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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Toolbox
  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.

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Black-necked grebe[edit]

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

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

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon, but as usual, I have some image suggestions, since the article looks rather empty. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! Hopefully the taxonomy section is interesting enough. The original scientific name is the same as it is today, so I didn't have to do too much there. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We have photos of the juvenile, and though not a particularly good picture, we should always show it if images are available:[1] Also shown in this video, which could be an interesting adittion.[2] As well as this photo of a feeding individual.[3] There seems to be other interesting stuff on Commons as well.
Added the first two, but not the third. Although it is interesting, it just shows it eating, not doing things like diving. I did, although, add a picture of the black-necked grebe diving. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This free photo on Commons seems to show some kind of interesting behaviour (courtship display, according to the caption there):[4]
Transferred to Commons and added. It is in fact courtship behaviour. There is actually a name for this; the penguin dance. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems off that you use the scientific name in one caption under description, yet the common name in another. Seems the second image shows the other subspecies, so you could state this in the caption.
Fixed and done. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Achelousaurus[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from Riley[edit]

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

  • For the pronunciation note, it would probably be good to use {{cite web}} for the link to the email.
  • There seems to be two instances where the citations are out of order (ie where a citation with a lower number goes after a citation with a higher number when the two are right next to each other).
    • I fixed one instance; the other instance addresses a series of research, where it might be preferable to put them into chronological order. Of course the numbering as such is inherently unstable.
  • There is one point where there are four citations at the end of one sentence; is this really needed?
    • This is the same series of research mentioned above. If we omit a paper, the series is no longer complete.--MWAK (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sentence "Adult Achelousaurus had rough bosses above the eyes and on the snout where other centrosaurines often had horns in the same positions," what are bosses?
  • It seems that the genus is monospecific (just having read the lead). If this is the case, then the species should be bolded. If not, then this probably needs to be mentioned.

That is all for now.

Thanks, even if you don't feel like an "expert" on the subjects, all comments are welcome. It is good to know whether the text is understandable to most readers. I can take care of some of these, but can you look at point two and three, MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Cleopatra Selene I[edit]

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

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

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Seems like this one has been hard work! I'll review it soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the effort
  • You explain the name Selene, but maybe the name Cleopatra should be explained too? What was its significance since so many different queens had this name?
Done
  • Maybe give some context for sister-brother marriages, that it was normal back then?
Done. It was (still) further explained in the notes. Now note number 7
  • To me, since this is a pretty short article, I think some of the more significant footnotes should be incorporated into the main text. I think it would give a better flow, and a fuller/more comprehensive reading experience, since I wanted to know more details about what happened, I had to go back and forth between the article and the notes to get the full picture, which was kind of disruptive.
I have eliminated four notes. The rest are divided into: 1- opinions by different scholars which will confuse most readers and are not historic events, just theories. 2- notes about other events not really related to the queen, such as the marriage of Cleopatra IV or the long arguments about Ptolemy XII's legitimacy which is already the focus of a paragraph. Putting them into the main text would deviate the article from its main subject.
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "that Herakleon will never be accepted as king" Should be past tense.
done
  • "ugate coins which depict her alongside her ruling son" This should mean we there are depictions of her, that we could possibly use here?
Yes, and I have links to the three coins but as usual, copy rights are the problem. Here is a link to an article that have the so called Burgess coin, the last to be discovered, and this link shows you the coin directly if you dont wanna scroll through the article. The second coin which is the first to be discovered, called the Bellinger coin can be seen here. The last coin, that of Kritt, can be seen here. The Bellinger and Kritt images are taken from this article
Hmmm, so it seems most of these photos have been recently published? And we don't know of old sources that have published images of the coins? If they weren't 3D objects, we would be able to upload the images freely... We would be allowed to trace-draw the images, but I think the results would be dubious... FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
the oldest was published in the late 1940s.... sadly
In what country? The US had pretty lax copyright laws until the 1970s, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Alfred Raymond Bellinger (it)" Never seen such a link to a foreign language Wikipedia, not sure if it's allowed.
fixed
  • "if they actually existed and sent to Kos" Were sent to.
fixed
  • I think "morganic marriage" could be explained briefly in parenthesis or such.
done
  • "son of Ptolemy X, was among the princess", "had two Egyptian princess in his hands" Princes.
fixed
  • "by his niece Cleopatra III" Only mentioned in intro.
fixed
  • "Considered by her mother more easy to control than her sister" Only stated in intro.
fixed
  • "but the marriage lasted less than a year" Only explicitly stated in intro.
fixed
  • "To protect herself and her position" Also seems only to be stated in the intro.
fixed
  • "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars" Fed up seems a bit too informal here.
changed wording
  • One last thing, you state in the blurb here that she married her cousins, but no cousins are explicitly mentioned in the article?

Comments by caeciliusinhorto[edit]

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

Grammatical problems:

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

Redundancies:

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

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

More comments:

  • "fed up with the Seleucids' civil wars": "fed up with" seems like an extremely casual register for encyclopediac writing.
fixed
  • "between 135–130 BC": "between 135 and 130 BC". See MOS:DATERANGE.
fixed
  • "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, mention the queen with the name Selene": this is a little unclear, but I think means: "Ancient writers, such as Cicero and Appian, call the queen Selene"?
fixed
  • The second paragraph of Cleopatra Selene I#Queen of Egypt is confusing to me. First we read that Cleopatra III decided that Cleopatra Selene should marry Antiochus VIII; then that Cleopatra Selene divorced Ptolemy X; then that Ptolemy ran away before the divorce. The chronology seems all mixed up.
fixed
  • "Justin wrote that Cleopatra III "made two daughters husbandless by marrying them to their brothers in turn"": again, not really sure what this means. Cleopatra III seems to have done a very good job of keeping Cleopatra Selene in husbands, so far!
This quote is a circumstantial evidence to support the notion that Selene married Ptolemy X. Selene is one of the two sisters who was married to her brothers (not brother) in turn (this means Ptolemy IX and X)
I think this needs more clarification, then, because this wasn't at all obvious to me from reading the article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The capital of Syria, Antioch, was part of Antiochus VIII's realm at the time of his assassination; Cleopatra Selene most probably resided there." This seems a bit of a non sequitur. If the fact that Cleopatra Selene lived in Antioch is worth pointing out, probably it should go before the assassination, with "details of Cleopatra Selene's life with Antiochus VIII are not clear".
I believe this is the most suitable place cause we cant say that Selene resided in Antioch for the duration of Antiochus VIII's reign since he was evicted from that city several times by his brother Antiochus XI. Hence, we can be sure only at the time of his death that Selene might have resided in the capital
Okay, I see the point that this is making now. In that case, this might be better placed with the next paragraph, where the fact that Cleopatra Selene was in Antioch is relevant to Antiochus IX's seizure of power and marriage to her? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "the queen needed an ally who will help her control the capital": another tense problem. "who would help".
fixed
  • "It is unlikely that this marriage appeased Antiochus VIII's sons." I know what you mean, but I don't think that "appeased" is quite the right word here.
fixed
  • "Antiochus IX marched against his nephew but was defeated and lost his life." No need for the passive voice here. "killed" is more concise and straightforward.
done
  • "The rationale of the marriage might be more pragmatic": once again, be careful with tenses. "might have been". I would also say "rationale for" rather than "rationale of".
fixed
  • "jugate coins": might be worth linking jugate
done

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

Guilden Morden boar[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

A comprehensive yet concise article about an Anglo-Saxon boar that was once the crest for a helmet, the boar-crested helmet is a staple of contemporary imagery—think Beowulf or the Benty Grange Helmet—yet could be seen today as an artistic invention if not for the three remaining examples. The Guilden Morden boar is small but significant, displayed in the same gallery of the British Museum as the Sutton Hoo treasures and exhibited internationally, this exhaustive article covers the boar from its discovery alongside "a doubled-up skeleton" in 1864 or 1865, to its reanalysis in 1977, to its typographic and artistic parallels. It includes all the relevant literature, which, when offline or otherwise inaccessible, I'm happy to help provide to anyone interested. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

An interesting little article. A little on the short side, which is fine if it covers all the bases, but I wonder if anything more could be said about:

  • The manufacture of the crest. The article says it is cast bronze, but how was it cast? The lost wax process?
  • Iconography. Why a boar? Presumably boars are in some way iconographically significant, if they are known from multiple helmets.

The references I have spot-checked all check out. Prose is mostly fine, but I did notice "the boar is part of a number of boar-crested helmets" – in fact, it was part of only one! Perhaps something like: "the boar was probably once the crest of a helmet; a number of other Saxon boar-crested helmets are known from archaeological excavations and artistic depictions"? I also feel like "gains a further parallel in the Wollaston helmet" is fairly clunky, but I don't have any suggestion to improve it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Birthday-number effect[edit]

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out people unknowingly prefer numbers from their birthday. I consider this the forgotten sibling of the name-letter effect which got FA status earlier this year. I look forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Images. There are none. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Support only a few issues. I enjoyed the name letter, glad to read the sequel.

  • "in other countries.[9][10][8][A]" Are we ordering footnotes, or most significant first?
  • "overall amount of numbers" I don't think "amount" is proper. I might say "quantity" instead.
  • "Japanese tendency to attend to negative features so as to eliminate them.[46]" I'm not quite sure what this means.
  • "can't" We shouldn't use contractions.
  • " However, young children do not apply this strategy yet and 7 does not come out on top in children of age eight and nine.[12]" I would cut "yet"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt, for your time and support. I believe I have dealt with your points, but let me know if the one about the Japanese tendency is still insufficient. BTW, I must admit I suspect you smiled when you used a contraction to tell me not to use one. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

This is a very interesting article, and a lot of a great work has been done here. Though I do have to admit that this effect does not apply to me (my birthday is on the 23rd and my favorite number is 47 lol). My review is completely focused on prose, and does not address anything with source use and reliability (which I will leave up to the source review). Once my relatively minor notes/comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. My comments are as follows:

  • For the phrase (the Japanese psychologists Shinobu Kitayama and Mayumi Karasawa), I do not believe "the" is necessary.
  • For the sentence (By 2017 Kitayama and Karasawa's original study had been cited in over 300 scientific papers.), add a comma after "2017".
  • For the sentence (Throughout history societies have had numbers they consider special.), add a comma after "history".
  • For this phrase (the researcher Dietz), is Dietz this person's full name?
  • I would recommend using Bellos' full name when you mention him for the first time (i.e. Alex Bellos). Other instances where I think full names would be appropriate are the following - "Marketing researchers King and Janiszewski" and "Belgian psychologist Nuttin" - if the full names are known.
  • In this phrase (In 1985 Belgian psychologist Nuttin), add a comma after "1985". Make sure there are commas after the "In this date" construction as I have noticed a few more places that require commas, but I do not want to list every instance here.
  • "Name-letter effect" is linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • Instead of "hiraganas", I would use "hiragana". Japanese does not use a plural form so using the -s construction here just looks weird. I am also a little hesitant about the descriptive phrase in front of it (each of the 45 Japanese alphabet letters) as it can be interpreted as saying that hiragana is the only part of the Japanese alphabet when there is also kanji and katakana. I would see if there would be a way to rephrase that part to avoid any confusion.
  • For this phrase (For the letter experiment they asked 219 Japanese undergraduate), add a comma after "experiment".
  • I am not certain about the way the paragraphs are split in the "Results" subsection. Is there any reason why the first sentence is made into a separate paragraph?
  • Please use the full names for these people: Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell. Same goes for Bosson, Swann and Pennebaker and Koole, Dijksterhuis, and van Knippenberg. Just make sure that when you introduce someone for the first time in the article, that you include their full name. There a few other instances not mentioned, but I do not want to make my comments too repetitive at this point.
  • I am not sure about the policy related to this, but in the phrase (Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell used US undergraduate students), I would use "United States" in full for the first instance the country is cited in the article and then use US for the rest of the instances just to make it clear what you are referencing.

Hope this helps out at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for your detailed review. I believe I have dealt with all your points except for two remaining issues to discuss:
  • first names: if I knew the first names of all researchers then full names in first use would be good. As it happens, for 6 I can't find their first names: Dietz, Wiegersma, Blass, Schmitt, Jones, and O'Connell. Which is a lot less than I thought. So I could do it. My policy was to only give full names of the original two, and then just last name for everybody else, but I'm open to change it, although it does make for quite a mouthful at times: "Similarly, Jerry Burger, Nicole Messian, Shenabi Patel, Alicia del Prado, and Carmen Anderson investigated the .." What do you think?
  • US undergraduate students: I read the policy on MOS:US as you have to spell out the full country if other countries are listed, but should use abbreviated form elsewhere. I do indeed find "US undergraduate students" stylistically better.
Let me know your thoughts and thx again! Edwininlondon (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my points; this was a very interesting read. I have never heard of this before so it is cool to learn something new. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide commentary on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Nights: Journey of Dreams[edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  17:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Rosie and Jim are back, the reason why this article failed its previous FAC was due to concerns over the heavy-going prose, in particular its development section. But now that I'm back, and the fact that this article has received some generous copyediting from a couple of people in the past few months, I'm confident this should go more smoothly. I also took this through a GA review, so that's helped smooth things over as well. Nothing has changed with the sources, in fact the source and image reviews passed with flying colours last time but I'll request them again anyway, FAC procedures and what not. JAGUAR  17:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I was a little confused by the following part (but will be perused by "Awakers" which will awaken the player-character should three of them come into contact), and I was wondering if you could provide further clarification. Do you mean when three enemies attack the player-character at once or when the player-character is hit three times by an enemy (meaning one enemy can take out the player-character)? I have never played this game so I found this part to be a little unclear.
  • It's when three awakers come into contact with the player at the same time. I've never played this game either but have hopefully clarified this. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think you should make it clearer about which character is control on the ground? It is never made absolutely clear if Will/Helen or Nights is the "player-character" referenced here.
  • Rephrased to "players initially control Will or Helen but are required to merge themselves into Nights". The player initially controls the children on foot, but must take control of Nights in order to fly, if that makes sense? JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The Big Ben image has the following tag attached to it: (This image may not have the proper copyright or licensing information, or there is a conflict of license.).
  • I don't know what I done wrong but that tag keeps popping up every time after removing it. I think it's something to do with me adding two separate rationales to one image since it's two images representing one. To solve this I've merged both rationales into one. I think I know someone who does image reviews on requests, so I'll ask him; in the meantime I'll keep my eye on it. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how it works either. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You do not have Wii linked on its first use. It is currently linked in the "Design" subsection, but its first use is in the "Gameplay" section (i.e. in this sentence: "My Dreams" connects with the Wii's Forecast Channel, which will change the weather conditions in the player's "My Dream" world according to real-world forecasts.).
  • Linked in the gameplay section and unlinked in the design section. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Wii remote, Classic controller, Nunchunk, and GameCube controller are linked multiple times.
  • Well spotted. Removed duplicates. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In this part (better known for his musical compositions in the Sonic the Hedgehog series), add a link to the article on the Sonic franchise.
  • Added. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Link Sonic Team in the body of the article.
  • Linked. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Boss is linked multiple times in the body of the article.
  • Removed duplicate links. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for clarification, in this part (while Will celebrates with his father after winning a football game), do you think it is necessary to clarify that it is football and not American football? Just wondering since I am an American and was wondering if it is a point that might benefit from clarification. Maybe a link would help.
  • Linked association football. I had already linked football but I typed in "soccer" to see what it led to and hopefully this should make it clearer. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Game engine is linked twice in the body of the article.
  • De-linked. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Add the release years for Super Mario Galaxy and Twilight Princess.
  • Added. JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. My review focused on the prose, and I will leave anything related to source reliability and use to the source review. I honestly did not find much that needed improvement. Once my questions/comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you so much for the review! I should have hopefully addressed all of the above, please let me know if I can do anything else? I'm not too sure how to include multiple rationales in an image (or if I even have to), but I'll request an image review shortly. Hopefully this article is much more refined and smoother than it was last time! JAGUAR  19:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments, and this article is very strong. I support this for promotion. Good luck with it this time around! Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64[edit]

