain that tort liability for personal injuries (usually) only exists when the tortfeasor owes a duty to the injured party.
A good point.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • For commentary on Prosser's assessment of Palsgraf, see Joseph W. Little, Palsgraf Revisited (Again), 6 Pierce L. Rev. 75 (2007).
That article is very helpful on a number of the matters you mention. I may not get to this until after the weekend, by the way, so don't take any inaction as my plan.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful. Thank you again for your excellent work. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'll do some research and comment again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoriaearle

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

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

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Gerda[edit]

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


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


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


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


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


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

Style and format

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


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


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

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

Cheers Gerda, glad you like the painting. Will be getting to these very helpful points this evening. Ceoil (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
All, done, I think Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

These articles are one of the reasons I still hang about Wikipedia, though past my sell-by date. My review is limited to prose and presentation, and i have a few minor points. I'm not insisting you accept them all.

  • "who was then gravely ill" → "who at the time was gravely ill" (otherwise it might be thought that the illness followed the commission, rather than being the reason for it).
  • Why isn't St George linked, while Saint Donatian is?
  • "...a position which afforded him income from the various parishes under his remit, and allowed him to commission the best painter in the region". Suggest a slight rewording: "a position which afforded him sufficient income from the various parishes under his remit to commission the best painter in the region for his proposed work of art".
  • "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the function and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." Again, a slight modification suggested: "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the functions of his office, and led him to reflect upon his position as canon and on his mortality".
  • "the donation" seems a bit weak; perhaps "der Paele's beneficence" (or "benefaction")
  • "It was donated to the church..." → "He donated it to the church..." (active voice)
  • Second para: Can anything be done about four "ands" in the second sentence?
  • The word "from" (second word in third para) needs deleting. "After from..." doesn't make sense.
  • "He abandons..." → "Van Eyck abandons..."
  • "and evidence the influence..." → "and evidences the influence..."
  • Link Romanesque architecture
  • "at the side of her lap" → "at the side of the Virgin's lap"
  • "c. 950". I believe that the use of such abbreviations in WP text is frowned on, so I'd make this "around 950" 9you use this form elsewhere) – and I'd specify AD (There are other instances of "c." in the text}.
  • "According to Ward it is odd...": from the wording it's not clear what Ward considers odd – is it the symbols themselves, or their placement? If it's the symbols, shouldn't it be "they are odd"?
Style and format
  • Third para begins: "As with his..." Pronouns should not be used on the first mention of a person in a paragraph. Van Eyck hasn't been named since the first paragraph in this section.
Provenance and attribution
  • "and while it was in the mid-19th century going through a process of rediscovery..." Rather clumsy – suggest: "and while in the mid-19th century it was going through a process of rediscovery..."
  • "Memling" should be identified as Hans Memling, and linked.

A fine article as expected, and I look forward to supporting its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brian, have worked through all of these very helpful and clear suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Support: Well done, team, and keep on giving us these great articles. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


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

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

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester[edit]

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

Sabine's Sunbird's comments[edit]

I'm deeply disappointed this was nominated for FAC before Sabah. I look forward to this lamentable lapse being rectified in the future :P (I'm biased because I've been to Sabah and not Sarawak, but I look forward to rectifying that lamentable lapse in the future!).

  • and the independent state of Brunei in the northwest. Brunei is to the west of Sabah but I'd struggle to call it to the northwest of Sarawak. I'd rephrase. - Then I call it north of Sarawak. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • During the 16th century, the Kuching area was known to Portuguese cartographers as Cerava, one of the five great seaports on the island of Borneo.[26][27] By the early 19th century, the Bruneian Empire was in decline The empire is introduced as being in decline over the area - you really need to introduce it as being in the area at all before you do that. The article is a little biased towards colonial and post colonial history, so maybe flesh out pre-colonial history out a bit if you can. - Mid 15th century, Brunei controlled coastal regions of Sarawak before declining in 19th century. Most of the details are dedicated to the Bruneian Empire itself, so there is no mention on what happened in Sarawak during Brunei's rule. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You do a good job of explaining the expansion of the Brooke rule, but the statement and brokered a peace in Marudi. cries out for a little more context. - Done.Cerevisae (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • and became federated with Malaya, North Borneo, and Singapore to form the federation of Malaysia it's unclear what is meant by North Borneo in this context. Sabah? Sabah, Brunei and Sarawak? Maybe unimportant but would be helpful to clarify.
  • Meanwhile, there are several Sarawak–Kalimantan border issues yet to be settled with Indonesia this begs the question about what they are. If they are uninteresting or of low import, maybe rephrase There are also several Sarawak–Kalimantan border issues with Indonesia or similar.
  • The dominant trees in the peat swamp forests are: ramin, meranti, and medang jongkong. I would link to the articles for these trees if you're going to use the local rather than scientific or English names, as you can't search for them in EN:WIKI
  • The state is the habitat of endangered animals, including the borneo pygmy elephant, proboscis monkey, orangutans and rhinoceroses. I'd name the rhino species (Sumatran Rhinoceros)
I'll finish my review tmrw. In general though this is a good article and I don't see many problems in getting it featured. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. Definitely Sabah will achieve FA soon, because the article is much more detailed and the state is more well-known to the tourists when compared to Sarawak. Cheers. Cerevisae (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10[edit]

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

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

Francis Schonken[edit]