  • I'm not exactly sure if the sentence In 2010, Iizuka commented that he would be interested in making a third Nights game, should the management of Sega decide to commission one. belongs in the "design" section of development. I think this is definitely a good piece of information to be included in the article, but is there perhaps a different place, where it's a bit more relevant?
  • I see your point but I'm not sure where else to put it since there is no "release" subsection. Naturally I would put this sentence at the end of the development section but it's not related to audio and "design" seems like the only suitable place to keep it. JAGUAR  18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand. I don't think this is necessarily a big issue though, just something that we could try to fix in the future.
  • Nights: Journey of Dreams received mixed reviews. This is a generalized statement lacking a proper reference.
  • This is a summary sentence which sums up the general outcome of reviews. I don't think there would be much point in attributing every citation after this sentence, and also I think the aggregate score supports it too. JAGUAR  18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, done. Not sure why I didn't do this before. JAGUAR  18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Good work on this article. Very close to supporting. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: thanks for the comments! I should have clarified everything above. Unfortunately I can't move the sentence out of the design section since there is no other place to put it, and I guess it sort of sounds relevant to design anyway. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. JAGUAR  18:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to support this nomination. I found it an engaging and interesting read. I've never played a Nights game but will try to look for one in the future. Great job on this! Also, would you mind commenting on my current FAC? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Already done! JAGUAR  21:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2[edit]

The article looks in good shape but there are some flaws that might make the article better.

  • Has there been talks about this game's sales? It might be good for the reception.
  • I'm afraid I can't find any sales figures, both reliable and unreliable. All I could find was initial sales figures for the first game... JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of gameplay has six references for a single sentence. It feels like an overlink.
  • Oops. So it does! I've cut down three citations. JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In audio, there is the quote "flying in the air". I've been often told to use references after quotation even though the reference might be in the end of the paragraph.
  • I'm always wary of citation overkill since the paragraph is attributed to one ref but I've added one after the quote. JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Other than that, I think the other users pointed the article's biggest flaws. Ping me when you edit the article or you have a different opinion about the issues I pointed. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tintor2: thanks for taking a look at this! Unfortunately I can't find any sales figures (an impossible feat for most games) but I've addressed your other concerns. Luckily this article is a lot smoother after going through two reviews. JAGUAR  11:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Giving you my support. Good luck with the article. I'm pretty sure it can pass its source review too.Tintor2 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Pru (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Following the promotion of "Shine" (Gwen Stefani song), I have decided to nominate another music-related article for FAC. This article is about the eponymous, debut studio album by American singer Pru, it was released on November 7, 2000, through Capitol Records. Music critics described the album as crossing multiple genres, with several commentators connecting the singer with a movement of neo soul performers. Apart from the sound, Pru was also noted for using poetry as an inspiration for writing music, after its release, critics wrote generally positive reviews of the album, praising its composition and Pru's voice. The album peaked at number 176 on the Billboard 200 chart. Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)".

Just for clarification, I do not believe that a separate article is necessary for Pru, as this album appears to be the only notable (according to Wikipedia standards) aspects of her career. Following the release of the album, she has appeared to drop from public attention. I believe that this fulfills all aspects of the featured article criteria. Hopefully, this nomination will inspire more people to put up more obscure music-related articles through the FAC process. I look forward to everyone’s feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "It was released on November 7, 2000, through Capitol Records" - is there any need for a comma after 2000? I'm not sure if it's necessary after mdy format but it feels like it's blocking the sentence
  • There is no real reason for the comma's inclusion so I have removed it. I am not sure how it slipped in there tbh so thank you for catching that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was executive produced by Capital Records executive Roy Lott" - is the repetition meant to be here? Not sure if it makes sense to me
  • True. I have reworded it to avoid the repetition. I switched "executive produced" for "managed" as they mean similar things in this given context. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Two singles were released, "Candles" and "Aaroma (of a Man)". "Candles" peaked at number 68" - you could replace the second "Candles" with "The former", but I'll leave this up to you.
  • Revised. Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The record was completed at Studio 57 and Weight Room" - can the location of where it was recorded (city etc) be mentioned here?
  • Added city. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "sent to rhythmic radio stations in the United States during the week of September 4, 2000" - how about the first week of September? Feel free to ignore if you disagree. I thought that saying the week of a day sounds a little confusing, if you know what I mean.
  • Changed as it does sound better. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Despite this change, the song was still released under its original title for vinyl and CD releases" - there was no mention of this album being released on vinyl earlier.
  • The album was not released in vinyl; it was only the single in this instance. Hope that clears it up. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "with a Billboard reviewer writing that the singer was "[p]icking up the lyrical gauntlet" from contemporary neo soul performers" - unlink neo soul here as it's already been linked before
  • Removed link. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Those were all of the things I could pick up during my first read through of this article. Overall it's in excellent shape; compact, well written and enjoyable to read. I'll comb through the article again to see if there's anything I missed but I'm confident I'll be supporting once they're all addressed. JAGUAR  18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Jaguar: Thank you for the review/comments. I enjoyed working on something that is very obscure (I have never heard of anyone talking about this album or singer before I created and expanded this article). I have addressed your comments, and I am looking forward to your feedback. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing them! I have never heard of Pru before, but it was a very enjoyable read and I'm sure she's a talented singer. I've read through the article again but honestly there's nothing else I can nitpick here, so I'll go ahead and lend my support now, it is compact, well written, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Well done! JAGUAR  19:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Paparazzzi[edit]

  • "AllMusic's Ed Hogan noted that the songs combined hip hop music, Latin music, contemporary R&B, rock music, and trip hop..." I don't know if you can reduce the use of "music" here.
  • Makes sense. Reduced. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Archived again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have already reviewed this article before; these are my only comments. Since they are minor comments, I'm going to support this nomination. Congratulations on this article! Great work as always! Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Media review[edit]

  • The infobox album image has an appropriate fair use rationale and includes alt text.
  • The other image is appropriately licensed and includes alt text.
  • The fair use rationale for the music sample is mostly very good. From a little research I can see the 19.3-second length is well below 10% of the song length of 4:42. But it would probably be a good idea to specify that explicitly within the FUR. Moisejp (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Added. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Minor quibble: The sound clip ends quite abruptly. Whenever I create sound clips for Wikipedia I try to use the fadeout feature (I use Audacity, not sure whether the fadeout feature is available on other tools). If it's easy for you to fix, it could be worthwhile. Moisejp (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Moisejp: Thank you for I have added the fade out to the sample. Let me know if it works out correctly. Thank you for your review! Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that. It still seems quite abrupt to me, however. Maybe try a longer fadeout? Moisejp (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Moisejp: Thank you for your reply. I think that this simply boils down to personal preference (unless there is a Wikipedia policy on this matter). I do not necessarily see the point or benefit in adding a longer fadeout to the sample. Not only do I not really want to go back into Audacity to learn how to make a longer fadeout, the sample will always sound abrupt as it only contains a portion of the song. If I added a longer fade-out, I would also feel like it would not represent the song 100% accurately anymore as a listener may misunderstand the fade-out as part of the song rather than something I added to upload it to Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, fair enough. I agree it's just a minor preferential thing. I'm happy to say the media review passes. Moisejp (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments; I greatly appreciate your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cartoon network freak[edit]

Everything seems to be fine now. You have my support! Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Everything looks good. All urls are archived and references are from reliable sources. Still, I'm not sure about using direct Google Books scans. Isn't this copyright violations? You could simply leave the source to the magazine.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Tintor2: Thank you for the source review. I have changed the citations to have them to cite the magazine itself, and took out the URLs. Hope that helps as it is important to be considerate and aware of potential copyright violations. Aoba47 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Good job. I'll make it pass.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I was wrong about the google books links after all. Feel free to add them if you want them.
  • Thank you for the clarification and for checking the information. It is important to make sure that all of this stuff follows policy and code so I appreciate that you took the time and energy to check everything out. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

We Are X[edit]

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

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

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

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

Comments from Paparazzzi[edit]

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

The Fountainhead[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Comments from Gertanis[edit]

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

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

@Gertanis: Thanks for your comments. I have made changes and inserted replies above. Possibly some of the wording could be further improved, so let me know if you have additional feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt[edit]

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

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

Comments Support from Aoba47[edit]

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

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

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

Sources review[edit]

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

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

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

S-50 (Manhattan Project)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the S-50 Project, it was an effort to produce enriched uranium using by liquid thermal diffusion. Pilot plants were built at the Anacostia Naval Air Station and the Philadelphia Navy Yard, and a production facility at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This was the only production-scale liquid thermal diffusion plant ever built, it could not enrich uranium sufficiently for use in an atomic bomb, but it could provide slightly enriched feed for the Y-12 calutrons and the K-25 gaseous diffusion plants. It was estimated that the S-50 plant had sped up production of enriched uranium used in the Little Boy bomb employed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima by a week.

Now for the elephant in the room, this article was deleted back in 2006. You can read the weighty deliberations here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

image review

  • Suggest scaling up the sectional view slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    Set to upright=1.3 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

A tiny formatting point: in refs 11 and 17 the p. should be pp. Otherwise sources look impeccable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Common loon[edit]

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

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

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

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

Taxonomy

  • "Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..." - I prefer the inclusion of the article: "The Danish zoologist and mineralogist,..."
I think it looks better without it. :P Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why Brunnich and not Brünnich with the umlaut as in the Wikipedia article?
Replaced. Good catch! Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "as Gavia immer in his Ornithologia Borealis." This is incorrect - Brünnich used Colymbus immer. I've added a cite to his book in the article, the cite to "Assembly, New York (State) Legislature (1910)" is a weird choice. I suggest:
Fixed. Also, for consistency, removed the reference's location. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Distribution and habitat

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

Breeding

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

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

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

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

More comments

  • mention that no subspecies are recognised
  • the article should mention sexual dimorphism - the male is significantly heavier than female. See Gray et al 2014, Evers 2004 pp.4-5, Tischler 2011 p.2, Piper et al 2008.
Gray, C.E.; et al. (2014). "Body mass in Common Loons (Gavia immer) strongly associated with migration distance". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 64–75. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp109. 
Evers, David C. (2004). Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in North America (PDF) (Report). Hadley, MA: US Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Tischler, Keren B. (September 2011). Species Conservation Assessment for the Common Loon (Gavia immer) in the Upper Great Lakes (PDF) (Report). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region. 
Piper, W.H.; Walcott, C.; Mager, J.N.; Spilker, F.J. (2008). "Nestsite selection by male loons leads to sex-biased site familiarity". Journal of Animal Ecology. 77: 205–210. JSTOR 20143178. 
  • "and the pair bond lasts for about five years." this is text added in response to my comment above. It appears that territory is all important and it is probably inaccurate to state that the pair-bond continues from one year to the next. Evers 2004 has "Pair bonds do not persist beyond the breeding season" but has "High site fidelity by both sexes assures regular pairing of same individuals as the previous year." For a discussion see Piper et al 2000
Piper, W.H.; Tischler, K.B.; Klich, M. (2000). "Territory acquisition in loons: the importance of take-over". Animal Behaviour. 59: 385–394. doi:10.1006/anbe.1999.1295. 
  • should mention that pairs do not migrate together and do not winter together
  • perhaps add more detail on predation and separate chicks and eggs. In particular racoons can be important predators of eggs. Mentioned in Piper et al 2008
  • "Loons' nests are usually placed on islands" - not supported by source and doubtful.
Radomski, P.J.; Carlson, K.; Woizeschke, K. (2014). "Common Loon (Gavia immer) Nesting habitat models for North-Central Minnesota Lakes". Waterbirds. 37 (sp1): 102–107. doi:10.1675/063.037.sp113. 
  • perhaps add a second picture to the taxbox showing the non-breeding plumage
  • There an extensive literature on the common loon, much quite recent, and I don't think that the most reliable sources have been cited in the article. Some seem poor or unsuitable. By far the best review article is the Birds of North America article by Evers et al 2010, it is long, very detailed, well illustrated and cites the primary literature (up to 2010):
Evers, D.C.; Paruk, J.D.; McIntyre, J.W.; Barr, J.F. (2010). Rodewald, P.G., ed. "Common Loon (Gavia immer)". The Birds of North America. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. (Subscription required (help)). 
I haven't gone through the list of reference cited in the wiki article systematically but noticed:
22 Garfield, Eagle - What is this? Why is there no link? I've looked here without success: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/whiteriver/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_001228
41 Audubon - short web page with no author
50 animal diversity web - more scholarly source needed
59 Staff, Bowker - what is this?
64 Alward, Brian Floyd (2007) - Masters degree thesis not suitable
66 Watch, Wisconsin Project Loon (1984) - is this needed
I'm surprised by the number of field guides cited: 16 Ryan; 18 Dunne; 19 Icenoggle; 21 Kaufman; 26 Rappole; 27 Peterson; 65 Stallcup; 32 Eastman. Usually field guides are general tertiary sources that lack cites to the primary literature. If you have difficulty accessing any article, please email me. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Add a couple more comments:

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

More sources comments[edit]

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

  • Ref 5: The "imprimatur" (i.e. publisher) is shown as "J.C. Kall", this should be added, together with publisher location
  • Ref 46: The title of the source article appears to be "Loon vocalizations: what you are hearing and what does it mean?", rather than the title that's showing.