  • Oppose promotion to FA: too many idiosyncracies, and edit-warring forum shopping has begun to keep them in ([2]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    I live on voluntary 1RR, and began a discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    Please keep discussions in one place: I raised the issue here, please don't open the same discussion at another forum. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't. I opened it before I even saw your comment here, and I believe that Classical music is the better forum than FAC. It concerns all Bach works, and it has nothing to do with FA criteria. All previous FAs on Bach's cantatas have BWV bold. It's approved quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    But you agree I opened this discussion before yours, so there's no problem in closing discussions in the two other places with a link to here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    Gerda now opened the same discussion in a fourth venue (which I promptly closed). @Gerda Arendt: please stop the forum shopping / disallowed canvassing: how many times have I linked to that guidance? How much did you learn since? Not much, apparently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    On the content and layout of the lead paragraph (which we still seem to be discussing in several places at the same time) I'd propose something in this vein:
    Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, based on Luther's German Magnificat. Consequently, the cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He composed it for the Feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724, which was the fifth occasion for a cantata of his second year in Leipzig. Like most of the other cantatas of his second year in Leipzig it was composed as a chorale cantata. In principle such a cantata is based on a specific Lutheran chorale. Luther's German Magnificat is however not a chorale: its melody is a psalm tone, and thus lacks the metre and harmonic structure which are typical for chorales. Nonetheless, the process with which Bach adopted text and melody of Luther's German Magnificat into his Meine Seel erhebt den Herren cantata was the same as the one he used for adopting chorales into the other cantatas of his chorale cantata cycle.
    Advantages of this approach:
    • Less cluttered lead sentence:
      • The translation of the text incipit is not copyrighted – it is a standard English translation of the opening sentence of the Magnificat (like the opening sentence of the cantata is a standard German translation of the same), e.g. Wikipedia uses it without reference or copyright notice in the lead sentence of the Magnificat article (hence I linked to that article from the English translation for those who are unaware of the cultural reference of this English sentence): that translation has been around way before Dellal put it on her website in 2012, so the first numbered footnote with the reference to that website can be omitted from the lead sentence (it can be put in the section that talks about the text of the cantata if it isn't already there).
      • Less boldface (less frequently used synonyms don't necessarily need boldface)
      • No explanatory footnote: such footnote can (and should per WP:ACRO) be replaced by a wikilink for the first occurrence of the BWV acronym
      • Luther (i.e. last name only) would be clear to most readers in the context, and if not the first name (Martin) would probably not help much for those readers who don't know who this person is (link would need to be clicked anyway).
    • Luther(an) context clear from first sentence (which over-all, apart from the music being composed by Bach, is probably the most significant general aspect of the context of this cantata)
    • Next I'd talk about the occasion (Visitation) and the chorale cantata format (will try something that is better organised and readable than the current lead paragraph if nobody else does so with a solution I can sympathise with) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    In a FAC, with several people commenting and making changes, you will never be able to maintain one position. The disadvantages of your lead sentence that I see are:
    • It is not consistent with other articles on Bach cantatas, FA, GA, and others.
    • Specifically: it lacks an early mentioning of time and place, for me the minimum service an article should give a reader.
    • Also specifically: It lacks BWV 10 in bold, which is 1) part of the article title, 2) an incoming link, 3) something not German, 4) distinguishing this article from Luther's.
    • I don't see the "consequently" sourced in the article, and met the term German Magnificat in none of the sources I used, so believe it's not even needed to mention it in the lead, and if mentioned, no need to bold it.
    Ideas welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Re. " will never be able to maintain one position" – of course this is something I welcome.
    I completed my first draft of the intro rewrite proposal now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for your suggestion. The points above, worded earlier for only its first sentence, still apply. Please see also below that the article reads too technical. A previous FAC demanded that we don't surprise the reader with the "Easter egg" church cantata (going to the highly specialized Church cantata (Bach)), but establish Bach cantata first. A random reader should be told early that we deal with Leipzig in 1724, - we can't take knowledge about where Bach did what when for granted. I'd hesitate to mention Magnificat before clarifying Visitation. Please read how strange the term Magnificat is for some of our readers, on this Magnificat talk. I'd also prefer a sense of chronology: nobody at Bach's time would have talked about a "German Magnificat", therefore I'd mention it much later, and probably not bold. That term doesn't appear in books by Dürr, Wolff and Jones, but yes in the preface by Großpietsch. To me, it looks like an attempt to set this German Magnificat apart from the Latin one, and perhaps where that is mentioned in the article would be a good position to mention the term. The greatest difference seems to be that the Latin was repeated for high holidays, and revised, while the German seems restricted to Visitation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────New proposal (the three paragraphs proposed here would replace the first two paragraphs of the current lead section):
    Johann Sebastian Bach composed his church cantata Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10, in 1724 as part of his second cantata cycle. Its title translates as "My soul magnifies the Lord", and is taken from Martin Luther's German translation of the Magnificat canticle ("Meine Seele erhebt den Herren"). The cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He wrote it for the Feast of the Visitation (2 July). The composition is in Bach's chorale cantata format.
    The Feast of the Visitation commemorates Mary's visit to Elizabeth as narrated in the Gospel of Luke, 1st chapter, verses 39 to 56. In that narrative the words of the Magnificat, Luke 1:46–55, are spoken by Mary. Traditionally Luther's prose translation of that biblical text is sung to a German variant of the tonus peregrinus or ninth psalm tone. The sung version of the canticle concludes with a doxology in German (a translation of the Gloria Patri), on the same tune. Bach based his BWV 10 cantata on Luther's German Magnificat and its traditional setting, working text and melody into the composition in a similar way as he did with Lutheran hymns in his other chorale cantatas.
    Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month into his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. BWV 10 is the fifth of 40 chorale cantatas with which he started his second year in Leipzig. The outer movements of the cantata are for mixed choir (SATB) and the full orchestra consisting of trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo (thoroughbass). Luther's translation of Luke 1:46–48 is the text of the first movement. The canticle's doxology is the text of the last movement. The five middle movements are a succession of arias and recitatives, with, between the fourth and sixth movement, a duet for alto and tenor accompanied by trumpet, oboes and continuo. Soprano and bass each have one aria, and the two recitatives are sung by the tenor. The text of the arias and recitatives is paraphrased and expanded from (Luther's German translation of) Luke 1:49–53 and 55. The text of the duet is Luther's translation of Luke 1:54. The melody associated with Luther's German Magnificat appears in movements 1, 5 and 7.
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It is unusual to not begin with the title, but let's try. --GA
    • I want to see BWV 10 bold, as an important redirect, and the part of the article title which distinguishes it from Luther's. --GA
      Re. "I want ..." – see more elaborate comment about "what I would do / I don't use..." below; also your own comment about maintaining a position in a FAC above. Imho it is about time to lose the idiosyncrasy in this instance, have the lead sentence conform to applicable guidance, and make it as inviting as possible for the reader (which includes removing clutter like footnoted explanations and optional boldface wherever such removal is allowed by applicable guidance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I think it's not helpful to introduce a complex concept such as the chorale cantata cycle before even a translation is given. --GA
       ? The "chorale cantata cycle" concept is not introduced before the translation is given? What does the cycle concept have to do with translation? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      Forgive my sloppyness, please, it's "his second cantata cycle", - but the same applies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      As does the same question: "What does the cycle concept have to do with translation?". --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I believe that we have to say that Luther's translation is called the German Magnificat. --GA
      Taken, worked it in the proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't understand mentioning Bach's chorale cantata format between the term Visitation (which many readers will not know) and its explanation. Probably Visitation should come sooner than even Magnificat, because it explains why Bach set the Magnificat, at least when the prescribed reading for the feast day is mentioned. --GA
      First paragraph of the intro is "summary of summaries", short sentences about the cantata's essential characteristics; characteristics that set it apart from similar compositions receive a bit more attention. I see nothing wrong with that approach: it is not possible to have it all in one lead sentence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Luther details (year of translation etc) seem too much detail for the lead (summary) of this article, - it would be appropriate in the body, perhaps in the lead of his German Magnificat. --GA
      Taken, leaves to be seen how this is mentioned elsewhere (body of this article and/or German Magnificat article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • "Early July 1724 Bach was somewhat over a month ...",- also too much detail. If he didn't compose the cantata in one day, he composed it in June, - why mention any month? Perhaps: "When Bach composed the cantata ..." --GA
      The sentence says nowhere "composed", so I don't understand the last part of your comment. Early July refers to 2 July as mentioned in the first paragraph (when the cantata was first presented), i.e., without using the exact same expression which may be experienced as too repetitive in prose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The details (SATB, translation of continuo) of scoring are way too much detail for the lead, also the follwing, which voice sings with what instrument when. --GA
      The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis, movement by movement, of the composition: a summary, in half a paragraph of the lead section, of some 50% of the prose of the article seems appropriate. Also, the current summary of the same, " Bach structured the cantata in seven movements, setting the outer movements for choir, based on the psalm tone of the German Magnificat. He set the other movements for soloists as recitatives, arias and a duet. Using a Baroque instrumental ensemble of a trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo, the music expresses the different moods of the text, illustrating God's force and compassion. [...] the cantata's fifth movement, [...] a duet for alto and tenor on the biblical text with the cantus firmus played by trumpet and oboes [...]" has more problems (including not linking on first instance, using specialist jargon that can easily be avoided, interpretations without in-text mentioning of the author of such interpretations) and is not particularly shorter. Example: "cantus firmus", a quite specialist concept, can easily be avoided in the lead section as the draft shows. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      Please look up what's appropriate, 50% seems way to high. I've seen a FAC review (of a short article like this one) where a limit of 2 paragraphs was requested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      Re. "50%":
      • "Context" topics: 7 paragraphs in one section (with 2 subsections)
      • Description of the composition: 10 paragraphs in one section (with 9 subsections)
      • "Reception" topics: 5 paragraphs in 2 sections
      So, calculated by prose paragraphs (which of course don't have the same length) it is somewhat under 50% (10 out of 22 paragraphs); by separate section titles it is way over 50% (10 out of 15). Devoting around 25% of the lead section to that content doesn't seem exaggerated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Formal note: "sixth movement" not "6th movement". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      Taken. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    A proposal for a replacement of the last paragraph of the intro, regarding reception-related topics, is still in preliminary stages and worked on at the article talk page: it is too dependent on how article content on publication/recordings/reception will evolve (see undecided suggestions below) in order too be presented here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Other suggestions:
      1. The article doesn't explain very clearly why Luther's German Magnificat isn't a chorale (it being in a bible translation is hardly the reason). FYI: Metre (hymn) explains that a hymn (or chorale) has a metre: Luther's German Magnificat has no such metre for the text, nor has the melody to which it is sung a metre in the musical sense. Hence the melody also has no Zahn number, while it is in fact a reciting tone (reciting tones have no metrical structure). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        This point needs attention: the intro has been changed twice now regarding this (change 1comment 1; change 2comment 2)... I suppose these changes without understanding what this is about will keep recurring until the explanation in the body of the article is updated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      2. Language should be clearer in the article: Luther's German Magnificat is called a chorale throughout, apart from the single sentence that says it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        Good idea, I used now "reciting tone", alternatively with "psalm tone" (which was already there), and placed "chorale" in quotation marks to indicate it's not strictly a chorale. Do you have a suggestion for saying that Bach (of course) gave the psalm tone a meter? Can we still say "chorale fantasia"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        Another point: while the English "chorale" seems not to include Luther's German Magnificat, the German Choral does, just compare Gregorianischer Choral (de), Choralbuch (de), Choralschola etc. That is the the culture in which Bach composed. Could that be explained? If yes, the lead seems not the right place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        Zahn classified what he called "Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder", giving each a number. Luther's German Magnificat (and its melody) is not included in that classification. So one can safely say that it is not a "deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied", in other words (while it is certainly "deutsch" and "evangelisch"), not a chorale. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
        Do you realize that the German word Choral is not restricted to "German Protestant Hymn" (Deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied) but includes Latin chant before the Reformation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Dürr/Jones 2006, p. 32: "In ... BWV 10 ... the melody is no longer that of a hymn ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "... the German word Choral ..." (above), "... CPE regarded it as a Choralgesang ..." ([3]), etc.: I don't think we need to be solving the intricacies of (18th-cenury) German language here, but create an English-language narrative that is clear for 21st-century readers (whether they are experienced in the subject matter or not – understanding German is not a prerequisite):
        • Luther's "Meine Seele erhebt den Herren" (German Magnificat) is, in English, "not a (Protestant) hymn"; in German: "... kein (evangelisches) Kirchenlied ..."
        • The cantata's last movement, "Lob und Preis sei Gott dem Vater" (doxology), first published as "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren", is, in English, a "chorale"; in German: "Choral" (e.g. [4]).
        Afaik, in the context of modern Bach studies, "(Protestant) hymn" and "chorale" are used interchangeably
        I expect to see two things in the article, i.e. (1) clear, non-confusing terminology used throughout; (2) an explanation *why* Luther's German Magnificat is not a hymn/Kirchenlied (in other words: what did Bach do to turn something that was not a hymn into something that is a hymn – compare Jesus Christus, unser Heiland, der von uns den Gotteszorn wandt where a 16th-century transformation of another "melody from Latin religious chant" to a Lutheran chorale is explained). For the second maybe an additional search for appropriate sources is needed. For clarity, "... the "chorale" tune ..." (currently in the article) misses the clarity I expect per (1) above, and lacks the explanation I expect per (2). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
      3. I suppose Spitta discusses the cantata somewhere? Maybe a summary of such discussion or at least a page number of where he discusses it (preferably of the English edition) would be welcome? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
        Feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
        Spitta is probably the key to the (erroneous) "c. 1940" date of the LOC website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        (ec) Good point, I will use the sources you kindly provided, but not immediately (see below), - you are also welcome to do it yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        Now two sources are added, and 1740 is not mentioned in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        Spitta's erroneous chronology is at pp. 89–99, and endnote 3 (p. 285ff.) in Vol. 3 of the English edition. In both cases BWV 10 happens to be the 25th of the listed cantatas. (for clarity this is neither of the sources Gerda mentions in her comment immediately above – this history of the chronology is not yet in the Wikipedia article). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      4. [5] --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        (ec) What do you think is not complete in the sentence in "A critical edition was published by Carus in 2009", which is expanded by a clause on who edited, and another that it came with a singable version + the title of that version. Feel free to improve the grammar. - It would be more transparent (generally speaking), if you'd repeat your concerns here, instead of just a diff. - "non sequitur" - I understand it, but kindly use less Latin. I don't understand what doesn't follow, though. - Also generally: I appreciate copy-edits and suggestions, but please don't put too much in one edit, again for transparency. Thank you for striking the alleged edit-warring which was about one single revert as you say yourself below. - I would normally put such information for you and only you on your talk, but that was deemed "opened the same discussion in a fourth venue" and "forum shopping / disallowed canvassing" above. Can we try to stick to content? - This weekend, I have little time, - both "my" groups sing in a mass, + I will listen to a concert tomorrow. It's not that I neglect this, but also no rush. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        Sorry about the Latin... {{non sequitur}} is however the English Wikipedia name of the template that seemed most appropriate to indicate the situation (see template documentation by clicking the link). The half sentence tagged with that template is however not a continuation of the "Carus"-related sentence. That previous sentence ends with a period (followed by a reference), after which the "non sequitur" half-sentence starts without a capital letter. There is no apparent relation between the half-sentence and the preceding full sentence: they speak about different publishers (Carus vs. Bärenreiter) and different editors (Großpietsch vs. Uwe Wolf). The English translation seemingly mentioned in the context of the Bärenreiter publication ("Now my soul exalts the Lord"), is also not the same as the one mentioned for the Carus publication ("Magnify the Lord, my soul") --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        Fixed, I hope. I must have inadvertently deleted the beginning of the second sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        I see in a hidden comment that you'd like more clarification. What I see is that Großpietsch is named editor of the Carus edition, which I think is no conflict to Wolf being chief editor, - the chief editor can't do everything. The later Bärenreiter clearly lists Wolf as the editor, but do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited? - Could you please raise questions here, not in a hidden comment? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited?" – I don't know, but it seems rather unlikely that Wolf, while being a Chief Editor at Carus, would produce a new critical edition for Carus' competitor Bärenreiter. My guess is that Bärenreiter recycled Wolf's 1995 critical edition of the score (I also don't suppose the English translation of the libretto was a new one for the 2015 publication), and published it with a new introduction (the introduction of the 2015 edition is not by Wolf), thus producing something that could be sold as "new". Now, none of this can go to Wikipedia's mainspace without references to reliable sources (the story might still be different from what I suppose it to be), but that Wolf would have produced "another" critical edition for Bärenreiter's 2015 publication, i.e. another one than the one he had produced in 1995, is currently unsourced (no reliable source seems to say that), and what reliable sources say seems to go in another direction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        I tried it differently, making it a reissue. Where would we find if the first NBA had an English version? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        NBA editions are in German exclusively (not a word in English before the NBArev sequel). Here's what usually happens: a NBA volume is, on first publication, a new critical & Urtext edition, usually containing several compositions (e.g. 4 or 5 cantatas). Shortly after that, Bärenreiter publishes (outside the "complete editions" series, so in this case outside the NBA set of publications) extracts (e.g. separate cantatas), performance parts, translations, vocal scores (i.e. voices with a piano reduction instead of the full orchestral score), etc. based on the new Urtext (they don't wait 20 years with that). I documented that for Bach's Magnificat (see Magnificat (Bach)#20th century, start of second paragraph of that section). I suspect the English translation of BWV 10 being published in the late 20th century, with maybe the only new addition to the 2015 publication being a new introduction (if such introduction contains some updates to the former critical commentary the whole publication can be sold as a "new" critical edition...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        I thought the "reissue" solved that problem, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        Yes and no: what we get now is a somewhat WP:WEASELy declaration that may or may not be correct: I "suspect" the English translation of the 2015 edition not being new at that time, but for a FA grade article I expect clear information: when was that particular English translation first published (still possible that Bärenreiter had a new English translation produced for their 2015 edition), and who was the translator? I suppose some footwork is needed, e.g. Anna-Lena Bulgrin's introduction of that edition may be enlightening (is there no way to find it in a library or so?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        I don't believe that we need the name of the translator, nor the date of translation. Nice to have, when available, but not adding much, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "hidden comment":
        1. It is not "hidden", it shows up on mouseover (one does not need to go to edit mode to read it);
        2. Sorry, was in a hurry when I wrote it
        3. Nonetheless, I'll use tags and/or comments here whatever works most efficiently to make clear what a problem is (won't write a paragraph here when I see a straightforward issue that can be made clear with a simple tag) and/or will solve the issue myself when I have time to do it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        I had no idea about the mouseover, thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      5. "He performed it at least once more in the 1740s":
        1. This sentence is in the Readings, text and tune section: a first suggestion is to place this somewhere else in the article or, alternatively, update the section title while this information doesn't fit in the readings, text or tune domain. The same goes for the preceding sentence ("Bach first performed the cantata on 2 July 1724"): that information is already elsewhere in the article, with other references (so maybe this sentence can be removed from this section, and applicable references grouped with where this information is first introduced after the lead section). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          Good point, a section "Performances" might be a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          For now, the performance on 2 July 1724 is mentioned early, and no other because doubtful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
          Currently the article provides the context of the Visitation/Magnificat compositions of 1723 (period of Bach's first cantata cycle) – maybe an idea to cast that "context" net a bit wider: Magnificats and Visitation cantatas associated with Bach which were performed in Leipzig before his first cantata cycle and/or after his second cantata cycle (if solid sourcing turns up for a 1740s performance of BWV 10 that can be added to the overview):
          1. 1715 or earlier: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV Anh. 21 (Nicknamed "Little Magnificat", BDW 1329, by Bach's predecessor Melchior Hoffmann)
          2. Visitation cantata (no date): Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189 (the text of this cantata is a Magnificat paraphrase, its composer may be Bach or Hoffmann, and the cantata has audio files at Commons)
          3. Visitation 1725: Meine Seele erhebet den Herrn, BWV deest (BDW 1672, libretto extant, not certain whether Bach composed its music – if so it may belong to his third cycle)
          4. Visitation 1726: Der Herr wird ein Neues im Lande, JLB 13 (BDW 8303, performed by Bach, associated with his third cycle)
          5. Visitation 1728: Meine Seele erhebt den Herrn (libretto extant, third cantata of Bach's fourth cantata cycle)
          6. c. 1733 (Visitation?): second version of the Magnificat, BWV 243
          7. Early 1740s: Bach copies and modifies Caldara's Latin Magnificat for performance (the modified movement is BWV 1082, i.e. BDW 1268)
          8. Around 1742 Bach copies a Latin Magnificat for double SATB choir (BWV Anh. 30, BDW 1338)
          Not sure whether all of these need to be mentioned, but at least the Visitation cantatas of 1725 and 1726 seem interesting enough to mention (if we mention the Magnificat/Visitation cantatas of the preceding first cycle, seems only logical to also mention those of the ensuing third cycle). I'd only mention the early 1740s Latin Magnificats if a repeat performance of Bach's German Magnificat around the same time can be ascertained. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
          Feel free to write that section, and be a conom. I thought that it was good to know what Bach had done before (not later). The readers interested can find most of the information in Church cantata (Bach) under Visitation. This article is for readers of this cantata. Again, what do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        2. Gardiner 2010, the only reference given for the 1740s performance, is a concert program (CD booklet of a concert recording?) that doesn't cite any research as basis for its assertions. I submit that a concert program or liner notes not citing any sources are insufficient WP:V-wise for this assertion (not even talking about the possible COPYVIO of the site that presents the PDF of this text linked to from Wikipedia). This ties in with "1740"-related issues probably based on obsolete 19th-century assumptions already mentioned before: sources contradict, and Wikipedia's current partial rendering of that contradicting information appears (at least) confusing to the reader and/or substandard for a FA candidate. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          The information about a second performance "1740s" or "between 1740 and 1747" is found in many other sources, even distinguishing use of the CF instrument in #5 for both versions. I will look. Comment out so far. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          Suggesting two more sources (mentioned at the Bach Digital Work page 0012):
          • Dürr Chr 2 (i.e. "Alfred Dürr. Zur Chronologie der Leipziger Vokalwerke J. S. Bachs, 2. Auflage: Mit Anmerkungen und Nachträgen versehener Nachdruck aus Bach­-Jahrbuch 1957. Kassel, 1976"), p. 16.
          • NBA I/28.2 – Critical report (1995), p. 67
          Alas I have currently access to neither, but they may be instrumental in getting the confusion sorted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
      6. "Selected recordings" section
        1. I don't like to see the word "Selected" in a section title: a "selection" is always someone's POV, thus in most cases not compatible with the WP:NPOV content policy. Suggested title for such a section: either "Discography" or "Recordings". Neither or these titles suggests necessarily a full list of *all* recordings, but it is more open-ended for future updates. Also: what if the list of recordings happens to be "complete"? – calling it a "selection" seems silly then. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for the actual guidance of what I'm trying to explain in short with my own words here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          Selected recordings is the present title in all Bach cantata articles (including FA and GA) where the listing is not complete. Would you have a better suggestion? Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete. I'd be interested what others think. The selection here (of those listed by Bach-Cantatas) was made because a complete list seems too long. The criterion is simply that the conductor is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The more complete listing from Bach-Cantatas is easily seen and can be compared, and more added, - why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. "Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete" – imho your understanding is incorrect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        2. The current selection criterion for inclusion in the list (being listed "on the Bach-Cantatas website") is imho a wrong approach. Each listed recording should have its own reference, and for a FA candidate I expect more than a copy-paste (with added layout and wikilinks) of a list found elsewhere on the web. Has none of these recordings, for instance, been discussed in a magazine like Gramophone? Wikipedia should give more information than just a plain list copied from elsewhere (see e.g. the 7th point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY) --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          The section appears like that in most other articles on Bach cantatas, including FA (exception BWV 4) and GA. It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles. It would be no problem to give each line it's reference, but seems needlessly complicated. - What would a review add? Should we link to the complete cycles of some of the conductors? It's in Bach cantata, and some have their own articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. "It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles" – too much of a "let's create a WP:LINKFARM" argument to my taste. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
          Revisiting this suggestion: the situation is a bit more complicated (and worse) than I thought: a Wikipedia editor selected (without clear selection criteria) 15 recordings out of the 21 at the Bach cantatas website:
          1. It is wrong to base a selection on a single source (e.g. this webpage lists over 30: some are obviously re-issues, but the Bach-Cantatas website is not the only one listing recordings) – this is what I already wrote about above
          2. Any list should have clear inclusion criteria: "some Wikipedia editor made a selection" is the opposite of such clearly established criteria (e.g. if in 2018 there is a new recording issued an editor shouldn't have to wait until the Bach-Cantatas website is updated before they can add it to the list in Wikipedia) – for that that reason I added a tag to the article ([6] oops, made a typo in the edit summary, this is in fact additional suggestion No. 6). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
            See above: the selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor. - The listing is compatible with other FA articles. - I don't see anybody writing a PDF of that list. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
            Re. "selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor":
            • These selection criteria are not clear for the reader of the article (thus falling short of the guidance on introductory paragraphs for lists)
            • Notability is not "inherited" (I): the most famous conductor does not necessarily make the most memorable recording for every work they have on their repertoire, or the other way around: the most memorable recording is not necessarily made by the conductor that is over-all most famous.
            • Notability is not "inherited" (II): this is also a Wikipedia principle regarding notability (see e.g. WP:Notability), thus this would make a bad selection criterion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Further, was Ton Koopman a famous conductor in the 20th century (his 1999 recording is listed) but no longer in the 21st century (his 2003 recording is not listed)? – so the criterion, besides being questionable, further also appears to have been applied subjectively... --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
            You may not like it but the way to present the recordings has a tradition of more than ten years (long before I edited), compare 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015. If you want to change it, approach the project. This article should be consistent with other articles on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
            Re. "the recordings have been listed in such a way for more than ten years" ([7]) – the rules for such lists have changed a lot in the last 10 years, so much so that until this morning a relevant policy page linked to sections in guidance which no longer exist (instead of linking to the up-to-date guidance). The discography section has to conform to current guidelines when considering a FA promotion today. Whether or not it conforms to former or outdated guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style – I don't see why one should talk to a project that declares its guidance dormant while policy- and guideline-level guidance is available) is not the assessment we're making today. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
            Several FAs are like this (I don't count, but must be more than five, some listed above, for comparison). Around 150 cantatas are like this. I talk about tradition and consistency for the reader. If we get new rules which I think are detrimental for the reader, I will question them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        3. The last column of the table ("Instr.") gives in fact additional information, not found on the Bach-Cantatas webpage. That information is however completely unreferenced (as the only reference for the entire section is to that Bach-Cantatas webpage). Hence my suggestion to give individual references per row, in which case the reference should at least cover all information of the row. However, see also my suggestion in 7.2 below if wanting to avoid footnotes in the table itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          The information about period instruments is taken from the article about the ensemble. References could be copied from there, but it seems blowing up the sourcing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Most of my line of approach above can be summarized by pointing out that the current "Selected recordings" section seems to be failing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines (e.g. " is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points", see also suggestion 7.2 below) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      7. Provisions for a table-less layout: Wikipedia's PDF export function omits all tables, so it makes sense to check whether the article would work sufficiently well without them. I have two suggestions in that respect:
        1. Explanations about tables that are in the article (a table's legend, or, for instance the second paragraph of Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#Structure and scoring: "In the following table ... ") can be enveloped in an otherwise invisible table so that the table-less version of the article doesn't give an explanation about a "table" that isn't there. Here is the syntax that can be used:
          ...[table explanation goes here]...
        2. A table's content can be summarized (with adequate references) outside the table's syntax: for instance the section on recordings can have an introduction mentioning some recordings that have additional sources (that is outside being listed at the Bach-Cantatas website). This has a double advantage: the table doesn't need to be cluttered with footnotes, and in those layouts where no tables are shown at least the recordings that received most press coverage are mentioned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      8. The reception of a piece is about more than scores (manuscripts + editions) and recordings. E.g. at the 2003 Leipzig Bach Festival Ton Koopman presented three Magnificats (BWV 10, BWV 243a and a Magnificat by Bach's predecessor Kuhnau) in a concert. A video recording of that concert was released in 2004. Both the 2003 concert (e.g. Yo Tomita) and the recording (e.g. Klassik.Com) were reviewed. The DVD is currently not selected for inclusion in Wikipedia's list. IMHO the BWV 10 article currently misses a "Reception" section where the reception topics can be treated more comprehensively than just "scores" and "recordings". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        What would be interesting would be reception of the piece when it was first performed. - The reception by Bach scholars is part of the Music section. - The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music. - No other Bach cantata article has a reception section, but feel to write one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music": the same can be said about Scheibe's 1737 review of Bach's own performance – this has nothing to do with "in our time". The topic of reception is, in part, about how taste w.r.t. a piece evolves over time. This includes whether a specific performance of the piece receives attention via independent reviews in reliable sources (a new recording that is completely ignored in the press is thus somewhat less significant for reception history, except maybe for number of copies sold). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      9. [8] – is this German version of the Gloria Patri specifically Luther's (it is not a part of Luke 1:46–55)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        I was sure that the Kleine Doxology was also translated by Luther, as so many other texts, but found no support so far. I asked an expert, User:Rabanus Flavus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      10. Navbox collapse options (one of the idiosyncrasies I had in mind in this section's OP – I'm not sure whether the topic is part of a FAC assessment, anyway here it goes): the article currently has two navboxes, {{Church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} and {{Bach cantatas}}. The first of these boxes is collapsed, the second is uncollapsed. The first lists the cantata BWV 10 in the context of Bach's second cantata cycle, so between the 4th and the 6th chorale cantata of Bach's second year in Leipzig; the second navbox lists the cantata in the context of the numerical values of the BWV catalogue, so between BWV 9 (composed a decade later) and BWV 11 (which isn't even a cantata, and also dates from much later). Currently the article goes in great detail about the first five cantatas of the second cantata cycle, linking to the four other cantatas of that series of consecutive cantatas. A reader who might be interested what Bach did next after the first five cantatas of his second cantata cycle (so the next cantata he composed after BWV 10) is not helped by the second navbox, neither is that cantata linked from the body of the article. For clarity: BWV numbers are completely random w.r.t. what happened in Bach's time and w.r.t. subgroups of cantatas by type, and moreover the latest published version of the BWV catalogue no longer collates all compositions according to their numerical value (case in point: in the latest printed edition of the BWV catalogue BWV 11, the one that follows BWV 10 in the second navbox, is now collated between BWV 249b and BWV 250 – see pp. 282–284 of the 1998 edition of the BWV catalogue – officially the number of BWV 11 has been changed to "BWV 11/249b->" to indicate its new position in the catalogue). The second navbox is probably of great use for Wikipedia editors who regularly edit articles on Bach's vocal compositions, but as far as I can assess of less use (or at least somewhat misleading in the context of current scholarship) to the average reader. My preferred option is to autocollapse both boxes. If, however, one of them should be preset to its uncollapsed state it should, imho, be the first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        There are two navboxes, right. One is in every article on a Bach cantata, permitting convenient access to the other numbers. To have it open is another item of consistency. In order to see what Bach did before and afterwards, a reader can simply click on "show" in the other navbox, or - what I would do - don't use a navbox but read an article, such as Church cantata (Bach), Chorale cantata cycle, Bach cantata, - enough possibilities. All these articles are linked from the traditional basic navbox by number (but only when it is open), - I don't use the other nabox at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        (ec) – was still updating some of the text, underlined now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "what I would do" – "I don't use ...": yes, as I said, this is about idiosyncrasies. In this case deplorable idiosyncrasies, e.g. neither Church cantata (Bach) nor Chorale cantata cycle nor Bach cantata has any significant information on the next cantata in the cycle. The first of these proposed links is particularly unhelpful for finding any information on the next cantata in the cycle: the 5th and the 6th cantata of the 2nd cycle are in entirely different sections of that very long page, separated by dozens of subsections. A non-specialist reader would have no clue where to look. Currently the presentation of the navboxes is skewed towards the specialist editor of these cantatas (i.e. an editor who knows that the BWV numbering is in no way a logical organisation of these compositions – which a non-specialist reader/editor would not know, e.g. [9]), and I propose to treat a non-specialist reader/editor at least on the same footing as a specialist (i.e. both navboxes collapsed: I don't propose to uncollapse the first – but if anything, per user-friendliness principles a non-specialist reader/editor should get precedence over a specialist editor because a specialist would find their way around anyhow while the same can not be presumed of a non-specialist, but as said, that's not what I'm proposing to implement: just treat the specialist and the non-specialist on the same footing).
        Re. "I still believe the article is better without this outlook to something created later ... under a header it doesn't fit" ([10]) – The cantata for Trinity IV of a cantata cycle which would have contained ideally over 60 cantatas, covering more than a calender year, and starting with Trinity I, is situated at the "Beginning" of the cycle. Unless you mean "by composition date" of the first cantatas that ultimately got inserted into the cycle: in that case BWV 4, composed over a decade earlier would be "beginning" of the cycle: that cantata is not mentioned, so there's nothing unusual when indicating the cantatas for Trinity I–V, and for the two feasts that usually fall in this period, as the "beginning" of the chorale cantata cycle. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
        Can we move ahead with this now? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      11. Re. "... the ref that I believe is best in detail and accuracy is: [11]. If you find a recording that is not in, write to Mr. Oron, and will include it." ([12]) – I too think that Mr. Oron's website is a great resource. However, in Wikipedia surroundings, it is not the most unquestionable of reliable sources:
        • The website hosts a lot of copyvio material. When using the website it is often a thin line not to cross the Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works policy (e.g. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...")
        • As the website contains material copied from Wikipedia there's a danger of WP:CIRCULAR references to it (at least in one instance I had to remove material from Wikipedia while it was referenced exclusively to Mr. Oron's site, where it was referenced exclusively to Wikipedia...)
        • Mr. Oron's website isn't always clear about its sources (e.g. "2nd performance: 1740-1747 - Leipzig", see suggestion No. 5 above). Some of its content is referenced to discussion pages (see next point)
        • The website's discussion pages are somewhere in between of "peer review" (which would indicate reliability) and "user-generated content" (generally insufficient to be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia) – it is not always clear which one of these applies foremost.
        • Its original content is generally "self-published" (Mr. Oron being as well author, editor and publisher of the page) – WP:ABOUTSELF is the policy governing the use of self-published sources, indicating that original content of the Website can not be used in Wikipedia (unless in some cases where Mr. Oron writes about himself)
        • The website occasionally contains inaccuracies (if not errors), which I found out by consulting reliable sources and comparing these to the website's content.
        • PS: the reason I don't usually "write to Mr. Oron" is that I'm foremost a Wikipedia editor, not wanting to create more WP:CIRCULAR content on the other website. Each their own responsibility: the more Mr. Oron's website becomes reliable without our help, the more we can use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          Short answer: I don't speak about the website as a whole, but selectively the recordings. I know no other sources going after such details about instrumentalists, places of recording, liner notes etc. For biographies, I only reference the site (usually as a second ref, not a single) because it's English, which is more accessable to readers of the English Wikipedia than the German Großes Sängerlexikon, for example. Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata? I will only reply to questions about the cantata article from now on. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. "Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata?" – Yes, please. My suggestion above was so elaborate because you kept bringing up "In previous FAs on the topic, ..." or similar procedures not relating to this cantata (the last time in connection with M. Oron's website: [13]). I don't care how many GAs or FAs passed with references to other pages of Mr. Oron's website: these other GA/FA procedures are not a justification of whatever. That being said: whether or not, and if so under which circumstances, can be used as a reference for Wikipedia's BWV 10 article is entirely within the confines of this FAC deliberation. E.g., linking to that webpage is linking to a website (and page!) that contains copyvio material – no amount of "previous FAs" will make that risk of infringing on Wikipedia's copyrights policy via the BWV 10 page go away. Now is the time to assess that risk. Similar for the other points above: only the second bullet doesn't seem directly applicable to the BWV10.htm page at Mr. Oron's website. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          In the last FAC, I was asked to mention similar articles as a help for new reviewers ("Well, that's what I was looking for - if there are other FA Bach cantata pages"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          Fair enough. At least partially explains why some of the more unfortunate idiosyncracies have become so difficult to root out in this collection of FA articles. Can we return now to the assessment of the use of the page in the BWV 10 article? My reply to your latest suggestion regarding the discography section depends on it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. ... In the last FAC ... (please click the link, it is not the same "In the last FAC" as above) – Allow me to compare to another FA: Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4#Bach's early cantatas is a much more elaborate context section than what I'm preparing now. Even after the content of that section was spun out to another article, it appeared impossible to condense that Bach cantata article section WP:Summary style-wise. In sum:
          • I'm still all but impressed by "former GA/FA" type of evidence: it can go in completely opposite directions; "Fair enough" in my comment above refers to not holding the nom accountable for these rampant comparisons, not to me having changed in any way as to how little impression these comparisons make on me. My assessment in this FAC is based on my own insights regarding what would be best for this article, insights which all things compared seem much closer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than assessments merging an amalgam of fortunate and less fortunate "habits" from one FA to the next.
          • If and when this article would be FA approved its content on how it relates to nearby Magnificats and Visitation cantatas should have about the same depth whether or not a separate article on that topic exists: once it would have FA status I suppose it would be nearly impossible to fundamentally change the breadth of the coverage of these relations to other compositions. I'm working on a treatment in around three paragraphs, which would absorb some content now elsewhere in the article (the net expansion of the article maybe not more than one paragraph). My objective is that once inserted into the article such paragraphs wouldn't need fundamental change, like neither Bach's church music in Latin#Magnificat settings nor Magnificat (Bach)#Other Magnificats by Bach? nor Church cantata (Bach)#Visitation would need to be fundamentally rewritten, in the eventuality of a separate article exclusively devoted to these relations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. "...liner notes..." – two (potential) problems:
          • The BWV 10 article currently links directly to several PDFs of such liner notes hosted at the BC-website. Might be a copyright problem. I expect this to be cleared by those more experienced in guarding over whether or not Wikipedia crosses a line here that should better not be crossed copyright-wise, before we continue to provide these links.
          • In articles on Bach-compositions liner notes might not pass WP:RS (I had some nasty experiences at WP:RSN in that respect), even when written by established Bach-scholars. I understand the advantage of them being generally in English, and not in German, like much of the high-end scholarship on Bach. Nonetheless, content of the article should imho preferably be referenced to writings with a solid scholarly publication process ("peer review" is generally missing for liner notes, and more than often when a German scholar writes liner notes the English translation of these notes can be quite mangled, they may be unclear as to where the material derives from—as I already mentioned in suggestion 5.2 above—, etc), whatever the language of the more solid source. Liner notes can be mentioned (even linked if copyright-cleared per the previous point) in addition to the sources with a more solid publication process. The easiness of linking to liner notes sometimes prevents looking up in more solid sources (I did a few suggestions above but see no reaction to these suggestions yet). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
            The liner notes by John Eliot Gardiner and Klaus Hofmann have been regarded as reliable in the past. Compare this GA review by Drmies who recommended to follow Hofmann. - I could avoid the link, but think it's a disservice to the reader to not supply what the author wrote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
            Was that before or after liner notes were rejected for use in articles on compositions by J. S. Bach at WP:RSN? Also, GA is not FA: I expect that by the time an article goes from GA to FA that its complete content can be verified to high-end scholarly sources (whatever the language they are written in). I'd keep the more accessible/popular sources too (contrary to what was suggested at the "nasty" RSN on this topic), but that doesn't diminish the need to have the complete article covered by more solid sourcing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
            I don't talk about liner notes in general, but these specific ones, by a conductor who performed all cantatas, and one of the authorities on Bach [14]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
            Yes I know. Maybe the best way forward is to take this source, with all the content referenced to it in the BWV 10 article, to WP:RSN? Then there will be no discussion afterwards, when an incompatible idiosyncratic approach would board the article later (there are two opposing idiosyncratic approaches: one that references large portions of Bach composition articles to liner notes, and an opposing one that doesn't accept a single one of such references: I'm in the middle, i.e., apply WP:V as elsewhere, and if you're not sure whether a source is used correctly, then take it to WP:RSN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
            Source reviews have been performed in recent years:
            A source review is likely to be requested for this nomination as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