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

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon, first some image comments. When an image is very long vertically, like the drawing of the egg here, it is a good idea to add the "upright" parameter, it will make the image smaller, so it doesn't take so much space and clash with the other images. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking closer at that picture, only the bottom egg is of this species, so it should be extracted as a new file and replace the image in this article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think this photo of an adult with chicks[6] is of better quality than the one currently in the article.
  • Maybe it would be nice to show the immature bird.[7]
  • "It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" So what happened to this species name? Who coined it and when?
  • I've re-written this section, Colymbus was the original name, clearer now?. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The " It was known as Colymbus torquatus for many years" seems out of place since you follow this by " first described the common loon in 1764". Better for flow if the information is chronological, so you start with original description, then go on to synonyms.
  • The photo under Distribution and habitat is quite frankly boring, and is basically the same as the one in the taxobox. Why not a photo like this[8], or video like this[9]?
  • "The underparts are pure white, but has some black" Plural, so "have".
  • "and the webs are flesh coloured" I would add "the webs between the toes" or some such.
  • "duration of about one minute" Could be converted.
  • "and has a stable population trend that does warrant a vulnerable rating" Does not?
  • "Norway (Svalbard and mainland Norway)" Why do we need the part in parenthesis? Svalbard belongs to Norway.
  • "The common loon has faced a decline in breeding range primarily due to hunting, predation, human destruction of habitat, contaminant exposure, and water-level fluctuations, or flooding. Some environmentalists attempt to increase nesting success by mitigating the effects of some of these threats, namely terrestrial predation and water-level fluctuations, through the deployment of rafts and artificial nesting islands in the loon's breeding territories.[44]" This seems it belongs under conservation rather than breeding, and you also have similar text there.
  • " Onomatopoeic names representing the bird's call" No examples? Also seems grammatically wrong in context of the full sentence.
  • A random sentence break seems to have crept in, fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "eaten in the Scottish island" Islands?
  • "The common loon appears on Canadian currency, including the one-dollar "loonie" coin and the previous series of $20 bills.[73] It is the provincial bird of Ontario.[74] It was designated the state bird of Minnesota in 1961" Non-Americans might think Minnesota is also in Canada, sicne you start by mentioning Canada and Canadian places, but then jump straight to a US state without mentioning the country.
  • Any reason why the article listed under Further reading isn't used as a source?
  • Removed, I think this non-specialist publication adds little, a hangover from earlier versions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "(another former name, great northern loon, was a compromise proposed by the International Ornithological Committee)" This long elaboration should be given in the article body, not the intro. All common names should also be listed in the article body.
  • The bill is described as black, but it looks grey in most photos, even in summer plumage?
  • The description in the intro seems a bit too short.
  • Seems you go into way much detail about conservation systems in the intro, most of it isn't really needed. Yet you don't mention cultural issues at all, though the intro should summarise the entire article.

SMS Brandenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Another German battleship article - I created it all the way back in 2007, it has obviously been significantly expanded in the intervening decade, with most of the work being done this past April. It went through a MILHIST A-class review after that, and has been waiting for me to have the time to put it up here, as for the ship itself, Brandenburg was the first modern ocean-going battleship of the German Navy, and she saw extensive use through the 1890s and early 1900s. During that time, she was sent with the other Brandenburg-class ships to China during the Boxer Rebellion, but by the time they got there, the rebellion had petered out, she was mobilized at the outbreak of World War I, but due to her age, she saw no action, and she was broken up after the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the Shandong map
    • Good idea.
  • Brassey's should be italicized
    • Done.
  • File:SMS_Brandenburg_NH_88644.tiff: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Unknown, but per the NHHC, the photos in their collection are PD in the US unless otherwise stated. These kinds of photos were routinely collected by ONI for intelligence on foreign navies, which suggests the photo was in circulation at the time. Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for another classy ship, comments as I read:

Lead

  • link I Division?

Design

  • Can we place the image right, to avoid sandwiching of text?
    • If we do that, it'll be pushed down below the infobox and into the sections below, so it either stays where it is or we'd have to remove it. It would probably fit somewhere in the narrative, but it would be out of place, I'd think.
      • You could move it bolow the infobox, and move the next one further down, it's very general, could go almost anywhere. ---GA
  • Not familiar with the topic, may be a silly question: Do we start two sentences in a row with Brandenburg?
    • I'm not seeing where that is, can you point it out?
      • Don't see it anymore. ---GA

... to 1896

  • Do we know more about the illustration?
    • Added the illustrator and the approximate date
  • "Wilhelm II." has a dot, in German. I suggest you use that consistently or call him in English. "Wilhelm II" looks wrong.
    • I've always used Wilhelm II (and that's how it's done at Wilhelm II, German Emperor
      • Always learning. I'd understand "William II" and "Wilhelm II.". ---GA
  • The red link to the beach helps nobody, - how about Strande which at least has a map. Makes me wonder if a few maps marking where she went would be good?
    • Yeah, but I'd think articles on the bays will eventually be created. How about turning the red link into a redirect to Strande for now?
  • "Prinz Heinrich" or "Prince Henry", please.
    • Done
  • don't think Wiker Bucht should have a red link, - not even Wike in sight
    • As above, my assumption is that eventually, all place names will have articles, so red links now don't do any harm.
      • For people who are not coloublind it adds unwanted emphasis. I'd unlink for now and link when the article is there. ---GA
  • The link to Baltic Sea comes late, which might provide readers with little understanding for German waters with a basic direction.
    • Yeah, though I don't see a good place to move it earlier.
      • add in the Baltic Sea to the first-mentioned bay? ---GA
  • "before the ships had to put into their home"? be put?
    • It's a common nautical expression
      • Can you the expresseion to my, I mean: who puts, the ship herself? I'd understand "before the ships had to be put into their home". ---GA
  • link Kaiser Wilhelm Canal?
    • It's linked in that section

Will continue later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Boxer

  • link marks?
    • Done

WWI

  • "rendezvoused" - is that a word?
    • Sure is.
  • "Norddeutsche Tiefbauges" is no word, should be Norddeutsche Tiefbaugesellschaft.
    • I got that one. - Dank (push to talk) 04:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks Dan.

Again, thank you! Excellent readable layout of references! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Supoort - do with the minor issues as you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

Nicely done. I have only two small quibbles, as follows:
General
  • Some of the images have alt text, but some don't. It would be good to add the missing ones.
  • I've added alt text, to the best of my ability
Boxer Rebellion
  • Fixed, good catch.
  • That's all. Finetooth (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Switching to support, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

All sources of appropriate quality and reliability. All references consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Rochdale Cenotaph[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, another war memorial! This one's in Rochdale, a large town in the north west of England that most non-Brits have probably never heard of, but it has an impressive war memorial. The article has had an A-class review at MilHist and I've tinkered with it slightly since then so I believe it meets the criteria. Nonetheless, I'd be very grateful for any feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Image review. All images appropriately licensed. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Source review and spot check. Information in the article appears to match that in publicly available sources. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Meets all the criteria. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done, as always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Support (my review "disclaimer" here). A very interesting article. Two very minor comments from me, neither of which affect the support, but are worth considering:

Commissioning
  • "Thiepval Memorial to the Missing (the largest British war memorial in the world..." Isn't Thiepval a Commonwealth memorial, rather than solely British?
  • Yes, good point.
  • The last two "Lutyens" in the section could be swapped for "He" and "him" respectively, if you wished.
  • They could, but for flow and clarity I think it's better as it is.

Aside from these very minor bits, an excellent article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm glad you liked it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Support But a few comments to prove that I've read it.

  • Public subscription raised £29,443 10s, covering the £12,611 cost of the memorial. Any idea what happened to the rest of the money?
    • My guess would be hospital beds or a war widows' fund but weirdly the sources don't say.
  • many other memorials in Britain and the Commonwealth. Suggest linking to Commonwealth of Nations. (I always trip over that term, because in Australia we use "Commonwealth" to refer to the Federal government.
    • Done.
  • The recumbent figure is described as a "soldier" in the lead, but a "human figure" in the article. Is he dressed in a uniform?
    • He's covered by a coat up to his neck, but he's definitely a soldier.
  • Since we are noting Samuel I 25:16, I would point out Ecclesiastes 44:14: "Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore."

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That second quotation is from Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha (e.g. KJV), not Ecclesiastes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.186 (talkcontribs)
It actually has a slightly more complicated provenance in this case. Rudyard Kipling recommended it to the IWGC and Lutyens adapted it for several of his British memorials and it became almost ubiquitous with war memorials (there's probably enough to support an article there; I might even write it one day if nobody beats me to it), but that's probably too much detail for this article. Whereas the other verse was chosen specifically for this memorial from suggestions by local people so it seems more worthwhile to include it. Thanks very much for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support nothing significant I can see to fix Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with minor comments:
  • "Consensus was that the town..." - is there a word missing here? ("The consensus was..."?)
    • I don't think so, but perhaps I've got too used to the way the word is used internally on WP
  • "He designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall..." - he hasn't done that yet in February 1919; "He would design..."?
    • Done (with "went on to" rather than would).
  • "The plan was abandoned when Alderman William Cunliffe, a former mayor, bought the Manor House or the Orchard, a dilapidated 18th-century house and donated the site for the war memorial." - felt like it needed a comma after house, as the sentence becomes a bit hard to follow otherwise.
    • This has been bugging me for while, so I rewrote the sentence.
  • "the building was used as a recruiting station during the war." - "had been"? (imperfect tense feels odd here)
    • I'm not so sure about this, but done.
  • "light grey Cornish granite " - any chance of a link? (at least to granite)
    • We don't have an article on Cornish granite (I always link Portland stone, which Lutyens used a lot) but I can link granite.
  • "another Lutyens design" - should that be "Lutyens'"? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't think so. We wouldn't need an apostrophe for "another Mitchell design", for example. Thanks very much for the support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Errors

  • 1. You've got: "He went on to design the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations and went on to design the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing on the Somme in France and many other memorials in Britain and the Commonwealth." Notice anything wrong?
    • That's me rewriting the first half of the sentence without paying enough attention to the first. Fixed.
  • 2. You've got: "The flags flank a second, smaller tier with a semi-column at either end and culminates in a smaller plinth supporting a catafalque on which is a sculpture of a recumbent soldier draped with his coat" So, the flags .... culminates. Subject-verb agreement.
  • 3. Do the flags really "culminate" in a smaller plinth (supporting a catafalque on which ...)? From the photo it looks as though the pylon "culminates" thus. The flags appear not to reach the same level as the catafalque. Surely this upper plinth is a design feature of the pylon rather than the flags.
  • 4. RE: "on which is a sculpture of a recumbent soldier". Better might be: atop which, laid upon which, supporting a sculpture of, etc.
    • I've rewritten the entire sentence to fix all three of these (it's the tiers that culminate, not the flags).
  • 5. RE: "Painted stone flags appear in several of Lutyens' designs, they were rejected for Whitehall's Cenotaph in favour of fabric flags, but appear on several other memorials". Notice anything?

Support - I'm not seeing any real issues here, and enjoyed reading. A few small comments

  • Some of technicalities of listed buildings seems unnessesary, eg Grade II is applied to structures of "special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them", about 92 per cent of listed buildings.
  • Actually, I included these as a result of suggestions in reviews for previous articles, and I think it's worth noting that grade I listed building status isn't trivial (of England's thousands of war memorials, only a couple of dozen have that status).
  • Public subscription raised £29,443 10s will be incomprehensible to non-British Isles under 40s; link old money pounds and shillings signs
  • Done.
  • Can you check that Tomb effigy = recumbent effigy
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean but the sources all use "recumbent".
  • Does the the leading English architect of his generation need to be quotes.
  • I suppose the punctuation isn't absolutely essential, but that is a direct quote.
  • Grand, but quotes should be avoided as much as possible; the claim is strong enough and could be couched as "widely regarded as", or something. Not something I'd loose sleep over however. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • country houses for wealthy patrons, as English country house is linked, is "wealthy patrons" necessary.
  • I quite like it because it gives context but if you feel strongly it can go.
  • Naa...your the boss for these preferences, and I did say these were minor quibbles only. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • More please. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • One last thing: By raising the figure above the ground on the pylon, Lutyens gives him anonymity - how so? As worded, I would have thought the opposite. Above the ground rather than in the grave? Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

Support - Very nice article on one of the most impressive of the memorials. Just a few thoughts/comments:

  • Listing date in Infobox - I've puzzled over this one before. Does one put in the date of first listing, as here, or the date when the listing was most recently modified, in this case to Grade I on 28 October 2015? I really don't know.
  • I've always gone with the date of first listing. There's normally no reliable way to tell the date of the upgrading, only the date of the last (non-minor) amendment.
  • "He designs the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London" - I know you've been round this, but the present tense reads oddly. "He later designed"? You could replace the second "later" in the sentence with "subsequently".
  • If I have to rewrite that sentence one more time I might cry. I don't think the average reader would be as worried about it as we've been. Ceoil changed it from "went on to design" to "designs" and I've just changed it back (sorry Ceoil!). I'm generally wary of "subsequently" because it's widely misused, but this seems like a legitimate use for it.
  • "the river flowed openly through the town centre but has since been culverted." - And subsequently unculverted [10]. Might be worth a brief mention? Although a little way from the war memorial, it has dramatically improved the town hall setting.
  • I didn't know about that, but I only mentioned the culverting because Lutyens' first proposal was a bridge over the river.
  • "The memorial was constructed by Hobson Limited of Nottingham" - a cite for Hobsons [11]?
  • It's already cited, and mentioned in multiple sources already being used. Much as I love the IWM's project, their entries don't go into any detail that isn't included in the books or the NHLE entry.
  • "The design for the column is based.." - I got a bit confused, thinking that the "column" was a separate feature. "The design for the pylon or cenotaph"? You use both earlier.
  • Pylon works. Done.
  • "allowing onlookers to impart their own emotions onto the memorial" - is this a direct quote from King? I think I know what's meant - the anonymity of the figure allows onlookers to see him as their father/brother etc. Could it be more clearly expressed?
  • It's not a direct quote. What King is suggesting and what Lutyens was aiming for (which I couldn't source until I was looking for something else in King) is that the relative plainness of the memorial and the anonymity of the figure serve as a blank canvas, both for those who lost someone in the war and for everyone who wants to reflect on the war (100 years on, there aren't many people left who lost a close relative in the First World War). If you have a suggestion for improvement, I'm happy to look at it.
  • "Derby was....." - Rather a lot of things; DG, SoS War and Ambassador. Do we need a cite or two for this? You could take them from Lord Derby: King of Lancashire, Randolph Churchill, Heinemann, 1959, oclc=477556332, [12], if you agree. Page 187 gives you DG; page 241 gives you SoS War and page 349 gives you the Paris Embassy.
  • The details we need for this article are all in Skelton (and some of the other existing sources) so I don't think another one is really needed.
  • Wrong Boorman but right Borg. Added.
  • Cite 14 - shouldn't this be Hartwell, Hyde and Pevsner, rather than just Pevsner? And in my 2004 edition , page 56 forms part of the Introduction. The entry for the War Memorial is on page 597. Typo?
  • It's only there to identify the relevant book in the bibliography, and for the one surname (Pevsner being the best known) is sufficient. Fixed the page number though.
  • "The surrounding memorial gardens" - while we're on Pevsner, is it worth mentioning that the gardens, or part of them, form Rochdale's Second World War memorial? (Hartwell|Hyde|Pevsner|p=597)
  • Done.