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

Media review[edit]

  • File:Magnif.jpg: what is this being transcribed from? A previous notated version? A recording? Memory?
The text is applied to the given psalm tone, - always the same melody, just a different distribution of the syllables. It's a 2010 image I took from Tonus peregrinus, which quotes the German Magnificat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that the image is there, but how was the image produced, specifically? From what source was the specific distribution of syllables used here derived? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
We discussed the content of that image some time ago, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example. That discussion contains two external links afaics, maybe one of these (or both) could be used to demonstrate that the content of the image is correct? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In that discussion, the source was given as "Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch (de), Nr. 529. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530". Could someone who knows how add that to the commons? (I corrected Evangelisches to Evangelische.) I looked in the current EG but can't find it, only in a regional edition of Thuringia. The Catholics have a different German version, and a similar tune, but simplified (beginning with F G instead of A C, and the second line right on G without the preceding A C, - so much less joyful, and not what Bach used), GL 631/4. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I just changed the "source" parameter at commons:File:Magnif.jpg from "Olorulus' personal library" to "Olorulus' personal library, from 'Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch', Nr.529. Berlin: Evangelische[s] Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530 (see wikipedia:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example)" – @Nikkimaria: does this cover all of your concerns regarding the use of this image in the FA candidate article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg was improved by Rabanus Flavus, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
PS: for clarity File:Magnif.jpg has now been replaced by File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg by Rabanus Flavus ([15]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to find a freely licensed performance that could be sampled? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Where would I look? - I guess everybody interested would be able to find YouTube versions, example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Some ideas:
  1. I performed a check of Commons as thorough as I could, not finding any audio file that would be remotely eligible for use in the article on the cantata :(
  2. scores:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)#Synthesized/MIDI has a synthesised (trumpet/organ) version of movement 5. It is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (is that compatible with the Commons licensing policies if one would want to upload the file there?) – whether or not it could be legally uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia I'm personally no fan of such synthesised audio for vocal/orchestral music. The IMSLP page where that audio file is available is linked from the article's External links section, so not sure whether we should do anything if we want to have at least one audio file on or linked from the Wikipedia article.
  3. Similarly, CPDL has a midi file of the closing chorale at choralwiki:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Johann Sebastian Bach) – copyright: "Personal"; here also the CPDL page is linked from the external links section
  4. is a page on James Kibbie's Bach Organ Works website with audio files of an organ performance of the Schübler Chorale based on the cantata's fifth movement. Maybe this page could be linked from Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#5, to give at least an aural impression (non-synthesised) of the cantata's music (otherwise at least a link from the external links section might be possible?)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    It is possible but belongs in the (linked) article on the chorales. I am sure that people who want to know how the cantata sounds will find a way outside Wikipedia. I hesitate to place external links, because it would be my biased choice. - MIDI is no alternative, awful, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I added a link to downloadable audio of the entire cantata, to the "External links" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Can we have a few score extracts (examples from the cantata)? I'd suggest, for instance:
    • Movement 1:
      • Start of the cantus firmus in the soprano part (situated in the orchestral/vocal matrix)
      • first measures of where the alto takes over the cantus firmus
    • Movement 5: some measures of the interplay of the singing voices with the cantus firmus melody
    • Movement 7: four-part chorale setting of the non-hymn tune --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Yunshui[edit]

Just a quick review of the text:

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

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

About half done, no real issues. Some quibbles so far:

  • " Composed for the Marian feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724," there seem to be words missing after "Visitation". Some grammatical connection would seem called for.
That was changed (perhaps compare how the lead looked when I nominated), - I tried to fix the changed version now. --GA
  • "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Book of Isaiah the prophecy of the Messiah " I would say that there should be a comma in there after Isaiah.
yes --GA
  • "The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the doxology." Two things, I would change the first "translation" to "rendering" or similar to avoid the repetition, and I think you need a "on" after "and" to avoid ambiguity and possible confusion.
I opened the piped link (to avoid the same word twice), and added "on". --GA
  • "He used the original verses 46–48 for the first movement, verse 54 for the fifth movement, and the doxology for the seventh movement. He paraphrased verse 49 for the second movement, verses 50–51 for the third, verses 52–53 for the fourth and verse 55 for the sixth movement, the latter expanded by a reference to the birth of Jesus." Your use of the serial comma seems inconsistent.
Commas are different in German and English, and sometimes I miss one, as here, thanks for pointing it out. --GA
  • There is an uncited sentence at the end of "Readings"
ref doubled --GA
  • "adding "Luther" for the movements kept in his translation, and "anon." if the unknown librettist elaborated on his translation. " I would avoid the repetition, possibly by changing "elaborated on his translation" to "added his own elaborations" or some such--Wehwalt (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Help welcome. "Elaborated" was introduced by Francis, in the table, where I found it too long when repeated for four movements. I'd usually say "paraphrased". Feel free to apply your wording skill, please. "added his own elaborations" would suggest - to me - that Luther also added "elaborations", but he only translated, in his free style of translation, of course.
Maybe "added elaboration"?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Re. "..."Elaborated" was introduced by Francis..." – no, it wasn't. I wrote "elaboration of ..." which (at least according to my dictionary) does not mean the same as "elaborated on ...". I don't agree with what is currently in the article, nor with the "added elaboration" suggestion: the librettist partly paraphrased and partly expanded the original text. That is an elaboration of the original. "added elaboration" only captures the "expansion" part ("expanded" is a less cumbersome way to say the same), not the part where the text is paraphrased. "Paraphrased" is correct, but doesn't really capture the expansion part. So I'd go back to "elaboration of", or, alternatively, go to "paraphrased and expanded". --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, "paraphrased and expanded" taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for careful reading! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "but with the cantus firmus in the alto, because the text "Denn er hat seine elende Magd angesehen" speaks of the "lowly handmaid"." The logic here is obscure. Are altos more likely to be handmaids? Or lowly?
It's the lower voice, - do you think that should be added? It seems a bit like saying a child is younger than its parent. --GA
(don't know whether this catches what Wehwalt indicates above:) The sentence containing "... cantus firmus in the alto, because the text ..." (emphasis added) seems WP:OR: the sentence is referenced to a translation that nowhere claims a causal relation: "cantus firmus" isn't mentioned in the reference, which voice sings the phrase isn't mentioned, leave alone that that reference somewhere would have intimated a causal relation between one and the other. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the "because" by "when", and would be willing to repeat the translation of the whole incipit if that helps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Still leaves the first half of the sentence unreferenced: only the translation, and nothing about "cantus firmus" or "alto", can be referenced to the source that is currently used for the entire sentence. Maybe split in two sentences, with an appropriate source for the cantus firmus related content?
"... second verse ...." (in the same sentence, before the part of the sentence that was quoted above by Wehwalt) is confusing. In Luther's translation (as in the original) it would be the third verse of the biblical text. I suppose somewhere between when Luther published his translation in 1722 and when the text became associated with the tonus peregrinus melody Luther's German translation of Lk 1:46 and 47 became merged into one "verse" of the sung version, but that is nowhere explained afaics: until such explanation is provided "second verse" is confusing terminology: it may apply as well to Lk 1:47 as to Lk 1:48.
Dellal's translation doesn't seem too faithful to the German original in this instance. The original Greek word ταπείνωσις means abasement, the Latin (Vulgate) translation, humilitas, could be rendered in English as "humility". In the libretto of the cantata the same word is translated as "elend" (miserable, wretched). Most English versions of the Magnificat use "lowliness" for this part of the text, and more modern German versions "Niedrigkeit". In this instance (she translates Elend as wretched elsewhere) Dellal seems to fall back on a standard English translation of the Magnificat rather than on the specificity of the German libretto of the cantata. "... the text ... speaks of the 'lowly..." seems a bit flawed... it doesn't really: it speaks of "elend" which is more appropriately translated as miserable or wretched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Just one remark: the word "elend" changed meaning in German more than once, compare Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist, and to look at translations seems more appropriate in the article on the German Magnificat. What would you call a faithful translation: of the meaning at Bach's time, or ours? Can we agree that translation often has more than one "faithful" option, and sometimes not even one? - Back to what brought us here: having the cantus firmus split this way happens only in this one chorale cantata, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
As I said above, [Dellal] translates Elend as wretched elsewhere: BWV 75 is Bach's cantata for 30 May 1723. I don't think the meaning of the word elend/Elend would have changed in the 13 months between BWV 75 and BWV 10. For BWV 75 Dellal translates Elend as wretched ([16]), which I think a more faithful translation: it is certainly "the meaning at Bach's time". As said, I understand her choice for "lowly", but that seems rather inspired by KJV-like standard translations of the Magnificat, than by the intricacies of the actual German libretto of the cantata at Bach's time. KJV is old, and not a translation of Luther's German, so I'd rather avoid it in the context of this cantata (see also below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Remark 2: the thorough analysis of the Oregon Bach Festival (external link) has this: "At the third entrance of the chorus, however, Bach gives the Gregorian chant to the altos. This change of voicing is related to the text denn er hat seine elende Magd angesehen [He hath regarded the lowliness of his handmaiden]. A low voice now takes over the cantus firmus." I use now the more idiomatic KJV instead of Dellal, and count the verses to three. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
My point was that it may not be obvious that the handmaiden would be given to the alto voice, if you are not knowledgeable about music. But I gather there is a musical convention about such things, and that's acceptable given this is not a basic-level music article. --Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Well in this case there is no such musical convention, and the former content of the article was wrong to suggest it. The Oregon Bach Festival interpretation seems exceptional and should not be rendered in the article without in-text attribution of the author (which is a bit difficult as it is apparently an anonymous text). There's a lot that speaks against this interpretation. The verse goes from "low" to "high" in feeling (The second half of the verse speaks about being blessed for ever). Affektenlehre thus would suggest to go from "low" notes to "high" notes: if that is performed by the same (group of) singer(s) there is no voice type that is particularly indicated. In his Latin Magnificat Bach composes this verse for the highest of two sopranos (with the chorus joining in on the last two words). Explanations by established scholars about voice type used for the cantus firmus in the first movements of cantatas 1 to 5 of the chorale cantata cycle (this one is the fifth) speak about the succession being built on soprano→alto→tenor→bass, leading to soprano→alto in the 5th cantata (nothing to do with text). Also the "elend" word of the libretto carrying less of a connotation of being "low-placed" than the conventional Latin "humilitas" and other variants (see discussion above) seems to confirm that the Oregon's explanation is rather to be regarded as an over-interpretation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Re. KJV – I'd prefer a 21st-century translation. Also, a translation that is not tied to a denomination. Let's not link to or quote from "doth" and "hath" type of translations, which sound particularly stolid in 21st-century ears: such older translations can be found in the Magnificat article, linked from the lead paragraph, for those who savour them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the duet Et misericordia (And your compassion), in both cases expressing mildness and compassion." Even though it is a translation, can the repetition be avoided by a synonym? Possibly mercy?
Good point, but I don't know a synonym for compassion, with passion in it. I'd rather change the translation, literally misery [felt by the] heart, but its clumsy. Any synonym for that? --GA
No idea. I had thought of misericordia as meaning "mercy" but Latin is not my language. --Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "All wind instruments and violin I support the soprano." I imagine "violin I" to be a technical term.
So far, in the whole article, it is "two violins". If an instrumental group is divided, yes, you say technically numbers from I (one), like Part I. Do you think we should say "the first violins"? --GA
  • "It has been held from 1948" I would say "since", not "from"--Wehwalt (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Support Meets the criteria. I'll leave the technical discussions on German language to those who will.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Montanabw[edit]

OK, it looks like others have reviewed and notwithstanding the discussion above, here is my review, based upon the article as of this revision. Most of what I have to offer at this point is wikignoming to help the non-expert understand the article a bit better.

  • Lead:
    • I'd put the English title (My soul magnifies the Lord) in quotes: ("My soul magnifies the Lord"). Italics are fine too, but either way, not plain text.
      • It's not a title, just a translation. Few cantatas have an English title, such as Actus tragicus, - well, that's Latin ;) --GA
        • I see it is consistent style throughout and seen in other articles. I still think it needs to be in quotes. But also not a deal-breaker. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • put "also known as his German Magnificat" before Johann Sebastian Bach. The paragraph is a wee bit choppy
      • perhaps review an earlier version, which didn't know any "German Magnificat". I am tempted to ask "known by whom" and think it's no lead material, but it's debated. Whatever the outcome of that debate: Bach should come rather sooner than later. --GA
        • The problem is putting like concepts together... put the names (all of them) before composer. One way or the other. No position on inclusion of "German Magnificat", only a comment on paragraph structure... if it's in, put it before composer, up with other boldface titles. If it's tossed, no worries, I don't care. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
          If it is kept in the lead, it should be mentioned much later, and with an explanation, not before Luther's German Magnificat was mentioned. - The concept of "all names first" is fine, but in case of so much foreign language, we should get to the composer soon. ---GA
          • My suggestion is either, "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10,[a], also known as his German Magnificat, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. It was composed in 1724..." (which I'd prefer) or, at least "Meine Seel erhebt den Herren (My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10,[a] is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. Also known as his German Magnificat, It was composed in 1724..."
            • I will go over the lead, probably later today, see Ceoil below. ----GA
    • A few more modifiers in "always celebrated on 2 July, it was the fifth new cantata Bach presented in his second year in Leipzig." same reason -- just smooth it out a bit, perhaps something like "always celebrated on 2 July, it was the fifth new cantata Bach presented during his second year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig."
      • split in two sentences --GA
        • OK.
    • the Magnificat -- should also be italicized and linked to Magnificat in the lede, not just lower in the body text
      • Magnificat became a word of English and should not be italicized. It is linked in the lede. --GA
        • Not according to the title of the Magnificat article, which is italicized. OK on link Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
          • That article is wrong, but going to fix it seems like a battle I would not want to enter. Compare Requiem. ---GA
    • wikilink continuo to Basso continuo and clarify, somewhat obscure phrasing for people outside the classical music field (the other instruments are commonly known) people may not know the word.
      • There's a link to Baroque instruments, - otherwise we'd have to link trumpet and get a sea of blue. - Compare other FAs such as Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125 --GA
        • Hmmm, I see no reason not to link the specific instrument somewhere... where no sea of blue... everyone knows what a trumpet is, though if I am wrong, a small sea of blue is not harmful.  ;-)
          • They are all linked (even violin) in the Structure and scoring section. In the infobox and lead, it would be two seas of blue. (I should make some "frequently answered Q&A.) ---GA
            • OK, I can live with that. Consider saying "basso continuo" in lede, to match link lower down, but not a big dea. Montanabw(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Background:
    • May want to put in the actual date he took office, non-Churched individuals may be unfamiliar with the Liturgical year, even though it's linked in the lede.
      • Well, we say already 1724, and second year, no? --GA
        • I'd encourage adding month also -- a supplement to "liturgical year". Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
          • The month of performance comes later in the same sentence, and the month of composition we don't know. ---GA
              • No, I meant to note when Bach took the position: "In 1723, Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He took office during the middle of the liturgical year, on the first Sunday after Trinity. " Because non-Christians have no clue what that means, I suggest stating something like, "Bach was appointed as Thomaskantor (director of church music) in Leipzig. He took office during the middle of the liturgical year, on 30 May 1723, the first Sunday after Trinity."
                • Sorry for misunderstanding. I reworded, - please check. ----GA
    • I'd be OK if you linked "Latin Magnificat" together to the name of the actual work, that or say "Magnificat in Latin" to avoid the "Sea of Blue" problem
      done, good idea --GA
    • In the chart, Overview of the first cantatas in Bach's chorale cantata cycle, I'd wikilink the items under "Form" that have not been previously linked -- not everyone knows what a motet is.
      • It's linked just above. --GA
        • OK. I personally like redundant links in charts and infoboxes, but that's just my quirk, not FAC or MOS.
    • Is the final entry for "Form" in the chart intended to be blank?
      • yes, just a "normal" chorale fantasia --GA
        • Hmmm... maybe link that? Not sure, just would balance chart visually. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
          • But all five are chorale fantasias, - I'm afraid it would be confusing. ---GA
            • In the chart, the others have different labels... I am rather confused now... ? ;-) Montanabw(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
              • I thought chorale fantasia in the style of a motet was clear enough, but now inserted the passage about the chorale cantatas in general from the last FA. Is that helpful? ----GA
    • I am unclear about "unknown librettist retained some parts of Luther's wording, while he paraphrased other passages" -- do we know when or why? It's kind of a random fact sitting out there. Was the librettist's wording used in the original performance or added later?
      • The libretto (booklet) is written before the music. It was the format/program/idea/concept of the chorale cantatas: rewording part of the hymn in (then) modern words. --GA
        • Maybe a modern clarification? Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
          • The concept is explained in chorale cantata. "Clarification" seems strange, because for our taste, the Baroque language is rather less clear than the straightforward gospel or chorale ;) ---GA
    • Maybe explain (perhaps in an endnote) what a " traditional 9th psalm tone" is
      • The 9th psalm tone is pictured ;) - "Ninth" repeated now in the caption. - I don't think we should explain the concept of reciting tone and its variants in this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Perhaps add a helpful wikilink to the concept for those who can't read music??? Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
          • Link in caption repeated, and now ninth not 9th, to make the connection. ---GA
  • Music:
    • "based on the chant melody." --which? Clarify
      • The Ninth psalm tone, said before, - I tried to not be too repetitive. --GA
        • Maybe a minor rephrase? Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
          • How? ---GA
              • Maybe a wikilink would work, possibly "The first and last are set for choir, and are based on the chant melody." ? Montanabw(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
                • That link seems like an Easter egg, I'd rather link to Gregorian chant again, but very reluctantly. ----GA
    • Wikilink recitatives and arias on first use, for the non-classical music expert.
      That is done, but happens in Readings, text and tune. --GA
  • Manuscript and publications:
    • Clarify what an "autograph score" is -- signed by Bach?
      "written by Bach", as the link says. I'd hesitate to explain what a book is ;) - Should we link score? --GA
      • Yes, that might work. Autograph link goes to "autograph" main article, perhaps link to subsection? Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Main article has nothing about music, - the lead is all that is useful for those who don't know the term. ---GA
          • Meh, someone, somewhere should do a small def of why an autographed score is better than... whatever else ... but I guess also not our circus. Montanabw(talk) 01:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Do we have an article on Johann Andreas Kuhnau? Christian Gottlob Meißner? Should we explain who they are?
      Not even the German Wikipedia has articles on them. They helped Bach producing performance material from the score, - only few of his works were printed during his lifetime. They are nothing special for this cantata, - should their work be mentioned in Bach cantata? --GA
    • Wikilink Library of Congress
      done --GA
      • OK
  • Recordings:
    • "seems to have been recorded first in 1963." -- awkward. Suggest rephrase to "seems to have first been recorded in 1963." or "seems to have been recorded for the first time in 1963." -- or something similar to smooth the phrasing
      second one taken, thank you --GA
      • OK
    • Might want to link "Chamber" and "Period" in the chart on first appearance.
      • I dropped "chamber", but period instruments would have to go to Baroque instruments, linked before. --GA
        • Again, I favor repeating links in charts, but that's just me. Your call there. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I don't want to link period several times, nor recitative twice in the table above ;) ---GA
  • Sourcing, formatting, images look OK to me, and others appear to be going over them in detail. Overall, I am ready to support once we make the prose flow a bit smoother and clarify the technical language with more wikilinking and the occasional explanation for the benefit of the non-aficionado. Montanabw(talk) 06:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for looking from a different perspective! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Most improvements OK, a few with additional comments, none of earth-shattering significance, just think over. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      Thank you! ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      Fixed some more, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


I cant parse and on the melody to which that German version of the - can you restructure please. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the question. - All other chorale cantatas are based on a strophic hymn, but this one is based on German bible text in prose, (traditionally) sung in Gregorian chant (or reciting tone), specifically the ninth psalm tone or tonus peregrinus). Can you word it better? - In German, both these things are called Choral, in English, however, chorale seems to mean only the strophic hymns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes I understand the terminology around chorals. But its not explained properly as of yet in the lead; the phrase I highlighted above needs to be clearer. Impressed so far, bty. Ceoil (talk)
I will go over it, there are also (outdented) good suggestions by Francis above, - look at the rest first, please, the lead will follow ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Eve (2003 TV series)[edit]

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

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

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

Comments/Support by PanagiotisZois[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by Moisejp[edit]

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

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

The above changes look good, thanks. More comments:

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

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

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

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

  • "However, he did note that the series had the potential to last for several years." Is this relevant to the reviewer's critical appraisal? I don't think he's saying this is somehow an indication of quality and that it changes in any way his negative review; rather he's just saying there is a market for this kind of star vehicle regardless of quality. But this is a minor point—no worries if you feel the sentence is worthwhile to keep.
  • That makes perfect sense to me. I have removed it as I agree with your point. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Clark was critical of the episodes' titles, writing that they indicated an overuse of "outrageous clichés that boob-tube audiences would come to know and love once reality TV hit its boon". " Could you include a couple of the examples that Clark mentions? This would go a long way towards helping the reader get a feel for how the reviewer may have thought the titles to be outrageous. Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have included the three examples that Clark uses (and they are rather silly lol). Thank you for pointing this out. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The tables in the Episodes section and Ratings section show different dates. Is the premiere/finale different from first/last aired? Moisejp (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure how I missed this one lol. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

  • Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and provide comments. You have helped to improve the article a great deal and I greatly appreciate that. I look forward to working with you further in the future, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

ALT text is present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the image review! I agree with your assessment of the Ali Landry image; it is unnecessary to use an image of an actor in such a negative manner, especially since she was only mentioned in two reviews and the addition/emphasis on the image would cause issues by giving undue weight to those two reviews. I think I primarily added it just to put another image, which is not a good move either. I have removed it completely for those reasons. I am also uncertain about the source of the crop, and if there is anything that I can do to look into that further, please let me know. Thank you again for your review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


Have been really caught up in RL this past week, will go through this as soon as find some spare time. Most probably in the next couple of days. NumerounovedantTalk 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • No worries, take as much time as you need as this will most likely be up for several more weeks to receive more feedback/commentary. Hope everything is going well with you, and thank you for taking time out of your schedule for this. I am slowly getting better at being more patient with the process lol. Good luck with current/future projects on here and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Couldn't find much to point out, most of it looks good to me. It's comprehensive and fairly well written. I have made some very minor changes. The one thing that I'm a little concerned about is the repetiton of certain storylines in Premise and characters and Episodes sections. I think I can recall a few instances of having to go through some facts twice. ayou might wamt to take a look and see for yourself. NumerounovedantTalk 15:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the revisions. They have helped to improve the article a great deal so I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, I think some of the info-box facts can use references to substantiate them. Like the runtime, composer(s), camera setup among others. I know some of them might not be the most important, but it's better to have the references there. Let me know if I missed something here. NumerounovedantTalk 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I can definitely add references to the information in the infobox. I will try to complete it by the end of today and I will put up a message on here when I have completed it. My only concern about this is that is not really a common practice at least in my experience. I was able to pass Love, Inc. through the FAC process without doing this as all of the information is already cited in the body of the article. As I said previously in this message, I can and will do this, but I am not exactly sure of the value of it. I greatly appreciate your commentary, and I just wanted to clarify my point and hopefully get some feedback about it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Numerounovedant: I have added references for the camera set-up, running time, production company, and distribution company information in the infobox. The information about composer is cited through the show itself so I do not believe that a reference should be included in that context. Let me know if you believe any other instance should have a reference. Also, please read my message as I am a little confused by this as it is different than my previous experiences doing an FAC on television show so I would greatly appreciate your feedback on that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that's not what I meant. What is was trying to say is that you might want to incorporate these facts into the article itself (See: Last paragraph here for instance). I just believe that some the aspects that are already in the info-box are left of most articles amd it's such a shame that despite having the facts in front of us, we'd rather not have them in the article. NumerounovedantTalk 22:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Numerounovedant: Oh, that makes more sense lol. Thank you for the clarification. I have added information about the camera set-up and the episode time to the article. The production company and distribution companies were already in the article. Let me know if anything else needs to be added, and I apologize again for my confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking good, Support. Well, I totally forgot, did you go through the plot sections? NumerounovedantTalk 07:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support. I went through the plot section again and revised it a little to get rid of redundancy. Aoba47 (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Sorry for the delay. I was feeling quite sick this weekend but it appears every reference is well written: There are wikilinks, archives and everything seems to be reliable source. Good job. I give a quick pass as I fail to see any issues.Tintor2 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review! I hope you feel better soon, and have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Boogeyman 2[edit]

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

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

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Paleface Jack[edit]

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

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

Comments from Bluesphere[edit]

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

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

It was very kind of you to fix the references though you didn't have to. I would have done it by the end of the day. I believe large edits aren't encouraged with FAR but those were relatively minor edits and only to the references so I believe it's alright. Thank you for support and I will look into the list; hopefully by the end of the weekend. PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Northern England[edit]

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

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

Media review

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

Peter Dinklage[edit]

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

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

Comments from JC[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Mymis[edit]

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

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

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

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

@Mymis: Is their anything else? - AffeL (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence "For this he won the Emmy.." in the second paragraph in the introduction could be reorganized in a less confusing way.
Changed it to ", which earned him the Emmy.." - AffeL (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The "Upcoming projects" need to copyedited, there are multiple grammar mistakes and repetitive phrasing.
  • "He is set to appear in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and Three Christs in 2017" -> Those seem to be quite decent films, and deserve more than just a mention, I think.
  • Also, why do you think that Emmys and the Globes are literally the only awards that are worth mentioning? He has won and been nominated for many other awards.
I added the Critics' Choice Television Award and the Screen Actors Guild Award. - AffeL (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • "2017, Dinklage attended thousands at the Women's March demonstration " - "attended thousands"? This needs a bit of work. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "he'd been thinking " - probably better as "he had been thinking". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Henderson is a person with dwarfism from England, who was badly injured for having dwarfism by " - this latter part needs to be reworded. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • " saying that 20 years ago he would not have turned down these offers, saying that".... "saying that... saying that". Bit repetitive. Needs rewording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The lede feels a little cluttered. I would consider a restructuring, perhaps splitting it into three paragraphs. I would mention that Dinklage has achondroplasia nearer to the beginning. Not because I think it needs to be over-emphasized, but because it just seems a bit out-of-place right at the end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

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

Now starting review of references.