Hope these are helpful. Nothing to stand in the way of Support. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I was hoping you would say what you said re. the listing date. I've always gone for the first and the prospect of going and changing them was very unappealing! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Pied butcherbird[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Australia's finest songbird - pretty haunting and weird calls it makes. I have scoured sources and it reads well so have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood[edit]

Images appropriate and all appear to be correctly licensed. Mostly without alt text. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

I'll add comments as I read the article.
Lead

  • link mantle
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • neck is white - it doesn't appear to be.
its the nape that is black forming the hood and there is a white neck collar below that. Better seen in the gould painting in article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy

  • link type specimen
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gould described Cracticus picatus in 1848..." I found this slightly difficult to follow and initially wondered why you were taking about another species - perhaps need some sort of intro on subspecies/regional variants
I did this but are you worried it is too repetitive? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • link Gregory Mathews
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • link nominate subspecies
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • link subspecies
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (3.7 cm wide) {{cvt|3.7|cm}}
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • perhaps link mitochondrial
even better, linked to mitochondrial DNA instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Description

  • "with short wings" followed by "The wings are fairly long"
removed Amadon's comment on wings Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The neck collar in the female is slightly narrower at around 25 cm (10 in)" 2.5 cm?
oops...fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Distribution and habitat

  • link Illawarra
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Breeding

  • Who builds the nest? HBW alive has "Nest built by female". (I can send you the HBW text - but I personally prefer HANZAB (Higgins) (I don't own a copy), as it includes cites to the primary literature)
HANZAB does not explicitly specify but talks about the pair building a nest at one point. Will try to see if anything further online Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea where HBWQ got their info as no peer-reviewed literature seems to be out there supporting or refuting this. Same with incubation (though I do think that is more likely to be true.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Nothing looks very likely in the HBW article Bibliography. I've come across similar cases before - the HBW author probably thought that he had read it somewhere but with 10,000 articles it perhaps isn't surprising. When the sexes are similar I assume a study using coloured bands is required. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Who incubates the eggs? HBW alive has "incubation by female alone"
HANZAB does not explicitly specify except to say "one adult", but one source said two adults out of four attending the nest incubated. Difficult when plumage is so similar. I will chase that source soon added that source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • use cvt for egg dimensions (bizarrely we usually include inches)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For how long are the young fed after leaving the nest. HBW alive has "at least a month"
HANZAB has anywhere from 25 to 33 days Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • mention brood parasitism (it will please Jim): HBW alive has "Records of brood parasitism by Pallid Cuckoo (Cuculus pallidus) and Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae)."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

References

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Taxonomy

  • "and combined them into a Cracticini clade,[13] which became the family Artamidae in 1994.[14]" I don't like the precise date without specifying who - Christidis and Boles may have made the change in 1994 but other authorities didn't. Taxonomy is always messy. Vol 14 of HBW published in 2009 followed Peters and placed butcherbirds in their own family Cracticidae and Clements still does (in their 2017 list). HBW changed the family to Artamidae in their Illustrated Checklist published in 2016 and didn't make the change online until this year. HBW online have a subfamily Cracticinae containing the genera Strepera, Melloria, Gymnorhina and Cracticus.
Sigh...this opens up a can of worms really as detailed discussion is best left on higher taxon pages. Let me think about it. Open to suggestions... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Description

  • " weight of 120 g (4 oz)." -> weight of about 120 g (4 oz). (HBW has weight varying from 105 to 159g)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with the responses and have supported above. Well done - excellent work. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

I'll support this now, since I'm going on holiday soon, just a few minor issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • captions and maps should not include the subject of the article
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • its smaller size than the nominate subspecies, and subspecies mellori from Victoria and South Australia on the basis of its larger size than the nominate subspecies.— I'm sure this can be rephrased less clunkily and repetitively
reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Both are regarded—missing "now"?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • baby grey teal.—"duckling" is better
reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll review this soon. At first glance, maybe the image selection could be improved? The article has no good photos of the bird in profile, but here are some:[13][14][15] There is also one of a juvenile[16], but perhaps the one you have of an immature is better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
the two flickr ones by Graham Winterflood are both subsp. picatus, so a good find. One has been added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Gould described Cracticus picatus in 1848 from northern Australia, describing it as" Perhaps say "named" the first time for variation?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "This was reclassified as a subspecies of C. nigrogularis" When and by who?
not sure yet...it happened pretty early on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The latter subspecies has a broader (3.7 cm (1.5 in) wide) white collar and a more whitish rump, with specimens becoming smaller in the more northern parts of the range." Usually it seems physical description between subspecies are mention in the description section?
in two minds. Putting it where it is helps explain what is different about the subspecies (and hence makes it valid) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • When and why was it moved to Cracticus?
It happened quickly as by 1848 Gould had put them in the current genus, but I can't find discussion of where, when or why. Vanga was clearly an initial placement that was wrong but early on genera could be really broad.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Darwin woollybutt" That's a funny name...
yes, it is Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "and billabongs" Could be linked or explained, I don't think this term is well-known outside Australia.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "call of an Australian pied butcherbird" Why stress it was Australian if this is an Australian endemic?
agree - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • On this note, I'm not sure why a section about bird-song has to do with depictions? Cultural significance maybe?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "defend their territory from intruders and mobbing and chasing raptors and other birds" Seems there is a grammar problem here maybe? "And mob and chase raptors and other birds"?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why do you only give scientific names for plants in parenthesis, and not animals (apart form nest-parasites)? Would probably look better if it was consistent throughout.
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What does "picatus" mean?
It's not in my Classical Latin dictionary at home - it means "daubed with pitch", hence "black patches" (in Late Latin I think). The two sources to support it are an 1844 book or a website from (notable) dictionaries....@FunkMonk: which source would you prefer I use...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Personally I'd prefer a book, but the website is more accessible... So I think either would work. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
added book ref now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "and were sharing incubating duties." Double "ing" may seem a bit repetitive, how about "sharing incubation duties"? Or "shared incubating duties"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "form a black saddle." Only described as a "saddle" in the intro, struck me as odd...
removed as doesn't really add anything Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "The colour of juvenile and immature birds, which are accompanied by their parents, is predominantly brown and white." Not sure what the insert sentence means? Is this mixing behaviour with description? Kind of unclear.
removed - relic of old edit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - that's all I had, so looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

In general, sources are fine – of appropriate quality and consistently formatted, despite my best endeavours I could find little to grumble at, apart from a couple of very minor niggles: ref 30, since it links to an online copy of the article, should have a retrieval date. And ref 45 should also have a retrieval date, since the source is a website. Nothing else. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

added (dammit I hate when I miss these on the watchlist! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison presidential campaign, 1840[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... the famous "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" campaign of 1840. The election may be quite old, but there are lessons in it that apply to today's politics. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Moise[edit]

I've checked the 10 images and 2 sound clips, and they are all properly licensed. Tonight or soon I'll check the captions and templates. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I've now checked all the captions and alt text, and everything is in order. Image review passes. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Pbsouthwood[edit]

William Henry Harrison and Tippecanoe:

  • by 1840 the structure had vanished into the mansion that stood on the property - How so?
  • Even so, his military record was quickly controversial, and it remained so in 1840. - clarify "quickly controversial".

Candidate in 1836:

  • ...ran regional candidates for president who would boost turnout, increasing Whig chances further down the ticket - Strange turn of phrase. I do not know what it is supposed to mean. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I think I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

Lede
  • These sentences are a little awkward: "Among other firsts, Harrison's victory was the first time the Whig Party won the presidential election, but he died after a month in office. His running mate John Tyler served the remainder of his term, quickly breaking with the Whigs." I'd do something more like "Among other firsts, Harrison's victory was the first time the Whig Party won a presidential election. A month after taking office, Harrison died and his running mate John Tyler served the remainder of his term. Tyler quickly broke with the Whigs, causing conflict with former allies in Congress."
Background
  • "he bought a large tract of land from his father-in-law" could use a link to John Cleves Symmes.
  • "Hsinh a presidential candidate who was popular locally..." some kind of typo here.
Nominating convention
  • "That state's delegation was run by its Whig boss, Thurlow Weed, who deemed Clay unelectable as a slaveholder, and provided much of Scott's vote through the first four ballots, which were deadlocked, with Clay ahead but not close to a majority." I'd break this up into two sentences, maybe "That state's delegation was run by its Whig boss, Thurlow Weed, who deemed Clay unelectable as a slaveholder. new York provided much of Scott's vote through the first four ballots, which were deadlocked, with Clay ahead but not close to a majority."
Aftermath
  • "He left town, never to see the President again." I think the "he" here is Clay, but it would be best to change it to avoid ambiguity.
Much obliged for the review, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Great, happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: I had a lengthy say in the peer review, and have nothing more to add. The article appears to meet all the required criteria, and for politics buffs it's an absorbing read, too. A sources review will follow shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

All sources are high quality and reliable. I have just one small query related to formatting: the bibliography shows the Kindle editions of both the Collins and the Shafer books, for the Shafer book you show standard page references, but I'm not sure what the Collins numbers indicate. If they are page numbers they need pp.; if something else, a brief explanation would be helpful, e.g. "loc." Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Regrettably, not all Kindle books have page numbers. I've added a note. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting read, remarkably current, some comments so far:

  • former allies in Congress -> link Congress?
Rewritten.
  • using his father's connections -> a bit of info of his dad would be good, at the very least enough to spell out his name and make that the link rather than the unspecific "his father"
My objection here is that I really don't want to say "Benjamin Harrison" right here as it is also the name of a later American president and I feel it is distracting to the reader. And WHH's dad is described almost first thing in the body of the ar
Ok, I understand.
  • until he won the office four years later. -> it's getting ahead of itself here, with the next paragraph having to back up to the campaign, so the question is: is there another way to say he never really stopped campaigning?
I had it as "never stopped campaigning after that", but Brianboulton objected to it at the peer review. I think the end of the paragraph provides the opportunity to back up a bit, after all, it's no secret Harrison won the election, we've just told the reader it and it's mentioned in the infobox. Open to suggestions.
I see things are a bit more complicated. I didn't know.
I hope I didn't come across the wrong way there. I was just trying to explain.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • no part in the selection of Tyler -> perhaps better: no part in the selection of Tyler as running mate?
Done.
  • March 1841; his death -> why no full stop?
Because that leaves the sentence about the inauguration too short, and in the case of Harrison the inauguration and the death are close in time and it makes sense to include it in the same sentence.
  • perhaps it could be helpful to say the cause of death in the lead?
We don't mention it in the body, actually. For good reason, see here.
  • at North Bend, on it was a log cabin; by 1840 -> not sure this is the best use of punctuation. I would start a new sentence with the log cabin
Split.
  • Harrison attacked his foes, and in the Battle of the Thames on October 5, 1813 in present-day Ontario. -> i think a verb is missing
Restructured.
  • remained controversial in 1840. -> I found that "in 1840" a bit odd. Until his death, maybe?
But this article is about the 1840 campaign. We already break chronology once to mention Harrison's death in a place where it was very relevant, the selection of Tyler, the cause here is too slight.
  • defeated by the Harrison forces -> forces is perhaps an unfortunate word choice, as I guess no actual fighting took place.
I've changed this, but military language has to a certain extent been adopted in political campaigns.
Yes, but because this article also describes real military action I think it is better not to use military metaphores for non-military actions by the same person.
Alright, I can think of a couple of later points when I do, I'll massage those.
  • Webster dropped out of the race in June 1839 -> maybe add, to be clear, something like "race, months before the convention, in"
The date of the convention ends the previous sentence. I think we're good here.
  • abolitionists -> worthy of link
Done.
  • Alexis de Tocqueville, -> some indication of why his words are worth listening to
Briefly recapped.
  • a Whig army of possibly 5,000 speakers -> I don't think using military metaphors is helpful in an article that also describes real military action
I've changed this one. See my comment above above military language though.
  • The future president spoke -> I assume this is Lincoln, but could refer to Harrison. Maybe better to rephrase.
I've done it, though I'm not certain there was ambiguity there.
  • at 1,275,390 for Harrison to 1,128,854 to Van Buren -> I would make that last to a for
Fine.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've done that except as commented.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • sorry, one more: disappointment of some, like Henry Clay -> what's the rule to use full name versus only last

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a rule, but I tend to use first names more before a one-syllable name. Just "Clay" seems too abrupt somehow. I've been using Thaddeus Stevens' first name some because I'm hoping that people will remember who he is in an article which has a fair number of names.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
ok, makes sense.
  • bibliography: New York referred to differently in line 1 and 2, 6

I'm afraid I don't have the sources to do a spot check, but I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Craig Kieswetter[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • "after qualifying for the England cricket team": Do we need to say something more about this? The general reader might struggle to understand this, but I'm not sure the lead is the place to spell it out.
  • Per the final point here as well, I've cut this from the opening paragraph. The second paragraph spells it out a bit more, and it isn't needed here too. Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "a lack of progression": Similar issue here. I think the general reader will be lost by this. Maybe lack of opportunity?
  • Yup, changed. Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead, we repeat the information in the first paragraph later on in the lead. I think we could trim that first paragraph right back to a description of his role and stats, the rest is duplicated later. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You're right, I've got into a bad habit of using the opening paragraph of the lead as a "mini-lead", in which I summarise the rest of the lead. I've cut a couple of bits out, how does it seem now? Harrias talk 13:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten this, and hope to get back to it this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

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

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

Thanks Brianboulton. Not sure how I managed to omit those details; added in now. Harrias talk 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog is a 2006 video game published by Sega for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 consoles. It's best known for its negative reception, often being cited as one of the worst games in the Sonic series and in gaming in general.

However, its story is one that is not widely known. You see, the game that became what is now known as Sonic '06 wasn't even supposed to be a Sonic game, it was conceived as a separate, completely different property. But, when it came time to create a new game in the Sonic franchise, series creator Yuji Naka wanted something big, he wanted to give Sonic a facelift, like how DC Comics had revived Batman for his 2005 outing Batman Begins. Thus, development on Sonic the Hedgehog began, the designers, with the advanced technical capabilities of the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, began to create a vast, more realistic world for Sonic and his friends to explore. With these innovations, they created a new character (Silver) and experimented with new ideas not ever seen before, but it all went downhill from there. Naka suddenly resigned, and there was no one left who had worked on the first games in the series anymore. Then Sega got developer kits for a system then known as the Revolution, and it split the game's development team into two: one to work on Sonic '06, and another to work on a completely different game that would eventually become Sonic and the Secret Rings for the Wii. There was now a small, inexperienced development team working on the former and... they rushed it. When it finally came out, critics blasted Sonic the Hedgehog as an insult to Sonic's fifteen years of making gaming history. What was supposed to be the Batman Begins for Sonic turned into the Fantastic Four (2015 version) for Sonic, and it left a stain that it still felt today.