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

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

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

Actually I have not yet finished my reference review. So I am adding plenty to the delay myself! The idea is to determine if the best references have been used. Whether there is undue references used to support unimportant facts. Sometimes we get people keen to promote their own work dropping in a sentence and a reference to themselves. Though I have not seen this on the lead article yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
On the topic of nutrition, an old textbook I have says a lead deficiency sign found in rats is hyperchromic microcytic anemia, and disturbed iron metabolism, but considers it not essential in humans. It covers lead far more as a toxic unwanted element in another chapter.[1]
  1. ^ Young, edited by Maurice E. Shils, Vernon R. (1988). Modern nutrition in health and disease (7th ed. ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. p. 279,694. ISBN 0812109848. 
Sure. I think the article must be good in this respect, but you're very welcome to check this.
As for nutrition, the purpose why we even used to have that info was that importance in mammals may mean importance in humans. By itself, this is a biology-specific fact, very much so. Since we agreed the human info is of little relevance, then so is the animal info. We don't cover animals; nor because this is impossible or too difficult, but because this is unrelatable information for nearly all people and this adds little to the human information, which far nore relatable.--R8R (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
More reference review / source check[edit]
  • Acton: Book, seems to have little editorial input and is a collection of research statements, fact verified 1 use
  • Alsfasser: book, should be OK, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
  • Amstock: book, exists, 1 use, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
  • Anderson: secondary but old from respected magazine, fact confirmed, 1 use
  • Ashikari, journal article, is missing info, it actually has a first1=Mikiko issue=1; fact and quote confirmed. (on page=65)
  • ×Audsley, G. A. Book, exists 1 use; However it contradicts the "fact" in the article; The book says that pipes should be mostly tin, with a smaller proportion of lead, Any use over 25% lead requires an "elastic conscience". also this book says that the material (or how much lead) does not affect the tone. What is affected is the durability, and appearance of the pipes.
I never liked the organ material in the first place. Perhaps now is a great chance to remove it after all.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading the reference though. Perhaps the article can say "Organ pipes are often made from a lead alloy." How about that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, why not. Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Australian Mining History Association, fact confirmed; better sources may be available in books; we don't actually know who wrote the web site content, or where they got information from. 1 use
I'll add this source instead: [1]. Here's what I could extract from the Google Books snippet view: "MINES AND QUARRIES. CHAPTER VII. Glen Osmond was brought into prominent notice by its silver-lead mines and its building-stone quarries. Silver-Lead Mines. It is generally accepted that Glen Osmond has the oldest mines in Australia"--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ×Bairagi doi and pmid correct; species name should be italic. Appears to have 0 uses, so should not be included, and no facts to check;
Will remove.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Baird, book, appears to exist, unable to confirm content facts
  • Bastasch, online newspaper; missing full date, which is important: 9 April 2015; fact confirmed. 1 use in a note
Why is full date important? Is it not better now that all references provide the same amount of data information?--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In any case, I think I'll rather move to this ref: -- and avoid the question.--R8R (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The full date is important because 1 its a newspaper and you may want to find the print edition, and 2, it is connected to the article fact about when it happened.
The first argument makes sense to me. Anyway, as I said, I'll move to the new .gov source. This must be OK, right?--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That ref would be OK. For dates in references they should reflect how often the thing is published. For books just a year will do, most journals should have a month, but weekly or daily publications should have a full date. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The point that as I see you raise is unambiguity. Makes perfect sense to me and I'll follow. I'll note, though, that this is not really an issue for most scientific journals. They usually also have several issues per year or something. Rarely is the month ever an essential part of the info. That noted, I'll have your comment in mind anytime from now on.
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Beard: book; fact confirmed; M. E Beard appears to be the first editor. Second editor S. D. Allen Iske. It looks as if the chapter called "Imputing Lead Sources from Blood Lead Isotope Ratios" was written by Michael B. Rabinowitz.
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Becker primary research article; facts confirmed that it has oxidation state 3; Perhaps our article should mention this is called a "plumbyl radical". I am looking for a review article that covers this... It looks like a book chapter covers this: 10.1002/9780470666975.ch10 title=Stable Radicals: Fundamentals and Applied Aspects of Odd-Electron Compounds publisher=Wiley editor=Robin B. Hicks Year=2010 isbn=978-0-470-77083-2 Pages=381-406. authors=Konu, Jari, and Tristram Chivers. chapter="Stable Radicals of the Heavy p‐Block Elements." This radical is covered on page 391-2 of that. You can keep the discovery primary paper, but it is also good to include a secondary source to prove it is genuine.
Yes, the book covers this; will add.--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ??Beeman missing doi=10.1140/epja/i2013-13050-7 retrieved and url inapprorpiate; primary research/synthesis. 1 use; Facts only partially confirmed, though all significant figures were removed perhaps our article should say 2.3×1025 to 3.4×10189 years ; each isotope has a wide range, and our article assumes the upper bound years with figures truncated to "1".
I don't understand; what's wrong with the url? As for ranges: the article assumes the lower bound of Pb-204 and the upper bound for Pb-207, both truncated to 1. It seems like an appropriate way to make these numbers a little less precise with the purpose of not fixing the reader's attention on these for too long for a secondary-importance fact that it is.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The link is not needed as doi goes to the exact same page. A url is useful if you can get to read the article somewhere else, such as supplied by the author. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable enough. Will remove.--R8R (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ×Berdanier reference does not appear to be used, the linked google books page does not appear to mention lead; so it should be dropped.
Will remove.--R8R (talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Bergeson one use; This reference is written by a person who appears to be an expert on the legal aspects, and not one the science and health side of things. I would suggest using an alternative medrs quality reference.
  • Bisel, chapter in book reference confirms facts, (and also some others nearby in the text) looks good. 1 use I used this google book URL but it needs transmutation for use here.
Added transformed url.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Bisson, 3 uses; all facts confirmed (although p85 calls this Benue Rift instead of Benue Trough). suitable ref.
There is no difference. It doesn't matter.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ? Blakemore, book ref 1 use, superconductivity fact confirmed, but information about resistivity and comparison to other metals is not there - needs another reference.
Will add a reference to the CRC Handbook here.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Boltwood, B. B. 1 use. Primary reference. This is basically the person who first suggested that uranium and thorium decay to lead and helium. The reference suggests using the ratio of U to Pb as a dating method. It says nothing about the lead-lead dating or isotopes, so that previous sentence also needs a reference. A secondary or book reference should back this very old reference up with modern figures.
Replaced with a new reference: Levin 2009.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Bremholm 1 use primary research reference; The reference confirms nothing about PbS2 being a semiconductor, we need another reference.
This semicondictivity is not very useful since these are only stable at high pressures. Will change the claim to this per 1 and Bremholm.--R8R (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Burleson, book ref with one use, confirms lead use as flux for glazing. Looks OK. Could add &pg=23 to the url.
I am not particularly keen on adding &pg=23. We don't do this when we have multiple references to a source and uniformity is nice, I'd say.--R8R (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I think the citation style used here sort of implies not having these links to exact pages. It seems more logically consistent this way.--R8R (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Bremner, 1 use, book reference, fact confirmed, looks fine
  • ?Burbidge, 3 uses, review reference. This is over 100 pages long, so specifying the actual page(s) used would be good. s-process p608-610, r-process also confirmed around page 641. facts confirmed.
Done.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • de Callataÿ, review article, 1 use, fact confirmed
  • ?Casciani, reliable news source, 1 use, confirms statement, but statement in article is unclear " subsequent decreases in crime levels" was not due to exposure, but due to removal of lead.
Reworded; OK now?--R8R (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: Sorry for making you wait for so long. Unfortunately, I'm going to be away from Wiki for a few days (one week at most, most probably less) and then I believe I should be able to return and edit at full strength and I will fix all issues you raise that are worth fixing. If waiting for me is what keeps you from posting more reviews, please don't let it be the reason. I'll be back very soon.--R8R (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
R8R Gtrs: I am not actually waiting for you, I have been a bit busy and doing other things in my life. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Charles, primary research article, mentions fact in introduction, 1 use confirmed; a review or book reference would be better.
Replaced w/ a book.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Chia, primary research reference, 1 use, fact confirmed, although most of what was prepared was a Pb(I) dimer. A review would be better.
This one is recent. However, I've found a book replacement, which is three months old now.--R8R (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Christensen book ref, 1 use, fact confirmed, could add page number 867 to url.
  • Copper Development Association, web site, 1 use, facts confirmed, book may be better
  • Cotnoir book reference, should add pg=35 to url, fact mostly confirmed. But alchemical symbol is not on this page. So another reference is needed for 🜪
Symbol ref added.--R8R (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Cox The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance and distribution (should have capital D) book reference with one use in a note, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.
Fixed that "D".--R8R (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Dart Book reference, page links to a section on lead, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.
  • ?Davidson book reference, uses 87a confirms only part, fails to mention Goldschmidt classification; native occurrence is mentioned on page 5 (so should be page 4 and 5); 87b confirmed; 87c partially confirmed, should also mention copper as an impurity; 158a confirmed, 158b confirmed; 159a, 159b, 159c, 159d confirmed; 162 also needs page 12 to confirm that sulfate is in the sinter; 165 confirmed; 168 - not all impurities end up in solution, as there is also anode slime which accumulates copper, arsenic, antimony, silver, gold, bismuth, germanium. The reference is good for the use given.
Will work on Goldschmidt; mentioned copper; added pages 5 and 12; mentioned that most impurities remain in the solution.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Added a reference for Goldschmidt.--R8R (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?DeKock book source. appears not to confirm content it is cited for. But I cannot be sure.
  • ?Delile primary research article, facts confirmed, but review or book reference would be better. I am unconvinced that we need an exact quote: "unlikely to have been truly harmful".
The quote in question seems to be okay either in or out. We say, "According to archaeological research," and a quote seems appropriate. I won't insist on having it, though.--R8R (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This is a rare topic, by the way. On my look, I didn't find any review of this. I'm not too surprised and that's why we use a quote and say "according to archaeological research," so that it's clear the matter is not settled yet.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Deltares government report, 1 use, fact confirmed, OK
  • Duda, book ref, 1 use, facts confirmed
  • Emsley, J. book source, isbn appears to be for a 2001 edition. The page 280 does not include the information. ref 208 and 210 appear to be covered on page 226. No edition is specified in reference so what was consulted? I am looking at
No edition has been specified because I believe the year covers that well. I've corrected the isbn.--R8R (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Support Comments from Sandbh[edit]

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

Comments from DePiep[edit]

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

As noted above (re Graeme Bartlett), I think the infobox should list the most stable isotopes as is common in all element infoboxes. I am surprised by the addition of the comment [18] about decay chains and standard atomic weight specifics, after this FAC-ing. First of all it is textual so should be in lede not infobox (and I find it very hard to understand, of course because so much info is crammed in there), but more relevant: it may be important for lead, but that does not make it infobox-worthy. Also, the second half is more describing the effects on the standard atomic weight, and about not Pb-specific situations -- even less needed in an infobox. This info should be made clear in the section #Isotopes. But as a tertiary decay info --at best-- it is not fitting the infobox. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

OK, acknowledged.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • About. Existing text: "(For this reason, the atomic weight of lead is given to only one decimal place.)[36]". While factually correct, I'd like to have this a more pleasant reading. Points:
Removing the () brackets would not disrupt anything IMO, so can be done (no need to make it a sidenote, atomic weight is quite relevant). If it is bracketed, it could be removed. If unbracketed, include it in text flow.
I like these parentheses. They are sort of editorial. I used to try to avoid parentheses in texts whenever possible but I don't anymore. This is a good tool when used right. Here, they smooth the transition from the standard atomic mass talk to the relative abundances change talk. Having them costs nothing, really.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
They have a reading effect, they make a sidenote. Then either it should be a crisp sidenote or a more complete side topic. IMO now it is neither. Always, main effort should be to do without them. If impossible, think & re-read why that is not possible: there is an editorial (write/read) issue in there. With my notes below, pls try to find an improvement for eadability. How does it feel when read aloud? -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)+
Sorry, I cannot clarify enough my points about brackets & reading, too subtle English language. I should leave it then. Maybe John could take a look. For me, it's out of my English lang league. -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I've lost the parentheses.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, out. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
And btw, please do not use "standard atomic mass" (ouch) when I'm near ;-) ;-). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Prefer writing "standard atomic weight" for "atomic weight" (equally correct, but 'atomic weight' is easily confusing, while adding the word 'standard' is removing all confusion easily). Also to check: use of short 'atomic weight' elsewhere, and adequate linking.
OK, will do.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Corrected in Isotopes; the occurrence in Bulk is vague and we don't need to refer to the standard.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Question. The sentence leaves much to be researched (homework), in how the abundances make the atomic weight. Could we have a more direct explanation, for example: "For this reason, the relative atomic mass Ar [not s.a.w.! DP] is x in normal samples and y in thorium ores", "... this variation shows as a large uncertainty in the standard atomic weight: 207.2±0.1".
I need another go to think on this one.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
You may know I love making texts accessible. Accessibility is my top priority. I've tried a few times to improve it but I honestly don't see what I could improve. Pretty clear, isn't it? Anyone should be able to handle it. Bonus fact: if a reader has to think something for themselves and then solves it, they're proud of themselves and keep going on, that's what happens often. The obstacle here is not too high; anyone should be able to do it.
Yet if something is actually unclear, please could you specify what it is?--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No I can not specify. My command of English—science—explain is too low, so I drop this. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. The source now for this remarkable abundance is: [36] Greenwood & Earnshaw 1998, p. 368. I have no access. If G&E adds details (such as various abundance calculations), it's fine. When it mentions just the value, maybe the source be {{CIAAW2016}} or [19], which is by the defining institute IUPAC. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Checked both G&E and CIAAW2016. G&E supports the claim in its entirety; CIAAW does not. No changes are to be made.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable thinking. Will check.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
"... CIAAW does not" you say: weird. Alas, I drop it. (Sequence quest would be : what CIAAW report does G&E 1998 use, etc.). Done. -DePiep (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The section's isotopes table ({{Infobox lead isotopes}}) could/should contain all isotopes mentioned in the text. If so, missing are: lead-209, -111, -112, -114 (all with natural traces).
This is possible. Leaning yes here.--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Added all without the decay energies (don't immediately know where to get them and I think we'll get rid of them very soon anyway because we don't use them in the text).--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Decay energies are in the grand table Isotopes_of_lead#List_of_isotopes. For this isotopes infobox, removal of energy column is not discussed (so will stay). -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: this is a full infobox, hired from isotopes of lead. If this would limit good usage here by contradicting requirements between the two articles, a dedicated table could be made for this section. IOW, using that external infobox should not require compromises when writing a FA-level section in article lead. -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Isotopes in the top infobox
  • The footnote now says "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". That better be like "Isotopic abundances [do] vary significantly".
I disagree here: if they do, then how? We may go for something like "Isotopic abundances vary significantly by sample." Is it OK with you?
OK, even better. Wanted to say: no need for 'may vary': they 'do' vary. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Which isotopes in main infobox: The infobox should give a condensed resume of the article, not a copy. For this, I propose to remove isotope lead-202 from this infobox. As its mentioning shows in section Isotopes, it is an incidental fact not major for this element. (Earlier discussion here).
For the same reason, I'd ask reconsidering listing lead-205 and lead-210, though these could have better reasons to stay in there. I'd claim that having a long half-life alone is not enough (as a characteristic for Pb).
I see your point. Though if we remove all unstable isotopes, then there is no need for a table, as it is equally represented with a short one-line list of stable isotopes. Could we do it?--R8R (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If that's the outcome (four stable isotopes only), the infobox should cover it. No reason to feel restricted by this. Not the other way around. (Ask at WT:ELEM for table adjustment, see who responds). -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't feel restricted. I am ready to leave only four but we need to reorganize this part of the infobox in that case; otherwise the space will be wasted irrationally. Personally, that's what I'd want to do: only leave primordial isotopes in the infobox, and list only mass numbers and abundances.
If it is something that should be agreed on at WT:ELEM, then here is not the right to raise the issue in the first place.--R8R (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's simple: the main infobox should only list the main, characteristic, defining, calling isotopes. Then, if the result looks weird, we can change the look (but not the list). That look is maintained element-wide, not ad-hoc for lead. So, if the list only has 4 stable isotopes justified, its OK for this FA. And maybe we should improve the infobox — elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, done.--R8R (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: until some weeks ago, this infobox had headertext "Most stable isotopes of ...", today "Main isotopes of ...". This change relieves the main infobox of the obligation to give a complete list by half-life. Today, we can restrain ourselves to list only the important ones, preferably those as described in the article section Isotopes. My opinion is to be very restrictive here while being as complete as FA-needed in the section. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The reference for standard atomic weight

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

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

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

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

Comments Support from John[edit]

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

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

Couple of chemistry queries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking good...

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Axl[edit]

  • From the lead section (pun not intended), paragraph 1: "When freshly cut, it is bluish-white; it tarnishes to a dull gray upon exposure to air." The infobox shows the default tarnished appearance, but it would also be nice to see a comparison with the cut bluish-white appearance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The sentence seems too promising. It would still be gray when freshly prepared and would only have a bluish tint. Corrected that.
For the picture, see File:Lead-2.jpg (in the text).--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the picture demonstrates "when freshly cut, it has a bluish-white tint". I don't think that the sample has been cut at all. Also, I am disappointed that the reference is a 1986 book in Russian [Polyanskiy, N. G. (1986). Fillipova, N. A, ed. Аналитическая химия элементов: Свинец]. While technically I suppose that the book meets Wikipedia's requirements as a source, it is an unhelpful reference as verification for readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The point is not that the sample must be cut; the point is that the sample must be pure, and freshly cut samples are purer until they undergo passivation in the air.
The source says, "В свежем срезе свинец является блестящим металлом серо-голубого цвета, который сохраняется в сухом воздухе, но быстро тускнеет в присутствии влаги." Google Translate translates it to "In a fresh cut, lead is a glistening gray-blue metal that persists in dry air, but quickly fades in the presence of moisture."--R8R (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the Russian citation with an English one. Sandbh (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe I did try doing this before and I generally like having English-language sources whenever possible. This is definitely sort of information that should exist in English, I just didn't get to find it (in English).--R8R (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The "new" reference ("Writers of Eminence") was written in 1880...? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, there are still many references to Polyanskiy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
From what R8R says (which accords with my experience looking for this), there may not be a good equivalent to Polyanskiy in English which is similarly comprehensive as a source. There are a great deal of good sources in other languages that languish untranslated (I am still waiting for a translation of the more recent editions of Holleman & Wiberg from German, for example), so I would be willing to make an exception for sources like this when they are very good. Double sharp (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It is a soft, malleable, and heavy metal." In this context, soft and malleable are adjectives, but "heavy" is not a simple adjective. A "heavy metal" is not a "metal that is heavy". The list sentence needs to be re-phrased to avoid the implication that "heavy" is just an adjective. My suggestion: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Good one. Unfortunately, your suggestion won't work (see WP:SEAOFBLUE). The solution I found best was to remove the reference to the heavy metals in general, though maybe other possibilities exist.--R8R (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that lead's status as a heavy metal is worth including in the lead section. "Malleable" is an English word that shouldn't necessarily need a wikilink. Moreover, "malleable" redirects to "ductility", and "ductility" is explicitly wikilinked in paragraph 4. If you are concerned about separate wikilinks in adjacent words, I suggest: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't object mentioning that lead is a heavy metal in general. As for "'malleability' is an English word": it is, but it is one that many people don't get right. Many people think "malleable" and "ductile" are synonyms, which they are not; for this reason, we even have a note in the article about this. Also, I prefer to separate the lead from the rest of the article, in counting first links etc. Many people who read the lead won't read any further and some people who want to know something in detail won't read the lead.
How about we move the reference the lead's heaviness to the paragraph on chemistry?--R8R (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe "It is soft and malleable, and is often classified as a heavy metal?
Copying the note here won't do because lead is both ductile and malleable, and mentioning both complicates the matter. Here, we only give a subtle hint the two are not the same.--R8R (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The wikilink that I refer to is in the lead section. Regarding your suggestion of "often classified", lead is one of three elements that fit all of the criteria of heavy metals. I think its status as a heavy metal is more important than being "malleable", more so given that we already say that it is soft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I can agree on having "heavy metal" back, but does it have to be on expense of mentioning its malleability? Here's a solution close to what we've had before: "It is soft, malleable, and a heavy metal." Do you think it's okay to go?--R8R (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Reworded further; please see now.--R8R (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Both the above suggestion and the current statement are fine. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Atomic", paragraph 1: "The similarity in lead is caused by the lanthanide contraction—the decrease in element radii from lanthanum (atomic number 57) to lutetium (71), and the relatively small radii of the elements after hafnium (72)." The first wikilink goes to "atomic radius", which seems fine, while the second link goes to "ionic radius". Is this intentional? If so, the sentence should use the full names of the types of radii to make the distinction clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice one! Yes, that second link doesn't belong there. Removed.--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Bulk", paragraph 2: "It is the origin of the idiom to go over like a lead balloon." Shouldn't this be "to go down like a lead balloon"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
See the source: "go over" is AmE, while "go down" is BrE. We use AmE in this article, so it's "go over."--R8R (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should give both versions, though. BrE users will understand AmE spellings, but they might not know all the different AmE idioms. Normally this doesn't come up because idioms are not really used in the sort of writing found on WP, but when the idioms themselves are the things being covered, I think it is justified. Double sharp (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is sort of a minor detail I wouldn't want to interrupt the text with, but I've added a note (this is a fine solution here, I believe) mentioning the British version.--R8R (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Works perfectly for me; thank you! Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 3: "Their isotopic concentration in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of other elements. For example, the relative abundance of lead-208 can range from 52.4% in normal samples to 90% in thorium ores." The former sentence needs further clarification. I suppose that what is meant is that the percentages of the different lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the quantities of elements from the three decay series. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you basically got that right. Does it look okay now?--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The word "nuclides" could be referring to the isotopes of lead or to the uranium & thorium isotopes. How about this: "The concentration of lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of radionuclides from these three decay chains." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's only Th and U that matter (the rest being their daughters whose occurrence depends totally on that of their planets), so I'd just refer to them as "these thorium and uranium isotopes". Double sharp (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've edited it to mention Th and U explicitly as the parents; it should be clearer now. Double sharp (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 4: "Lead-214, -212, and -211 are present in the decay chains of uranium-238, thorium-232, and uranium-235, so traces of all three of these lead isotopes are found naturally." Why are these isotopes listed in descending numerical order? Also, I recommend adding "respectively" to the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure.--R8R (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", paragraph 3: "Organic acids, such as acetic acid, dissolve lead in the presence of oxygen." That's interesting. Why is oxygen required? This reference discusses humidity, but doesn't seem to mention oxygen. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the source doesn't go into any detail here. It's a very respected source, though -- it even has a template for wiki citations: {{Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}}.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "A further sesquioxide Pb2O3 can be obtained at high pressure, along with several non-stoichiometric phrases." Should this be "phases"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. This has been fixed, though, but you spotted it well.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "Many of them show defect fluorite structures in which some oxygen atoms are replaced by vacancies." Should this be "defective fluorite structures"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.--R8R (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 1: "The most well-characterized exceptions are the purple Pb[CH(SiMe3)2]2 as well as Pb(η5-C5H5)2." Is it relevant that the former chemical is purple? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Not in particular; removed.--R8R (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "These compounds are relatively stable—tetraethyllead only starts to decompose at 100 °C—or if exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light." The use of the double dash effectively sets aside the text inside. This leaves the remaining statement: "These compounds are relatively stable or if exposed to sunlight or ultraviolet light." However this does not make sense. The statement needs to be re-phrased. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice one. Done.--R8R (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 2: "With sodium metal, lead readily forms an equimolar alloy that reacts with alkyl halides to form organometallic compounds such as tetraethyllead." My understanding is that an alloy is a mixture of two or more metals. (The article "Alloy" implies that non-metallic elements can be significant constituents.) For an alloy to be "equimolar" wouldn't this require the constituents to be present in equal quantities? In which case, this would only occur if the initial conditions included the elements in equal quantities? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand the general principle vaguely but I'm not sure if I can explain it well. Some metals dissolve in each other and some don't. If I recall correctly, the equimolar alloy is a good solution with a good mixed crystal structure rather than a set of lead pellets within sodium or vice versa (so that there is some bonding between the two elements). Some small excess of either metal should not influence bonding, or does that only locally.--R8R (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Support from Double sharp[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester[edit]

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

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

Coord notes[edit]

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

Older nominations[edit]

Battle of Kunersdorf[edit]

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

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

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

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

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

Seven Years' War

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


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


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

Turning the Russian flank

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

Cavalry attack

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

Evening action

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


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


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


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

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

Image review

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

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

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • In general, it's probably better to just give the page range rather than use "pp. 400 ff"
  • Be consistent in using pp. for multiple page ranges in the citations (curent ref 19 at least is inconsistent) fixed
  • In the notes - you have no citation for note 2 I added the harvtxt into the note.
  • In the notes - you are inconsistent in using parenthetical refs - some have the year and page # in parenthesis, others have name, year and page # in parentheseis. Also, why do you use parenthetical referencing in the notes but regular footnotes in the body of the article? the template did that. And this is (probably) the last time I use that template!
  • I'm not seeing that Zabecki is used as a citation anywhere? If not, it needs to be in the further reading. moved
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: responses to your comments. Thank you!! auntieruth (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

HAve you tried using the Template:efn for explanatory notes? It lets you use references like the rest of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

250t-class torpedo boat[edit]

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

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

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

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

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Image review

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

Arlington, Washington[edit]

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

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

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness

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

Comments from JC[edit]

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

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

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

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

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

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

Thanks for the image review. The downtown image is of Olympic Avenue, the city's main street, so I feel it's appropriate. I might replace it with a better picture of Olympic shot from a hill when I have time to go shoot one. I also pared down the caption for the Lumber store to fit with the history a bit better. SounderBruce 20:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've replaced the infobox image with a new image shot from the same location, with a tiny bit of nature in the background to emphasize the city's "mountain town" atmosphere. SounderBruce 02:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Newer file is also fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Drive-by Comment - The historic population table has uneven intervals (7 years, 10 years, and 5 years), but has the same calculation for percent. This is an error. There are two possible solutions: the best method would be to just stick to the official US census numbers which are at regular 10 year intervals, or you can use the per annum function (%pa) in the historic population template (built for this reason). Mattximus (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Prokhorovka[edit]

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

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

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

Support by K.e.coffman[edit]

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

Image review by Nikkimaria[edit]

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

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67[edit]

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

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


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


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

Opposing forces

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


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

Following the main engagement

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

Casualties and losses

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


  • no points

Misconceptions and disputations

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


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

Structure and background

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

Comments by Kges1901[edit]

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

German attack toward Prokhorovka

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

Disposition of Soviet forces

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

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

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Sarastro1: I've addressed every issue directed at the nominator that I know of. Is there anything else needed from me? EyeTruth (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Nil Battey Sannata[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Yashthepunisher​: Thank you. I hope all the comments have been addressed. The TOI links seem to have no issues on my server, and i am not sure what's​ wrong there I corrected all the other links. NumerounovedantTalk 20:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look. NumerounovedantTalk 13:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from JM
  • "Swara Bhaskar essays the lead role" Odd verb choice
  • "The film was declared a "hit" after its second weekend." I don't really know what this means; if it's a direct quote, it should be cited. Does it definitely belong in the lead?
Well that's just how movies are rated as agar as BO figures in India go, bit yes I agree that it's not the best choice. I've rephrased to make it clear.
  • "She steals the money that Chanda has been collecting to pay for her tuition" The "her" is a little ambiguous, here.
replaced with "the math", as there is already a reference to it previously in the plot.
  • "for companionship ... not hard-earned". I'm guessing these are euphemisms; why not spell it out?

Thanks for taking a look Josh, I appreciate it. Looking forward to hearing from you. NumerounovedantTalk 09:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The Million Second Quiz[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Smurrayinchester[edit]

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

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

1966 New York City smog[edit]

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

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

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

Support Comments from Syek88[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

First read-through:

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

November 24: Thanksgiving Day

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

November 25: first-stage alert declared:

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


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

National attention:

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

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

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

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

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

November 24: Thanksgiving Day:

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

Subsequent estimates of casualties:

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


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

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

Comments from The ed17[edit]

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

Meteorology pedantry from JC[edit]

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

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

Coord notes[edit]

I think we still need a couple of checks:

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

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

Source spotcheck[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, BLZ. I've read your comments above and will try to dive back into your sources in the next few days to check the changes/explanations you made. I had been planning to wait until you finished responding to the second spotcheck, but depending on timing I may just go ahead and start it. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Update about my spotcheck of Goklany 1999, p. 24 (spotchecked source #1): I've looked over BLZ's explanations and changes, and where accessible, supporting sources for that section, and I am satisfied that the text related to this source is now problem-free. To be prudent (because the spotcheck for this source initially didn't obtain perfect results), today I additionally spotchecked refs 16–18 (McCarroll 1967) and 30, 32–34 (Fensterstock & Fankhauser 1968). For the most part, it all looks good. The only concern I have, BLZ, is for ref #17, regarding the statement "There was a smog event in November 1962, but Greenburg's studies found it had not resulted in significant excess deaths." It's true that it says (in the first column on page 205), "The episode has also been described by Dr. Greenburg who concluded that no effect on mortality could be demonstrated assuming a three-day lag from the onset of the air pollution episode." But a little later it discusses the spike in deaths on December 1 and says, "The peak in mortality on December 1 occurs also simultaneously with the peak in pollution." The graph on page 204 shows December 1 having about 50 deaths above the average, and December 1 appears to be the tail end of the November 1962 smog event. The text is dense and I'm not sure I have caught all relevant details, but is it definitely true that "Greenburg's studies found [the November 1962 smog event] had not resulted in significant excess deaths"? Moisejp (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Siuenti says[edit]