Since the last FAC, this article has undergone a copyedit courtesy of TarkusAB. We worked really hard -- re-writing the lead, plot, and reception, archiving URLs, etc. ... and I believe it's finally ready. It's reliably sourced, well-written, and it covers all topics. Everything's here. Indeed, I believe this article meets the FA standards. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved
  • Is there any particular reason to place the game's Japanese title in a note? A majority of the FAs on Japanese video games that I have seen from browsing from the video game WikiProject appears to use the Japanese title in some variation directly in the first sentence. This may be a stylistic choice, but I just wanted to draw attention to it.
  • Removed Japanese name.
  • The Japanese name could be important for inclusion, but since I have never worked on an article like this, I will leave this matter up to more experienced reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think the sentence in the lead about how it is referenced colloquially as Sonic '06 should be placed directly after the first sentence to group the introductory sentences together to have the rest of the paragraph run more seamlessly together? If not, then I would recommend clarifying that these more colloquial titles were given to the games following its release. I would also specify who is referencing the game in this way (I think it is primarily critics and fans and not the Sega and the Sonic Team itself), but some clarification here could be helpful.
  • Moved this to the second paragraph, I think it might fit better there since I changed the wording in the lead a bit.
  • In this phrasing (It was developed by Sonic Team—the team directed by Sonic co-creator Yuji Naka), I would see if there was a way to possibly revise this to avoid the repetition of the word "team" in such close context.
  • The best synonym I could find was "group", which really doesn't sound right. I'll tried to re-word it a bit and give it better flow.
  • For the lead, I would add the year in which Secret Rings was released.
  • Done.
  • Should you specify that the second team was only working on the Wii version of the game?
  • Specified.
  • Could you provide more context for the bonus "Last Story" stage? I could not find information about it in the source cited (I am probably overlooking it for some reason). For instance, who is playable in this version, and how is different from the previous three versions mentioned in the previous sentence?
  • I've added that it concludes the story and that all three hedgehogs are the main characters.
  • For this phrase (Sonic's story focuses on the speed-based platforming seen in previous Sonic games), there should be a link to the Sonic franchise page as this is the first time in the body of the article that you reference the franchise itself.
  • Something about the following sentence reads a little weirdly to me (Another character, Princess Elise, escorts him in some stages by using a special barrier to guard him). I would say "and uses a special barrier", as the "by" seems a little strange in this specific context, she is more so "helping" Sonic "by" doing such actions, but I do not believe she is "escorting" him through these actions. I hope this makes sense, it just boils down to word choice.
  • Sonic actually escorts Elise, I've reworded it a bit for flow.
  • In the final sentence of the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, reference 2 should go before references 5, 6, and 7.
  • Done.
  • In the second paragraph of that same section, you use the verb "progress" twice in close proximity. Maybe, add some variation there.
  • Changed the first "progress" to "advance".
  • I would revise this (Although every character traverses the same levels, each character's unique abilities allow the player to access different areas of each stage and deny them from accessing certain items.) to avoid the repetition of the word "character".
  • Revised by removing the second use of "character".
  • I am not sure if you really need to do this for this FAC, but it would be more helpful to change the redirect for "Golden Rings" so it jumps right to the appropriate section in the main Sonic article rather than just leading to the top.
  • Fixed; this was because the page had been moved.
  • I think that the following part could be revised to read better (which are lost when they are hit by an enemy or obstacle with no rings in their possession or encounter any other fatal obstacle.). Avoid the repetition of the word "obstacle" and specify the difference between an "obstacle" and a "fatal obstacle" if you can.
  • Changed second "obstacle" to "hazard".
  • In the phrase (friends travel between past, present, and future), I would change it to (friends travel between the past, present, and future).
  • Done.
  • Please add the release years for Batman Begins and Spider-Man 2.
  • Done and fixed order.
  • I would revise the following (before attaining his final hedgehog look over fifty concept designs later) to (before attaining his final hedgehog look following fifty concept designs) for conciseness.
  • Done.
  • I heard somewhere that Veronica Taylor was the original choice for Elise's voice actress before it was changed to Lacey Chabert. I am not sure if it is really true or if there is a source out there going either way, but I just wanted to point this out to you.
  • It says that she voiced her on Metacritic, but that's the only RS I could find; it doesn't say if she was the original choice.
  • Makes sense to me. I just wanted to raise this point as it is something that I heard, but I doubted it was covered in anything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Following this sentence (Sega began pressuring the development team to release the game by Christmas 2006, so with their deadline quickly approaching, Sonic Team rushed the final stages of development, ignoring existing bugs and control problems), reference 11 should be placed before references 14 and 26.
  • Done.
  • For this part (a time of day mechanic), do you mean (a time of day and night mechanic)?
  • Yes. Fixed.
  • Include the year in which Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was released.
  • Year added.
  • Include the release dates for Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1 and Sonic Colors.
  • Done.
  • Again, specify who is referencing the game by its year of release if possible as it is a little vague.
  • Done.
  • Add the year in which Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric and Sonic Adventure were released.
  • Removed Sonic Boom, but added the Sonic Adventure year.
  • Lacey Chabert is linked twice in the article.
  • Unlinked in reception.
  • Sonic Colors is linked twice in the article.
  • Unlinked in legacy.
  • This is more of a question than a suggestion, but have there been any comparisons between the reception of this game and Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric? They were both panned by critics as low points in the franchise and were rush-released before being fully complete and ready for the public. There may not be anything out there, but I was just curious if there was any commentary about this.
  • There was from WatchMojo.com, but they are an unreliable source. I've removed the Sonic Boom comparison.
  • Makes sense; I was just curious about whether or not there was more on this front. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • This is another question, but I have read that the Sonic Team twitter has poked fun at this game multiple times or completely ignored it altogether. Would this be something to add here? This is a source talking about what I mean right here.
  • Added this; it was actually already sourced in the article.
  • In this sentence (The game's plot was a major point of criticism, journalists considered it confusing and inappropriately dark.), reference 2 should come before references 67 and 68.
  • Done.
  • Shadow the Hedgehog is linked twice.
  • Removed link in reception.
  • For this part (The A.V. Club, Kotaku, Game Informer, and USgamer have called the title the worst game in the Sonic series), the references are out of order.
  • In order now. (I got a bit messy with the refs).
  • Same for this sentence (most have made few appearances since).
  • In order now.
  • For conciseness, I would just combine the following two sentences (The game's plot was a major point of criticism, journalists considered it confusing and inappropriately dark.) into the following phrase (Journalists criticized the game's plot as confusing and inappropriately dark.).
  • Done.

Wonderful work with this article; once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. This is certainly an interesting part of gaming history, more so featuring how not to run a franchise or a reboot process. Aoba47 (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I've responded to your comments and resolved the errors. Thanks for the time to review! (I'll comment on your current FAC, too). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments and for taking time to comment on my FAC. I support this for promotion; I hope that this receives more attention and passes this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The1337gamer[edit]

Resolved

Quickly glossed over on section of the article: Music, it has major sourcing and verifiability issues. It's entirely sourced from store pages which are not good sources.

  • References 32, 33, 34 and 36 are all Amazon store pages, which are definitely unreliable sources. Anyone can create store pages for products on Amazon because they allow third-party sellers to create pages, these need replacing.
  • Removed.
  • The musical score for Sonic the Hedgehog was composed by Hideaki Kobayashi, Tomoya Ohtani, Mariko Nanba, Taihei Sato, and Takahito Eguchi, and was written in various styles of music genres, such as classical, electronic, rock, and world. - Not supported by citation. No mention of these people or genres. iTunes store pages are a weak source as well.
  • Added the game's credits as the source since they're all documented there. I only used it for this (I don't want to abuse it, as it's a primary source).
  • The main theme for the game, "His World", was written by Ohtani and performed by Ali Tabatabaee and Matty Lewis of the band Zebrahead. R&B artist Akon performed a remix of the Dreams Come True song "Sweet Sweet Sweet", a song originally from their album The Swinging Star. The song was previously used as the ending theme to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (1992). - Not supported by citation. In fact, the citation for this part leads to page with no information on at all.
  • It does, actually. It leads to the official website, where both songs are mentioned (you need Adobe Flash to view the website, didn't know if you knew that). Added a Famitsu source to support the Sonic 2 and Akon info.
  • Silver's theme, "Dreams of An Absolution", was performed by singer Lee Brotheron - No mention of Lee Brotheron at source. Unreliable source anyway.
  • Removed.
  • Two official soundtrack albums were released on January 10, 2007. - No citation for this. In fact, the citation that succeeds this part says the release date is January 22, 2007 which contradicts the date in the article, it is an unreliable source anyway.
  • Both are in the official website, used that instead of iTunes.
  • The complete soundtrack, titled Sonic the Hedgehog Original Soundtrack, features over 90 tracks across three disks. - No mention of three disks in sources.
  • Removed this as well.

--The1337gamer (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: I've responded to your comments above and addressed them. Thanks for taking the time to review. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp[edit]

Resolved
  • "following the release of Billy Hatcher and the Giant Egg" - I'd probably mention this game was also published by Sega, otherwise its unclear why you're mentioning it. Alternatively the middle paragraph of the lead is looking disproportionately large in comparison to the other two, it might be better to just drop this. Up to you.
  • I'ne dropped it.
  • "franchise for the seventh generation" - I'd remove the piping and just link to the full article Seventh generation of video game consoles. People unfamiliar with video games will have no idea what seventh generation means on its own.
  • Done.
  • "An unofficial fan-made remake of the game for Microsoft Windows is being made" - I'd be more specific with time frames in this paragraph. At the very least, mention which month in 2017 the segment was released. I'd open with when the game started being developed as well if that is possible.
  • Changed to "currently under development", and added the month of release (January).

That's all I found. Very close to supporting. Freikorp (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Responded and resolved. Thanks for taking the time to review! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to support this now, though you shouldn't use terms like "currently" as per WP:REALTIME, so if you can't give a date for when development started I'd change that sentence back to how it was. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Improved and expanded upon the Purpose of use, and removed some redundant info.

Good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I just realized something. If this passes, it'll be the first mainline Sonic game to achieve FA-status! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "Similarly, current series producer Takashi Iizuka would state that "we didn't have any time to polish and we were just churning out content as quick as we could."" - this would probably sound better in past tense rather than future tense: Similarly, current series producer Takashi Iizuka stated that "we didn't have any time to polish and we were just churning out content as quick as we could."
  • Done.
  • "the game holds a score of 46/100 and 43/100 for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3" - add a (PS3) after PlayStation 3 to signify what "PS3" means later on in the reception section. I know it sounds too simple but some people would ask that you do this for people totally unfamiliar to video games
  • Done.
  • "Gerstmann claimed the level design was worsened by the game's "frustrating" camera system" - no need to quote frustrating
  • Removed quotations.

It's clear that this article is very polished after going through more a number of reviews. I've arrived late to the party but since all I brought up was very minor nitpicking I'd be happy to lend my support now. I think prose-wise it meets the FA criteria. JAGUAR  19:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: Responded and resolved. Thanks for taking the time to review! ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: At the last FAC, David Fuchs opposed this on the grounds of prose and sourcing. I'd be interested in his opinion of the article now. And on a similar note, this still requires a source review which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Miriam Makeba[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC), Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs)

This article is about a musician and activist who who had a lasting impact on music and popular culture in South Africa and abroad, it has been through an extensive rewrite and expansion over the course of this year, and went through a detailed GA review a few months ago. It has been looked over by Midnightblueowl, who is co-nom, and also by Graham87. I feel it is comprehensive, and has used most of the heavyweight sources in this area. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment – I'm far too close to the article to !vote on this nom, but as an early major contributor to this page, and a big fan of her work, I can certainly attest that it covers her fascinating life story very comprehensively now, using the best available references. Graham87 11:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Image review by Nikkimaria, hatting for length. Vanamonde (talk)
  • File:Miriam_Makeba_welcome.png: possible to translate the description and source information?
  • File:Miriam_Makeba_(1969).jpg: tag provided at source doesn't match tag provided here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: thanks for the review. I have asked for help with translation, let's see what comes of that, for the other image; I notice the author name did not match, and I've fixed that; was there another mismatch that I missed? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes: on our image description page we have a CC BY-SA tag, but I don't see that on the source page - they seem to use a PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Got it. Does that mean I can simply replace the CC BY-SA tag with the PD tag and state that the source states it is public domain? Or do I need to try to figure out why the source claims it is public domain? Because the latter option seems beyond me. Also, what do you wish me to do with this translation? Copy it into the image description? Vanamonde (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Well, this page seems to suggest that they consider everything in their collection to be PD. This is supported by a document linked on the side, which says that as a matter of principle, everything on the National Archive website is PD, and "made available with a CC0 waiver". Now I am relying on google to translate said document, but it seems quite clear cut to me. I'm not certain what tag this translates to, I'm afraid. I have added the translation to the image documentation. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If that is the correct reading a CC0 tag would apply, but I'm not sure whether the "percent open" row indicates that not all of the collection is PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Even if that were the case, our image also carries a PD tag; would that not take care of it? I cannot find any more specific image documentation, so if you are still dissatisfied, I guess I will remove the image. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The image currently has a CC BY-SA tag, which isn't the same as CC0/PD. What about asking the source? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, I'll ask them, though they haven't edit for three weeks and do not seem very chatty in any case. That wasn't what I was referring, to though; at the source link, there is a PD tag for the image: and I guess I'm asking (since I genuinely don't know) why that, combined with the statement on the archive homepage, isn't good enough for us. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The option there would be to set up a custom PD tag, as we've done for some other libraries and archives. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I realize I am not making much progress here, but creating such a tag would be well beyond my abilities. Is this something you could help me out with? If it is something that will take a while to do, would you prefer me to remove the image, or to switched the tag for a CC0 tag, as an interim measure? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Nikkimaria. Image tag updated. Vanamonde (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no comment on the general question. The translation on the "Welcome" image is as follows:
    "Airport reception for the singer (sic)[1] Miriam Makeba (Jacob Ori at left), 1963."
    Source of the image is Leora Slutsky (Ori),[2] presumably a relative of Jacob Ori.
    The other page upon which this image appears is the Hebrew Wikipedia article for "Jacob Ori (Licht)", who was an impresario, and presumably was responsible for bringing Ms. Makeba to Israel for performances. Note that "Ori" is a Hebraization of the Yiddish-German "Licht", meaning "light"; such Hebraization of Yiddish names was pretty common in Israel's pre-State and early State eras. Ori is almost certainly the family name he went by in Israel.
    I hope this was helpful. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ I believe "singer" is correct. If so, the Hebrew in the description has a couple of letters reversed here, but the meaning of the Hebrew word that is actually there would make no sense in the setting, and the Hebrew Wikipedia article on Ms. Makeba uses that same word (with the letters correct) to describe her.
  2. ^ The name could be Slotsky or Slusky; these transliterations can sometimes go a couple of different ways.

Support from John[edit]

  • Interested in under the apartheid regime, black people were legally prohibited from consuming alcohol. I don't think it was as simple as that; see [17] for example. John (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You may be right. We have multiple sources for that statement, but I do not see any reason for those sources to be mentioning an amendment to the law that occurred later. I have modified the sentence to read "under South African law at the time, black people were legally prohibited from consuming alcohol." Vanamonde (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a bit better as obviously apartheid was only brought in post WW2. But the source I found has the "Durban system" bringing in municipal monopolies on alcohol from 1908 and says "In the 1930s even the Witwatersrand abandoned its prohibition policies in favor of the beer hall system." I think this is another interesting data point. --John (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's an interesting system, isn't it. My gut feeling is that in addition to racial discrimination there was an interest here in controlling the supply of alcohol, and preventing home-brewing by black people: but I suspect that's a bit too much detail here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. My feeling is that the article wouldn't be harmed by omitting this detail or perhaps putting it in a footnote, after all, most of us still live in jurisdictions where selling home-brewed beer is illegal. --John (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough: footnote added. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Makeba sang with the Skylarks when the Manhattan Brothers were travelling abroad; later she travelled with them as well. This is ambiguous; does the "them" refer to the Skylarks or the Manhattan Brothers? --John (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It was the Manhattans. Clarified.
  • Thanks for your comments, John, I've addressed the two points you raised. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I now support the promotion of this candidate, at least on prose. --John (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

All together a very content-rich article. Glad to see an African biography FAC.

  • "She married Stokely Carmichael, a leader of the Black Panther Party, in 1968: as a result". The colon here seems unnatural. I think it would be better if it was just a period between two sentences.
  • Done
  • "Miriam spent the first six months of her life in jail. As a child, she sang in the choir", since you end the former clause talking about Makeba's mother, it would be best if you then put Makeba's name in place of the pronoun in the next sentence to avoid confusion.
  • Done
  • "Her talent for singing was remarked upon during her schooldays." "[R]emarked upon" is an ambiguous phrase. The source says "praised", so that or something similar would be better. If there is another source that is more specific (i.e. who was praising her and what did they say) that would be best.
  • I've reworded a little: other sources don't seem to say exactly who did the praising, because her early life has received very little attention. I'll look again, but I'm not hopeful.
  • "and sang in church choirs, in English". I'm no MOS expert, but is that comma proper?
  • I think so? It reads naturally to me
  • "Her mother successfully treated her cancer." How? The source isn't very specific; it only notes that the treatment was "unconventional". Do other sources have more detailed information? I must express my hesitance to believe such a vague claim.
  • You're right. I've removed it pending further support.
  • The Independent article "Miriam Makeba: Singer banned from her native South Africa for fighting apartheid" says the Sunbeams/Skylarks was created by Gallotone Records, but this Wikipedia article reads that she founded the group. The Independent implies that the Skylarks were put together in such a fashion to purposefully not have any "mention of royalties, management or intellectual property" on purpose (this Wikipedia page does mention her lack of royalties). I see that the Al-Ahram Weekly weekly notes she founded the group, but gives less detail, on its face, I'm inclined to believe the Independent; I think the Al-Ahram just summarized too much. At any rate, this discrepancy should be resolved.
  • I would agree with your assessment, and have modified the text accordingly. I suspect Nkrumah meant "founder member", but that's only a guess.
  • The Independent article also says, "In 1953 she recorded her first hit "Laku Tshoni Ilanga" with [the Manhattan Brothers]." This seems relevant to include.
  • Done
  • "The record became the first South African record to chart on the US Billboard Top 100." Seeing as this is the first time the United States has been mentioned in the body of the article, it might be better to list the name instead of the acronym.
  • Done
  • "During its recording, she and Belafonte had a disagreement, after which they stopped recording together." Is there any further information on the nature of this disagreement?
  • I'm afraid the source does not say; most sources don't mention it at all.
  • "Makeba later stated that it was during this period that she accepted the label "Mama Africa"." Any information on the origin of this phrase?
  • I'll dig further, but it seems to have emerged gradually; hard to pinpoint it.
  • "In 1973, she had separated from Carmichael". This should be reworded (the past tense is already stated once), probably by dropping the word "had".
  • The reason for the "had" is that we're jumping back in time, having discussed the Soweto uprising (1976) just before this.
  • "She worked closely with Graça Machel-Mandela, the South African first lady, for children". The phrase "worked...for" is rather vague. Perhaps, if accurate, it could read "worked closely with Graça Machel-Mandela...advocating for children"?
  • Done
  • "and has been described as having a sensuous presence on stage". Seeing as she is now dead, might bit be better to say "and was described"?
  • Done
  • "She wore no makeup and refused to straighten her hair for shows, thus establishing a style that came to be known internationally as the "Afro look"." Was she the first person to do this, or was she just among the earliest to do it? If the latter is true, the text should perhaps read "thus helping to establish a style".
  • Yes, that's probably safer: though the sources do her a fair amount of credit, it would be a really extreme claim to say she was the very first to exhibit this style (and I'm fairly sure she was not).
  • "The prize has been called the "Nobel Prize for Music" in Sweden." This information seems more suited for the article on the Polar Music Prize than here, especially considering the source has nothing to do with Makeba and describes the prize as it was awarded to other artists in 2010.
  • I guess it's there because nobody has heard of the prize and the linked page is inadequate. If you still think it irrelevant, I will remove it.
  • "Google honoured her with a Google Doodle on their homepage." This information needs to be cited and the date on which this occured should be given.
  • It was in fact cited, the citation was just not at the end of the sentence: I've moved the refs there.
  • Citation number 87 [Tobler, John (1992). NME Rock 'N' Roll Years (1st ed.). London: Reed International Books. p. 427. CN 5585.] should be changed to harv sfn style as per FA criteria 2c on consistent citations with the bulk of the reference in the "Bibliography" section and a shortened footnote used as the direct citation. The same goes for citation number 98 [Stanton, Andrea L.; Ramsamy, Edward; Seybolt, Peter J. (2012). Cultural Sociology of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa: An Encyclopedia. SAGE. p. 318. ISBN 978-1-4129-8176-7].
  • Done
  • Citation number 2 [Allen, Lara (2011). "Makeba, Miriam Zenzi". In Akyeampong, Emmanuel K.; Gates, Henry Louis Jr. Dictionary of African Biography. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-985725-8.] refers to the Dictionary of African Biography. This needs to be in harv sfn fashion as well. I recall this book as having page numbers. If these are available, they should also be cited. If not, I recommend using the following citation: {{sfn|Allen|2011|loc=Makeba, Miriam Zenzi}}.
  • Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Many thanks: I've addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Happy to offer my support. Yes, I do believe the comment on the Polar Music Prize should be removed from this article, but other than that all my comments have been addressed. Best of luck! -Indy beetle (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, Indy beetle. I've removed that particular sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

No spotchecks done; in general, subject to the case discussed below, the sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. A few issues:

  • Refs 80, 95 and possibly others (check): BBC is not a print source and should not be underlined.
  • I think you mean italicized? In any case, that's what the template does: not sure if I can get around it, or whether I should.
  • I've just gotten around it by replacing work= with publisher=. I've also done some other tweaks to the refs for consistency. Graham87 06:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ref 91: "Tony Hollingsworth" is indicated as the author, but the article is actually written by Peter Elman – Hollingsworth is the publisher. What makes Hollingsworth a reliable source? A lot of the text reads as Hollingsworth promotional material.
  • Fair point, this is some of the little text that predates me. Source replaced.
  • Ref 110: p. should be pp. (per ref 152)
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 144: The title, "Zenzi Benga - the Musical" does not appear in the source. Is this the intended link, or is the title wrong?
    • @Brianboulton: I'm responsible for adding that ref and I can confirm it was the intended link ... the title of the website seems to have changed along with the title of the musical. Graham87 14:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the bibliography, for books you should be consistent about including publisher locations.Brianboulton (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Removed the few that were there.
@Brianboulton: Thanks for the review: your points have been addressed, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, all is well now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Jill Valentine[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a popular character from the Resident Evil video games and films, for the sake of transparency I will mention that the article's original author no longer edits Wikipedia. I 'adopted' the article in January 2015, making a series of improvements before successfully nominating it for GA; in early 2017 I made another round of improvements, then nominated the article for peer review and a copyedit through GOCE, both of which were completed. After implementing suggestions made at peer review, I nominated the article for FAC two months ago. I received seven supports on prose, however, two unfinished reviews opposed on issues of sourcing and comprehensiveness, and the nomination was closed, after having made another series of improvements, I believe the article meets the requirements for FAC on these issues as well, and accordingly have renominated it. Freikorp (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Note to co-ord: the images in the article have not been modified since passing the image review at the previous FAC. Freikorp (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Support: I stand by my verdict from the last FA review, now more than ever as multiple improvements have been made since the last FA nomination. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Slightlymad[edit]

Support: I have commented during the previous FAC and my view holds: this article is a thoughtful and comprehensive account of the subject, should be ripe for promotion. SLIGHTLYmad 10:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

This looks huge, but you know the deal. Parts in green represent an issue that needs addressing. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Passed

Part 1: Infobox and Appearances—In video games

  • Ref #1: IGN biography of the character, being used to source character's first appearance in the game series. IGN is listed as a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.
  • Ref's #2 and #3: Closing credit scenes of the original video game, being used to source production staff, as well as original motion capture producers and character designers in the infobox. Also used in prose to identify voice actors. I see no problem in doing this.
  • Ref #4: Uproxx article being used in infobox to identify a voice actor, and in prose to reference the quality of voice acting in the game. Author has also written for Cracked, IGN and GameSpy—which are all listed at Video games/Sources as reliable sources. No issues here.
  • Ref #5: Closing credits of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, being used in infobox and in prose to identify the character's voice actor in that particular game. Again, I see no problem in doing this.
  • Ref #6: Closing credits of Under the Skin, being used in infobox and in prose to identify the voice actor of the character in that game.
  • Ref #7: Closing credits of Resident Evil 5, same as above.
  • Ref #8: Closing credits of Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds, as above.
  • Ref #9: Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City, as above.
  • Ref #10: Capcom—an official documentary from the developer and publisher of the game, explaining the history of the character, being used to source the character's background, history and story arc, etc.
  • Ref #11: Computer and Video Games—physical publication being used to source the character's background and ethnicity. I have no access to the physical publication – no trace of it on Google Books – so can't verify its content. However, considering the quality of the rest of the article, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy or truthfulness of this source.
  • Ref #12: Nintendo World Report—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. This article's author, Zachary Miller, has also written for The New York Times. Reference is being used to accurately source the plot from Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles. No problems here.
  • Ref #13: Same publication as in reference 1, being used to source the character's role in Resident Evil: Genesis. Again, no problems to be found here.
  • Ref's #14 and #15: Articles at Eurogamer written by Kristan Reed, who has also written for Pocket Gamer—both publications can be found at Video games/Sources as being reliable sources. Being used to source character-specific plot of Resident Evil 5 and its assorted DLC.
  • Ref #16: Article from Audrey Drake of IGN – latterly of Nintendo Treehouse – being used to source the character's appearance in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D, as well as details of and reception to an alternate costume available in aforementioned game.
  • Ref #17: Article from same author and publication as in above ref, being used to source the character's appearance in Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City. No problems to be found here.
  • Ref #18: Article from The Guardian – a publication which received the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service – being used to source the character's appearance in Resident Evil: Revelations.
  • Ref #19: Direct source, used to define the above game's plot. I don't see an issue with this.
  • Ref's #20 – #23: IGN articles, being used to source the character's appearance in Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes and the character's abilities in said game, later references being used to source the character's appearance in Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds and Project X Zone.
  • Ref #24: Kotaku—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source, being used as a source to identify the character's appearance in Project X Zone 2.

Part 2: Appearances—Design and portrayal; Gameplay

  • Ref #25: Same author and publication as used in ref #18, being used to source the game director's objection to the sexual objectification of women in video games, and his desire to create a female character in contrast to that. All information used is accurate and adequately paraphrased.
  • Ref #26: Same publication as ref #24; author has also written for Pediatrics and Color Research and Application. Used as a source for the author's opinion that more revealing outfits have gradually appeared in later games.
  • Ref #27: 1UP.com—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Author has also written for USGamer: a sister publication of Eurogamer, which are both listed at VG/S as reliable sources, this source is used to describe the character's appearance, and later in the article for the author's opinion of one of her outfits being an "embarrassing relic" from a period in which game producers concentrated on the teenage-boy demographic. All adequately paraphrased and accurate.
  • Ref #28: Official US PlayStation Magazine—a reliable and noteworthy industry trade publication, being used to source the character's appearance in RE3: Nemesis.
  • Ref #29: Edge—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources.
  • Ref #30: Official physical publication released in conjunction with the 2002 remake of the game and published by Enterbrain. Used to source the character's redevelopment in said game, as well as various opinions of game developers.
  • Ref #31: IGN article, being used in the article to describe how the facial features of Julia Voth were used in the character's redevelopment.
  • Ref #32: IGN, used to elaborate on how Voth's appearance was used in later games in the series.
  • Ref #33: IGN, used to source Voth's decision to cosplay as the character.
  • Ref's #34, #35 and #38: Official physical publication (magazine) from the developers of the character, being used to source the character's appearance in Resident Evil 5, amongst other things.
  • Ref's #36, #39 and #42: Official guide from the developers and publishers of the game, being used to describe the character's outfits in several games, as well as the difference in gameplay between the male and female characters in the 2002 remake of the game, and various skills/equipment statistics.
  • Ref #37: Another IGN article, used to source the appearance of an unlockable outfit in RE: Revelations.
  • Ref #40: Eludamos—listed as a reliable source at Video games/sources. This article's author, Esther MacCallum-Stewart, is a research fellow at Staffordshire University's Digital Cultures Research Centre, her work specifically examining, among other things, the role of sex and sexuality in videogames. This source is being used to reference the difference in gameplay between the male and female characters of the game. Notable publication, notable author.
  • Ref #41: IGN article, used to reference additional gameplay mechanics (inventory/character skills) of the 2002 remake of the game.
  • Ref #43: Another IGN article, being used to source the character's abilities in RE3.
  • Ref #44: Game Informer—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Used to describe the character's abilities in Marvel vs. Capcom 3.