  • It seems to justify the "Goddess of Pop" appellation by going out and looking for sources which call her that and adding as many as possible. Not sure that's appropriate. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Should we trim some of the sources? Lordelliott (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I think this might be arguing the case from primary sources, when I'm fairly sure you should be looking for neutral and authoritative secondary source(s) which say she is "known as" such. Compare a google news search for "known as the king of pop" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        • I was unable to find an authoritative secondary source stating exactly that she is "known as the Goddess of Pop". However, there are numerous reliable sources such as CNN, Time, Forbes, Money, The New York Times and Billboard calling her "the Goddess of Pop", which could easily support that she is "commonly/often referred to by the media as the Goddess of Pop" instead of "known as", which is a much stronger claim. Do you think we should remove that sentence anyway? Lordelliott (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
          • I think probably it's better to remove it, yes. Ideally there should actually be some kind of guideline on this. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 08:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
            • I found this source stating that she is "[s]ometimes called the 'Goddess of Pop'"; is The Independent an authoritative secondary source? Lordelliott (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
              • That's exactly the kind of thing I meant, well done and thank you for finding it :) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • If her Armenian-ness was enough to justify a place in the lede sentence it would be mentioned somewhere else in the lede, but it isn't. Put the Armenian in (early) Life and Career. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • It already is: "Her father, John Sarkisian, was an Armenian-American truck driver with drug and gambling problems". Lordelliott (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry I wasn't clear, by "Armenian" I mean "Armenian: Սարգիսեան [sɑɾkʰəsˈjɑn]". Looks like you can link toՍարգսյան and I would also like a little superscript question mark ?link to Armenian_alphabet so I can try to figure out what letter does what.
        • Done. Thanks for the suggestions! Lordelliott (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Does Wikipedia has WP:requests for pronunciation? Red link so I guess not, anyway maybe look for someone to pronounce that at Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia (don't let it delay promotion but drop a note and hopefully it will get added eventually). Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the exact source for "known for her political views"? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • There isn't. In fact, although her political views have attracted much media attention, she's not exactly known for it. Corrected to: "Over the years, Cher's political views have attracted media attention, and she has been an outspoken critic of the conservative movement." Lordelliott (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Information in this quote: "By the end of 1967, they had sold 40 million records worldwide and had become, according to Time magazine's Ginia Bellafante, rock's "it" couple.[36]" could provide good context and notability in the lead. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC) (just a suggestion)
  • Autotune "as a deliberate creative effect" needs a citation please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Another vocal sample that isn't autotuned as well, please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Assume I get most of what I ask for I endorse promotion although I might come back and nag some more. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    No promotion with the weasel words "is described as" still there please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    The rest of the sentence ("... embodying female autonomy in a male-dominated industry") was intended to summarize what is already being said on the Legacy section; however, if one would think that characterizes original research, there is an article from Billboard magazine backing up this very same argument: "Her active political commentary comes as no surprise -- as a pioneer of female autonomy during a male-driven era, Cher paved a way in a sexist industry with her music. Do you think that source would be useful? Lordelliott (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    Heh, that is what appears to be a WP:closely worded paraphrase and definitely requires attribution - you may as well just quote them. Unless of course the Wikipedia article came first and Billboard are closely paraphrasing Wikipedia head hurts. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Please put an inline link to the sample file next to "Cher effect". Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Ip 122 says[edit]

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

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

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

A lot of good work has gone on here so congratulations. Just a few points:

  • There are currently some tags put on the lede. I did not put them there, but I would concur with their general sentiment. This is something that needs to be dealt with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that we need to mention a little of Cher's early life in the lede. A short sentence about her place of birth and ethnically mixed background might suffice. See for instance the GA-rated Angela Lansbury article as an example of what I am talking about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • We link to an article titled Cher as gay icon but do not actually use the words "gay icon" in either the lede or the main body of the article. That needs to be corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There are quite a few websites cited but they are not archived. That would be a good step to take to prevent them from succumbing to link rot. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

Canadian Indian residential school system[edit]

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

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

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness

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


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

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

Driveby comments[edit]

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

Dire wolf[edit]

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

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

Support Comments from RL0919[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

Comment from Funkmonk[edit]

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

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

Support Comments from Cas liber[edit]

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

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

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

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

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)[edit]

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

Comments by Ian[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spot check by Cas Liber[edit]

Will take a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • FN 33 - source says, "As an added caution, we extracted DNA from the internal marrow of six asphalt-imbedded fossil bones from dire wolf, Canis dirus; in no case were sequences recovered that were recognizable as Smilodon" - which (when taken with the preceding sentences), suggests it means they were looking for the Smilodon DNA in the dire wolf fossils and stating they'd found none, rather than a lack of retrieving the dire wolf DNA. Unless there is another source that says something on this...?
  • FN 34 - true to source
  • FN 41 - true to source
  • FN 70 (used 6 times) - true to source

Looks alright but one clarification needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Morning Doc. Nice spot checking but we cannot expect you to read every minute detail of each article. Please refer to page 9770, the paragraph just before the section titled "Results", which may prove to be a bit heavy going for the average reader if included in the article:
"For the dire wolf material, PCR amplification with primer 12S-3 (positions 1253-1279; 5'-CTATATACCGCCATCTTCAGCAAACC-3') was attempted unsuccessfully with 12S-2. Sequences of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I primers are 5'-AATTGGATCCGACACGCAGTTCGTGCGGTT-3' and 5'-AATTGAATTCGTCTCGCTCTGGTTGTAGT-3'."
The study compares sequences that are 358-base pairs in length of the mitochondrial encoding 12s RNA gene, which is generally used by researchers for species identification, and further detail of this usage can be found at: (You're in my world now...) The researchers could not extract it from dire wolf, which is why it does not appear in Table 1 of the study with the other species that they were successful with.
I cannot find any other published reference relating to dire wolf DNA extraction. If there were enough useful segments available (i.e. lengths of data), we could ascertain its relationship with lupus. (Was the dire wolf really a gray wolf derivative?. We will need to wait until later this year for J. Meachen's analysis of her "Dire wolf/Beringian wolf hybrids" recently discovered in Idaho.) Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 21:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok that's fine. I missed that but it is a dense article...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Plus it is not an easy article to wade through and some aspects are skimmed lightly, such as this one. Thanks for the "check-up". Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 00:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Fallout 4: Far Harbor[edit]

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Sarastro1: Cheers for the pointers. I've tried to fix them up. What's your opinion now? Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: In case you forgot. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't forget, but I was looking for further comment on this rather than doing so myself, for it needs further review. I'd rather not give further examples for the moment or I'd have to recuse as coordinator. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Moisejp
Addressed comments from Moisejp


  • "This sparked controversy, though Veer said that he was not upset with the similarities in the games." Does the main text clearly establish that there any real controversy? I would argue that it doesn't.
Changed to "discussion".
  • It may be a matter of personal preference, but how would you feel about using small mid-sentence t for the Island, the Institute, etc.? If you don't want to, know worries. I guess the most important thing is that you are consistent.
Capitals are fine, IMO.


  • Is it explained why the Sole Survivor is called as such when there are apparently other humans still alive?
I'm not sure, but that'd be too much detail for an expansion anyway. It might be a good idea to include it in the Fallout 4 article, though.
  • "The expansion is set on a radioactive, smog-smothered island": There are 15 occurrences of "fog" or "foggy" in the article, but this is the only occurrence of "smog". Is it really fog, not smog? Or if it's smog, should the other occurrences describe it as such?
Changed all to "fog".
  • "A quick completion by killing the other characters is not always the best option as the player will find options to resolve things peacefully by completing more quests given by the factions." Possibly OK (as an interesting turn of phrase), but it a little bit sounds like the reader would initially assume that killing other characters quickly was a good method. Maybe consider rephrasing a bit to put more emphasis on there being different strategies, each with its own potential pitfalls, rather than starting by saying killing is not necessarily the best way.
Added "There are different ways to complete quests, all with their own pitfalls." to the start.
  • OK, to all the above, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "To use more stamina-hungry actions, the player must let it regenerate." What does "it" refer to here?
Already mentioned: Using V.A.T.S. lowers the stamina
  • It's a bit awkward because stamina is singular but Action Points is plural. Also "regenerate one's stamina" may be used in roleplaying games but is not a common collocation in everyday life. So together I feel these make it less clear what "it" refers to. How about "the player must let the AP regenerate"? Moisejp (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Changed to: the player must wait until their action points regenerate. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  • We are told there are eight possible endings, but it's not clear to me which details of what follows are the endings themselves, and which are possible steps towards one (or more than one) of the possible endings. Moisejp (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The ending section is written fine, in my opinion. Do you have any specific changes for it (or could you rephrase this?)
  • Well, the first sentence says that there are eight possible endings, and I kind of then expected to get a clear idea what each of the endings was. But as I was reading, I wasn't sure which details were the endings themselves, and which were details leading up to endings. For example, as I was reading the second sentence ("The Sole Survivor is faced with a choice: to destroy Far Harbor, to destroy the Children of Atom, or to inform the people of Far Harbor of DiMA's crime and trigger a feud between the Harbormen and Acadia."), I thought, "OK, these are three of the endings." Then I got to the next sentence ("Should the player choose to detonate the warhead, the Harbormen will take control of the island, while if the player destroys the fog condensers, the Children will become dominant.") and I thought, "Wait, are these two more of the endings, or does detonating the warhead refer back a possible way to destroy Far Harbor or destroy the Children on Atom in the previous sentence?" Then I read the next sentence ("In both scenarios, Acadia will be spared, though DiMA will disapprove of the player's choices.") I thought, "Is it relevant if DiMA disapproves? Surely DiMA just disapproving in itself can't be an ending, and must be leading up to another ending, but what?" And so on... I think knowing that there are eight possible endings is interesting to know, but it set my expectations up for a certain kind of follow-up that wasn't delivered—and maybe that's just me. So I guess if anything my suggestion might be to change the first sentence. But as I said, the fact that there are eight possible endings is interesting, so if you decide to keep the paragraph as is, I won't object. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I primarily used this page for the reconstruction of that section a few weeks ago. In my opinion the section is a good summary of what that article contains. With this said, I've removed the bit that said that DiMA wouldn't be happy because I couldn't find anything in the article to say what comes of it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Development and release:

  • In what way did the dialogue system not work satisfyingly in the original Fallout 4, and what specifically was improved for Far Harbor that gave players more flexibility for the game's ending? I'm guessing maybe simply the options for what to say, and the possible resulting interactions, were more limited in the original? If so, it could be good to clarify this more explicitly. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Expanded a bit.


  • "In particular, Stapleton expressed admiration for the new quests but said that the puzzle rooms were "so hard to fail I'm not sure why Bethesda bothered with [them]"." What if you put this sentence in the next paragraph, which also seems to be all about quests and puzzles?
  • The two below sentences are some big overlap in content. What if you tried to merge them—e.g., "Both Peter Brown (GameSpot) and the staff of Game Central noted (favorably?—currently it's not clear about Game Central) the many additional hours of play the side quests provided." Or, if Game Central didn't necessarily praise the feature, at least put the two side by side: "Peter Brown (GameSpot) liked how the side quests provided hours of additional play, a feature that the staff of Game Central likewise noted." These are just ideas, but it feels like currently the section randomly jumps around too much, and then revisits ideas already covered, without apparent awareness of what was already mentioned.
  • "Peter Brown (GameSpot) commended the addition of "hours of side quests driven by curious characters". "
  • "While GameCentral disliked the puzzle sections, they believed that the DLC added "dozens of hours" through the means of side-quests and other activities." Moisejp (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "David Ambrosini (IGN) complimented it." This feels weak here to just say he "complimented" it when all other citations get into more specifics about what aspect of a feature each reviewer did or didn't like.
  • "David Soriano (IGN) commended the extensive size of the map but alluded to it being somewhat wasted." It's not clear in what way the map was "wasted". Moisejp (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm using their words exactly for that part. The article is written in Spanish, so from looking over the translation I can't find what he meant specifically.

Similarities with Autumn Leaves:

  • "Other similarities were discussed in an article by Mat Paget (GameSpot), some of them being that both Far Habor and Autumn Leaves include a "mysterious death of the prime financier of the Vault" ": This sentence begins with "other similarities" but this similarity sounds a lot like what Veer mentioned a few sentences earlier about a "Vault where a strange murder happened".
  • "He also said that he would have been comfortable even if Bethesda had deliberately used content from Autumn Leaves." This third conditional construction "would have been comfortable even if Bethesda had deliberately used" sounds like Veer is saying he now believes Bethesda didn't deliberately use it, but other quotations contradict this. I think "He also said that he was comfortable even if Bethesda did deliberately use content from Autumn Leaves" probably fits the context better.

That's all my comments for now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Moisejp: Thank you very much for the comments. I've addressed some and I'll visit the rest soon. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@Moisejp: I've gone over the remaining ones. I've collapsed some of the completed ones, hope you don't mind. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm staisfied with all of your above changes and replies, thank you. Remaining minor comments:

  • The article mentions the same specifics of the who the three factions are twice: first in Gameplay, then again soon after in Setting and characters.
Is this better?
  • "Non-player characters" is wiki-linked in Gameplay and then again in Development and release.
  • Your merging of content in the Reception section is an improvement. Thank you for putting the Stapleton sentence into the second paragraph. Sorry I didn't notice this before, but it seems like the following sentence also belongs in the second paragraph: "Some, such as Nic Rowen (Destructoid) and Christopher Livingston (PC Gamer), highly praised the addition of new quests[5][6] but many, including Jack de Quidt (Rock, Paper, Shotgun), Chad Sapieha (Post Arcade), and the reviewers for's GameCentral, disliked the newly introduced puzzle sections." Another idea: there are so many people praising the new quests and criticizing the puzzles, maybe you don't need to mention all of them. Moisejp (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
How about now?

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thank you for the review, Moisejp. I've responded to the new comments above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm ready to support now. You've addressed all of my concerns, and I feel the article is much better shape. I've also made several copy-edits myself during the review. Nice work on the article. Moisejp (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Kalākaua coinage[edit]

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

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

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

Thank you for that. --Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Moisejp[edit]

I think what I spotted is mostly minor stuff:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from KAVEBEAR[edit]

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

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

Norwich War Memorial[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

moscap violations? are you referring to the caps of the on the inscription? ....?auntieruth (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it either. Wot. Ceoil (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that the issues are
* "The Royal British Legion " should be "the Royal British Legion";
* " Its place in the Memorial garden " > " Its place in the memorial garden ";
* " between the new City Hall and the castle." > "new city hall";
* "(on the Stone itself)" > "stone";
* "the Guildhall " > "guildhall".
NB "Market Place" is presumably the proper street name, as opposed to "a market place". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Market Place is indeed the street name. RBL cap the "t" but I've de-capped it anyway, likewise memorial garden. City Hall is a proper noun (it's the name of the building), as are Stone of Remembrance and Guildhall. But I think John's issue is with the inscriptions. Still, the inscriptions are in allcaps on the memorial itself, and they're quoted in allcaps in every single one of the sources (some inline like I've done, some as a blockquote). Personally I think it would be silly to make Wikipedia the sole exception, and sticking to the sources is a higher priority—the MoS is, after all, supposed to be a guide and no guide can cover every possible scenario. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
To be pedantic Market Place is not the street name, it is the name of the square in which the market is located. It is a proper noun though, as is Guildhall, City Hall etc Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

Noting that I've seen this and I'll be back later in the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm inclined to promote this, but wondered if there was any response to either Ruth's or Ian's compromise suggestions? Given that this is a MoS issue (and I don't think we want any more disputes between FA and MoS if we can avoid it!) I just want to exhaust every avenue before we invoke IAR (which is what we would effectively be doing here, although I have no problem if that is the consensus). I also notice that there is no alt text for the images, and while it is not an outright requirement, I am very much of the view that FAs should follow best practice. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Sorry to be late to the party, I was just browsing. There are a couple of references in the article to Norwich being a town which is incorrect. Norwich is a city. I think before promotion this should be corrected. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Seventh Victim[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

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

  • The men were all surnames and the women first names (except for one sentence where all are first names). This isn't only because Mary and Jacqueline share a surname; Natalie Cortez was first name too until I changed it: "Judd [male surname] makes a second visit to Natalie." Even on first reference, Mary and Jacqueline's surnames were left out, while the men were introduced in full. I've changed some of it, but because you have to use first names for Mary and Jacqueline, you might consider using first names for everyone after the first reference.
  • The plot summary was written before you began editing the article, and it isn't that clear