Part 3: Other appearances

  • Ref #45: Article at Jump Cut from Stephen Harper, senior lecturer in media studies at the University of Portsmouth. Used as a source for the character's appearance in the Resident Evil film series, and also for commentary on perceived sexism in that series.
  • Ref #46: IGN article regarding the film director and his original casting choice for the character. Accurate and paraphrased.
  • Ref #47: Direct plot details for Resident Evil: Apocalypse. I see no problem here.
  • Ref #48: Cinefantastique review of the above film, being used to source that publication's review. All fine.
  • Ref #49: Empire—respected industry trade publication being used to source the departure of Sienna Guillory – the character's actor in the films – from the series, and the reason why. All represented accurately.
  • Ref #50: IGN article, being used to accurately describe how Jill Valentine was replaced in later films in the series with another character from the games, Claire Redfield, a decision taken mostly due to Guillory's departure.
  • Ref #51: Digital Spy—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source, being used to source Guillory's return in later films in the series.
  • Ref #52: Digital Trends. Article's author has also written for MTV News, Time and Movies.com. Being used to source the character's apparent disappearance from the last movie in the series.
  • Ref #53: A novel from author S. D. Perry, being used as a source for the character's background in that author's novel.
  • Ref's #54–#56: Character's appearance in various officially-sanctioned comic books. I added the ISBN of each book, and an ASIN for one which I couldn't find an ISBN for. Not an issue, though.
  • Ref #57: NECA product description of an officially-sanction action figure, being used to describe the action figure. I see no problem with that.
  • Ref #58: Destructoidlisted as a source to avoid at Video games/Sources. I've tried to establish if the author, Matthew Razak, was notable but came up short, his only other experience has been with Flixist.com and Examiner.com. I couldn't find any info on the former; the latter appears to source content from "pro–am contributors", with very-little-to-no editorial oversight. Since this source doesn't say anything that isn't already covered by the next source, I'd suggest removing this.
  • Ref #59: UGO Networks—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Author has also written for MTV News and Geek.com. Being used to source stats about another officially-sanction action figure to commemorate the character's 15th anniversary. No problems here.
  • Ref #60: Toy Wiz—a webstore, being used to source the existance of the Resident Evil Deck Building Card Game. I don't see a problem with this.
  • Ref #61: Game Informer—same publication as in reference #44. Used to source the existence of a Resident Evil-themed restaurant in Japan.
  • Ref #62: Eurogamer—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Used to source information of a Resident Evil-themed attraction at Universal Studios Japan.
  • Ref #63: Same publication as in references 40 and 57. Used to source the character's appearance at Universal Orlando's Halloween Horror Night 2013.

Since the issue I raised above would actually affect the number of references in the article, I'll pause here and wait for that to be addressed, then amend the reference numbers here to avoid confusion. Actually, to keep this going as fast as possible, I'll point out now that reference 90 is also Destructoid, and has the same sort of issues as the one above.

  • Ref #90: Destructoid listed as a source to avoid at Video games/Sources. Article's author appears to be an amateur (maybe he's been published elsewhere under his real name, but I'm not finding anything other than Destructoid under "Hamza CTZ Aziz"), since there's nothing in this reference that isn't also sourced by the following reference, this one could easily be removed with no loss to the article.

Aside from these two references, I'm not seeing any issues here. More to follow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the thorough review. I've removed the Destructoid references. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Part 4: Cultural impact

  • Ref #64: The Escapist—listed a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Author has also written for Democrat and Chronicle, Games for Windows: The Official Magazine and Wired, amongst others. Used to reference a quote from the author.
  • Ref #65: Same publication as in previous reference. This article's author holds a doctorate in New Media, Gender and Women's Studies, and has also written for numerous publications: Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media & Technology, The Village Voice, and Wired. amongst others. Reference is used to source this author's opinion of the character.
  • Ref #66: GameDaily—an AOL-owned company, listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Used as a reference for that publication's countdown of the best characters ever created by the developers.
  • Ref #67: Gamasutra—used as a reference to the character's appearance in the Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition. You could argue about using the actual book as the reference, but I consider this to be preferable, considering Wikipedia:Third-party sources.
  • Ref #68: Direct source to the Guinness World Records 2013: Gamer's Edition. Properly formatted reference, with page number and ISBN, with no access to the book, I can't check for close-paraphrasing. If someone were to raise this as an issue, though, I'd most likely just point out that checking for close-paraphrasing would be a moot point, considering the bulk of the sentence is a direct quotation anyway.
  • Ref #69: Complex—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source. Used as a reference to support the character's appearance in that publication's list of the best ever "video-game mascots", it seems to me to be a high-quality notable publication, so I see no problem with this.
  • Ref #70: GamesRadar—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source. Used to source the character's appearance on that publication's list of "The 30 best Capcom characters of the last 30 years" and their description of the character. Again, I don't see an issue here.
  • Ref #71: Same publication as in reference #65. Author has also written for GameSpot, Gawker, Kotaku, 1UP.com, and various others.
  • Ref #72: GamesTM—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source. Used in article to source the character's appearance in that publication's list of the "10 of the Best Female Protagonists in Gaming History".
  • Ref #73: Joystick Division—owned and operated by Village Voice Media. Used in article to source the character's appearance in that publication's list of the "10 Sexiest Video Games Characters".
  • Ref #74: Article by Lisa Foiles at the same publication as in references 60 and 61. Used to source that author's description of the character.
  • Ref #75: Article at Games and Culture—a peer-reviewed academic journal. Locked behind a pay-wall, but I managed to grab a sneak peak of several pages. I can confirm what's attributed to this source is accurate, and considerably truncated/paraphrased.
  • Ref #76: Same publication as in reference 69. Used to source that character's appearance in that publication's list of "The Top Ten Duos In Video Game History", as well as related commentary. Author has also written for the Detroit News, Prospect, and is a published author. Most definitely a high-quality and reliable source.
  • Ref #77: Same publication as in references 65 and 67. Author has also written for Forbes, as well as Yahoo! News, CNET, amongst others. Used in the article to source character's appearance in that publication's list of the "The 25 Most A**-Kicking Video Game Duos", and resulting commentary.
  • Ref #78: Transcript of a speech delivered by Sara M. Grimes of Simon Fraser University as a keynote speech at the 2003 Digital Games Research Association. Adequately paraphrased, with the exception of minimal direct quotations.
  • Ref #79: Kinephanos: Journal of Media Studies and Popular Culture—author with similar credentials to one above, used as a reference for that author's assessment of the character's role in the series, and of her general over-sexualisation.
  • Ref #80: Samantha Lay writing in Participations: International Journal of Audience Research—author with similar credentials to two above, used as a reference for the author's argument that the character lacked depth. Adequately paraphrased.
  • Ref #81: Interview with actress Milla Jovovich at the Los Angeles Times, in which she comments that Jill Valentine's popularity stems from the character being stronger than male characters in the series.
  • Ref's #82 and #83: Both works by Anita Sarkeesian—added to the article on advice received at the previous FAC.
  • Ref's #84 and #85: Virgin Media and CheatCodes.com—both sites with editorial oversight, the latter appearing at VG/S as a reliable source; being used to source commentary that a particular outfit worn by the character in RE3 was perceived as "sexy".
  • Ref's #86–#88: Articles from GamesRadar, same publication as in ref #70—used to source commentary that the same outfit (from RE3) mentioned via previous two references was perceived as "fan service". Last source used as reference for the author's opinion of the character; author has also worked for Capcom, and written for numerous publications, including The New York Times.
  • Ref #89: Book written by numerous authors, with editorial oversight by Nadine Farghaly, an associate professor of Gender Studies at the University of Salzburg.
  • Ref #90: GameSpot—listed as a source to avoid at VG/S, if content is user-generated. This is not the case with this video, which was created by Australian GameSpot employee Jess McDonell, who has gone on to work for CBS.
  • Ref #91: Another IGN article. High-quality reliable source used to source the "Master of Unlocking" meme.
  • Ref #92: UGO—same publication as used in reference 59, used to source the appearance of two separate cutscenes from the series in this publication's list of the "25 worst cutscenes in gaming history".
  • Ref #93: GamesRadar—same publication as used in references #70 and #86–#88. Used to source the author's opinion of the character's contribution to gaming.
  • Ref #94: Digital Trends—same publication as reference #48. Used to source content of Resident Evil: Revelations 2. Author has also worked for G4 and Penny Arcade, amongst others.
  • Ref #95: Complex—same publication as in reference #69 and '73. Author has written for Metro New York, Reuters, Sydney Morning Herald, tonne of others.
  • Ref #96: Same author and publication as in reference #12.

I'm satisfied every source is reliable and of high enough quality to meet the featured article criteria, and that everything on the article is attributable to its cited source. I manually went through every reference to check for close paraphrasing: I found none, neither did Earlwig's tool—with the exception of the usual direct quotations. There are a total of seven off-line sources used on the article: I managed to access five of them. There is no issue with close-paraphrasing with any of those, although two of them are used on the article to source direct quotations. I'm satisfied that the references on this article meet the criteria for FA status. Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk)

Comments from 1989[edit]

Support based on my comments that were resolved in the first FAC. -- 1989 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part (In 2005 Bonnie Ruberg of The Escapist magazine called Jill "a classic example" of horror game female characters who fill the role of the heroine), I would put a comma between "2005" and "Bonnie Ruberg". Also, I would rephrase "horror game female characters" to "a horror game female character" as "example" is singular and it should match. Also I am not sure if the "who fill the role of the heroine" part is necessary as it seems a little repetitive to me. Maybe change it to the following: In 2005, Bonnie Ruberg of The Escapist magazine called Jill "a classic example" of a lead horror game female character.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, there are a few commas missing. There should be a comma between "2008" and "GameDaily" and one between "The same year" and "Complex".
  • In this part (who praised her for being the most consistent character in the series".), there is a stray quotation mark.
  • Ada Wong is linked twice in the article; it should only be linked on its first mention.
  • When you include Jovovich's comment in the "Reception" section, do you think you need to clarify that she plays Alice in the film? It may be helpful to provide full context for the reader.

Great work with this article. I only have minor notes. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Aoba47. I've addressed everything. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could help. You have done a wonderful job with this, it was a very interesting and informational read. I fully support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Strong support from Adityavagarwal[edit]

Strong support as a really well-written article! Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from TheJoebro64[edit]

  • This was an interesting and well-written article. I support this nomination. Also, would you mind commenting on my current FAC? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I'd be happy to look at your nominations. Freikorp (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

  • I can't see any outstanding prose glitches or omissions...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk)

Prose review from CR4ZE[edit]

I know I'm late to the party, and didn't comment on the previous FAC, however after a brief read-through I find several instances where the prose does not meet 1a. Most of these issues are actionable with simple copy-editing, but need to be addressed nonetheless.

  • Remove instances of the word "also" entirely, or replace with "as well" where appropriate.
  • "players" is used three times in prose, but "the player" is used once. Pick one consistent use.
  • Watch for "Y of X" constructions where "X's Y" is more concise. Examples:
    • (lead) "one of the protagonists of the original Resident Evil game" → "one of the original Resident Evil game's protagonists"
    • (1.1 In video games) "one of two playable main protagonists of the original Resident Evil game (1996)" → "one of the original Resident Evil game's (1996) two playable main protagonists"
    • Several more throughout the article.
      • I've fixed the two you specified. I'll be honest, I've always struggled with recognising this sort of thing. Feel free to point out any I missed. Freikorp (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (1.4.2 In literature) She is introduced as Jill Valentine at the beginning of this section, when in other sections throughout she is simply introduced as Jill.
  • 1.1 In video games
    • "Emerging alive from the Raccoon City outbreak"—already stated that she survives the outbreak in the previous paragraph, or do these events happen in the next game? Try "After escaping the Racoon City outbreak ..." or similar.
    • "defeating Umbrella's newest bioweapon creature" → "and defeats Umbrella's new bioweapons creature"
    • "He used Jill's DNA ..." who is "he"?
    • "Jill then works with ... defeat Wesker" prose is fragmented by commas.
    • "During this mission ... experimental vaccine" comma after "mission"—also, does the vaccine work?
  • 1.2 Design and portrayal
    • "In addition to avoiding eroticizing characters" the word "characters" is used three times within one sentence.
    • Parallel tenses in "he said he refuses", "concluding that he writes".
    • "which resulted in 'her action and atmosphere hav[ing] charm'" just write "having" per MOS:PMC; past/present tense falls under "trivial spelling and typographic errors".
    • "muscular rather than slim" perhaps try "muscular, not slim" or similar.
    • "which the player players(?) must remove in order to free her from the influence of Wesker Wesker's influence"
    • "Providing alternate costumes for players ..." padded sentence; avoid "-ing" constructions and needless verbosity.
    • "Completing the 2002 remake once ..." lots of dull repetition of words in this sentence.
    • "Due to how short the skirt was" → comma.
  • 1.3 Gameplay
    • "Jill runs more slowly slower", "can absorb absorbs"
    • Again, comma after "however".
    • "Jill and Chris's" in other points throughout the article, you drop the second "s" after the apostrophe.
    • "to be able to do" → "to", although this may leave the sentence unclear. Try to rephrase.
    • "She is also able to can/may"
  • 1.4.1 In films
    • Is there no point for development on the first couple sentences here? Why was Guillory the final choice, and why was Sorvino not chosen?
      • I've found a high-quality source that Sorvino turned down the role and have added that to the article. I can't find any information on why she turned it down, or why Guillory was the final choice, even among non-RS sources. Freikorp (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 1.4.2 In literature
    • "In the 1998 novel ... skills" very confusing, snakey sentence fragmented by commas.
  • 1.4.3 In merchandise and attractions
    • May or may not be actionable, but this is a very short sub-section of two three-sentence paragraphs. Any way to combine into one paragraph or with another section? Not mandating it be done, only if it's possible without losing context.
  • 2.1 Reception
    • The term "video game" is hyphenated five times in the Reception section, but nowhere else in the article.
    • Suggest you use the format "[publication name]'s author" (ie The Escapist's Bonnie Ruberg, and The Escapist's Ruberg thereafter) for better concision (also no need to say "magazine" per example).
    • "and in 2008, GameDaily ... " new sentence
    • "saying and said", "describing and described" etc.
      • Just to clarify, are you saying I shouldn't use the terms 'describing' and 'saying' at all? I'm finding it a bit difficult to reword to accommodate this, and also I'm not seeing the point. Freikorp (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • "was also similarly ranked was ranked"
    • "as based on loyalty, as opposed to not romance"
    • Who is Sara Grimes? James Hawkins is reintroduced in the third paragraph with his full name and without his publication.
    • In the fourth paragraph, quotations from Grimes are used without direct attribution (see MOS:QUOTE re immediate cites). Also check grammar/punctuation ("... Grimes wrote, Jill was ...")
    • "toward"-- just a query re American/ British English (not sure which conventions you're following). If British, use "towards", otherwise, no need for action.
    • "teenage-boy" doesn't need a hyphen.
    • "Considering Jill to be a strong female character ..."
    • Go through with a fine-tooth comb here and check grammar and punctuation. No comma after "In 2012" eg in last line of third paragraph. Other minor issues here and there, or as mentioned above.
  • 2.2 Memes
    • "sparked an Internet meme of 'Jill Sandwich" → "sparked the 'Jill Sandwich' Internet meme"
    • "on their 2011 list of the 25 worst cutscenes in gaming history in 2011"

A separate, more lingering concern (which has obviously been touched on above, and in the previous nomination) I have is in regard to 1c and 1d. I can see from just a brief look at the previous FAC that there has already been a massive discussion on this issue (moved to talk) I'll state right off the bat that I simply don't see a strong case for Anita Sarkeesian/Feminist Frequency being a WP:RS, and I'm not confident that we're retaining WP:NPOV, so I wouldn't feel comfortable moving to support until we get to some kind of resolve. Please allow me some time to read through the comments at the previous FAC (I've only had a brief read-through) so I can get a better sense of everything, and I'll leave you with some further thoughts later. (moved to talk) In any case, my prose review as above has actionable comments, so let's work through that first, and then take it from there. No need to respond inline to each comment. Let me know when you're done fixing the prose, or if you have any further queries. Cheers. CR4ZE (tc) 06:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk) I only added the Anita Sarkeesian source because she criticised the fact it wasn't in the article (and accordingly, I have no qualms with it being removed). (moved to talk) Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@CR4ZE: I've done my best to address all the prose concerns for now, though I'll have another look over the whole article with a fresh set of eyes tomorrow. Also left a couple comments among your points. Looking forward to your reply regarding all of this. Freikorp (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: I'll be able to give you a more comprehensive response soon (hopefully tomorrow, but working three jobs, I can't make promises).

(moved to talk) Will be back later with some more thoughts. CR4ZE (tc) 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk)

First of all, my apologies for the delayed response, but weekends are typically very busy for me personally. Thanks for attending to my comments so quickly, Freikorp. Just some follow-up: re casting changes, if that's all that can be said as covered by RS that is fine—your additions cleared most things up, on the "-ing" gerunds, the examples I cited use parallelism between tenses, which, while not always grammatically "incorrect", read awkward in this context. ("GameDaily ranked [past tense] her as their tenth favorite Capcom character of all time, saying [present tense] she ..."; more concise to recast as "... and said she ...".) Third sentence in fourth paragraph of 2.1 Reception still needs clarification (Her size was unrealistic considering ... genuinely reflective of athletic training"not sure if this was meant to be two separate clauses? I'm still not 100% satisfied that the prose meets 1a, but other than what I've just mentioned, there’s only trivial concerns to take care of now, so I'll just copy-edit the minutiae myself soon. Please ping me if you have any further queries.
(moved to talk) What we have seen over the past few months is large-scale changes to 2.1 Reception. Now I'll contend that some of the language and coverage being used prior to the FAC was clearly unencyclopedic. Language such as "hottest woman", "sexy", "babe" and the like are not appropriate language in the article's prose. However, virtually all discussion about Jill Valentine's physical attractiveness or "sex appeal" has been thrown out (moved to talk), some may, and indeed have, argued that any sort of discussion in this vein is inherently “problematic”—I would argue that it's not our job to editorialise what content is and isn't appropriate. We go with what the sources say. Why were Complex, The Escapist, GameSpy, GameZone, UGO and VideoGamer.com, each of which vetted as having established reliability, removed just because someone found their content "problematic"? In the interest of balance, I propose, at the very least, a sentence to cover this: "Several critics have commented on Jill's physicality or status as a "sex symbol"" with attribution to at least three or four reliable sources. I found GTA V's controversy overblown, but to not cover the debate ut dicitur the reliable sources would have been a coverage concern.
As stated in my earlier comments, I have serious concerns about Feminist Frequency's credibility and don't believe it meets 1c standards. That I am aware, the site has no established reliability and I haven't seen Sarkeesian's work being used in another FA-quality page. A background check on FF's reliability gave me this: [18][19] [20][21][22][23][24] (Not all of these sources are reliable in and of themselves, but hey, we're already setting the bar at FF and going from there). That the merit of Sarkeesian’s work is, at the very least, subject to critical commentary, whether individual journalists agree with her positions or not, says to me that it doesn't meet the basic requirements of WP:RS. And that's without broaching into the Gamergate controversy (and let’s please steer clear of that in this conversation from here on out). I propose that all material attributed to Sarkeesian/FF be removed. (moved to talk)
Will hopefully be able to get a copy-edit done by tomorrow. Cheers. CR4ZE (tc) 08:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi CR4ZE. Thanks for your comments. It's ironic, a previous version of the article had something similar to the one line you were asking for regarding sex appeal: [25]. I thought reducing the entire "quote farm" to that line and then two examples of what high quality source said was an extremely fair compromise, however, one editor asked me to remove the line and, despite the fact I strongly though it should remain, by that stage I was desperate to try and appease people to get support. I've added it back. Do you think this line should be reworded in any way? And do you think it's still appropriate to list two specific mentions in addition to that line, like we currently have? I've also removed the sources you state are unreliable; having been given a much more thorough understanding of what makes a high-quality source since I first nominated this article, I agree that that blog isn't one of them.
Also the line about "Her size was unrealistic considering" is not supposed to be two separate clauses. Someone else copy-edited it to how it currently is. I really appreciate that you're going to copyedit the article. Thanks so much in advance. Freikorp (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on 1a only, and stepping far, far away from this review. Some copy edit work done; Freikorp, you may not like all my changes, so feel free to change back whatever you don't like (my humble apologies for the delay with this, life is extremely busy for me, main reason my WP contributions are historically very sporadic). It's clear from some of the comments over the past few days that the article is never going to satisfy editors for what it can be versus what they subjectively want it to be. How you've had the patience to try and work with certain people would certainly be beyond my capacity. I've said my piece on this and copped flak for it, and I simply don't have the time or energy to get further involved. Your diligence and work ethic is outstanding, and I hope the fruits of your labour on this article will be a nice, shiny star at the top of the page. Anyway mate, I wish you all the luck in the world. Cheers. CR4ZE (tc) 15:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

Sarastro1, thanks for the ping. The article is similar to the later versions of FAC1 (15 August 2017), so it's hard to know what else to say. (moved to talk) This version is better but still problematic. There is no sense of how the character developed over time, and whether that development was responsive to the scholary criticism about the portrayal of women in video games, this is a crucial point, which I made during FAC1, but it has been ignored.

The worst of the earlier sexism has been removed, but some more has been added, e.g. that she is half-French, half-Japanese and "this detail 'doesn't explain a thing really, except maybe we're all supposed to fancy her'".

Perhaps by supporting, reviewers are saying that video-game articles are held to a lower standard, but I don't think we should accept that, the way women are represented on the main page matters. I'd like to see these issues discussed during a peer review to which people are invited who might not want to involve themselves in an FAC review. SarahSV (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • The author and article title are missing from citation 91. (The editor has been confused for the author.) It's a book, so it needs location (not a requirement of CITE, but it's usually added for FA), and year of publication is sufficient rather than a date.
  • I'd like to see secondary sources for the 10th-best this and 30th-best that. At the moment, this is sourced to the primary sources, with nothing to indicate that these lists are notable. A primary source is fine for the Guinness World Records, but I'd like to see secondary sources for GameDaily's "tenth favorite Capcom character of all time"; Complex's "greatest video game mascots"; Complex's "30th on the list of greatest heroines in video game history"; "tenth-best female protagonist in gaming by the staff of GamesTM"; one of Joystick Division's "Top Ten Sexiest Video Game Characters"; and Complex's "15th-most ass-kicking game duo". That is, independent sources that show these are notable lists within the industry or that Jill Valentine is on them.
  • Three books are listed under Bibliography, but Perry 2012 is listed under References.
  • The Reception section is poorly written and organized. It has improved since the first version of FAC1, but it has the same flavour—journalese and PR-speak, repetition, words without function, poor flow.
  • The first sentence of the second lead paragraph announces that the director "was opposed to the frequent sexual objectification of women", then changes the subject, then the third paragraph returns to sex and sexualization. Why is that aspect split up over two paragraphs? It gives the impression of a lead focused on sex. Re: the final paragraph of the lead, it isn't clear what the "classic example" quote means. Attractive to whom? It doesn't make sense to say that her sexualization has received praise. And this is weak writing: "has received favorable critical reception ... has received both praise and criticism". The "damsel in distress" sentence has to be contexualized, the final sentence is weak and should be removed as trivia. It would be odd if she hadn't been used in merchandise.

Please add responses after my post. SarahSV (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I assume by 'after my post' you mean here. Are you still sticking with your request for secondary citations for lists? Did you read the impartial response from AdrianGamer below? If you still want this request to remain open I'm going to have to ask you to post a reply to his concerns first. I'm not going to be able to access my computer for for about a day after I post this message, so I'll reply to the rest of the concerns later. Freikorp (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Freikorp, please stop trying to "other" me. Anyone supporting you is impartial, but my criticism, and mine alone it seems, is biased, as for the independent sources, I would prefer that the lists be removed, except for the most notable. If you want to retain them all, I'd like to see evidence of notability from independent sources, the problem is also the way that section is written, with the unnecessary quotes. Why "GamesRadar included the 'highly capable officer' and not "included her"? But please note my main objection: the section needs a rewrite, as arguably the whole article does. What do you make of the Japanese Wikipedia article? SarahSV (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not a fair comment. I never considered Ealdgyth's criticism to be biased, nor other peoples. I put the call out for comments (I will admit I went on a bit of a rant at the same time as I was frustrated with the fact your were opposing over this specific issue) and AdrianGamer was the only person who specifically responded. I find the fact you're effectively ignoring the only person who specifically responded disturbing. We can ask Czar for a fourth opinion on the matter if you like. When Niwi3 and I disagreed with me over a point I asked Czar for the third opinion, specifically because he has been critical of me. I didn't want to be accused of bias.
If you have specific issues regarding general wording, point them out and I will consider rewording them. Personally I don't see why it should be changed from 'highly capable officer' to 'her', but I don't have any objections to this, so I'll make the change now. Is this more to your liking? [26] Or do you want me to drop "highly capable officer" altogether? I don't mind either way. Please let me know of any other general wording you have a problem with. Alternatively, if the subject is not controversial, rewording it yourself is not going to upset me.
Looking up the Japanese Wiki was one of the first things I did when I decide to start improving the article. When I noticed it didn't have any sources, I stopped reading it, some of this information would be of interest (most is a bit fanboyish) but I have no idea where they pulled the information from, so I wouldn't know where to source it to.
Can you strike your comment regarding "we're all supposed to fancy her", since you addressed that yourself?
I removed the last sentence of the lead as per your request, and I've added some context for the damsel in distress comment. Freikorp (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

  • You missed my point, which is that they're being used in that section as primary sources for their own lists. Are these lists notable? If so, I'd expect to see independent sources reporting that Jill Valentine has been voted 10th best something on X's list of whatever. SarahSV (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, these lists have been compiled by notable publications and authors with established reputations within the gaming community, and are being used on the article as references for the appearance of the character in lists compiled by aforementioned notable publications and authors with established reputations within the gaming community. (?) Homeostasis07 (talk)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (moved to talk) Once again, you are not judging this article by the standards of FAC, you are judging it by your own interpretation of how women are allowed to be commented on. Sexism is in the eye of the beholder. I strongly thought you'd approve of the new information I added regarding the source saying a detail "doesn't explain a thing really, except maybe we're all supposed to fancy her", it points out that even the source thought the only detail given about her was a sexualised one, and it makes this comment in a critical matter. But this is irrelevant. I am allowed to add all coverage of Jill's reception as a character, not just ones that would be approved by feminists. You've made it very clear over the course of your comments that you have a serious problem with any man ever perceiving a woman as sexual; this is your problem with society and it's irrelevant to this nomination.

  • Thanks for pointing out the issue with source 91. I believe I've formatted the author and article title correctly now, but please let me know if I've done it wrong. I've added the location as well.  Done
  • You don't need secondary sources to point out a high-quality source has named someone in a top character list. If you did, we'd have to modify almost every article about popular video games and video game characters on Wikipedia. There is an accepted standard, and this article adheres to it. I encourage you to seek confirmation from this from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games before insisting it needs to be done. Incidentally I'd like to point out I specifically chose that "Top Ten Sexiest" list because it is exactly that, the ten sexiest characters, not the ten sexiest women, the list includes men, and accordingly I thought this might appease your concerns about people ever having sexual thoughts about women. Not done
  • I've added all books to the bibliography section.  Done
  • There's no consensus that the reception section is poorly written. Seven votes of support disagree with you. Not done
  • Other editors have expressed their concerns over the reception section. Now that I am aware it is not the opinion of a lone editor, I will work on improving the section. I do, however, stand by my decision that finding secondary sources for lists is not appropriate.  Working
  • I agree the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead did not flow on well with the rest of the information, so I removed it. Please read the last paragraph of the reception section for positive coverage of Jill's portrayal as a female character in gaming. yellow tickY Partly done

There are my responses, though we both already know that no matter how many of your concerns I address you're going to oppose the nomination because you're so triggered by how it looked in the past. I bent over backwards to address your concerns at the previous nomination. Att your request, among many other things, I removed the "quote farm" regarding Jill's attractiveness and added a feminist blog source you insisted on including, yet even after completely submitting to what you wanted in these regards you specifically opposed the nomination on the grounds that the quote farm had been there in the first place and that specific feminist blog hadn't been added prior to nomination. If you're going to oppose a nomination because of how it looked in the past there's no point in addressing your concerns now, but I'm going to keep trying anyway. Freikorp (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • (Coming from WT:VG) Requesting a secondary source to back up a best-of list is a bizarre idea. Being ranked in such character lists can already be considered as opinions from reliable and credible critics, right? By this standard shouldn't the feminist blog be removed because similarly it wasn't covered by a secondary source which delved into her opinion on this game character? If you need a secondary source to cover an opinion piece or a review from a RS, probably most films and video games FAs need to be demoted because it is almost impossible to write a reception section with no primary sources for uncontroversial but notable titles. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk) No doubt in my mind that you will object to my suggestion to raise Jill's physicality, fine, that's your prerogative. The problem you'll have in mounting your case is that nothing in your comments will give consideration to basic WP:V and WP:RS policies, but rather to support your own protestation to discussion of women that you find "problematic". (moved to talk) But again, you're arguing from a position of subjective objection to the article's content, not from policy. I'm ready to support once we get Feminist Frequency removed and at least some coverage of Jill's physicality, plus some minor copy-edit of my own. (moved to talk) CR4ZE (tc) 09:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

  • Butting in here to point out that the standard for sources at FAC isn't just "reliable" but "high quality". Whether or not a wikiproject decides that a source is reliable doesn't really impact on whether the source is of high quality, the bar is higher. I feel like a freaking broken record here - but just because WP:Video games/Sources, WP: Video games/Reference library and Video game journalism#Publications of note all say something is reliable does not have any bearing on whether they are high quality. Yes, the sourcing is better - but using those to say something meets the FAC standards is NOT helpful and doesn't address the various issues. Can we stop with that, please? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Please check the source review. You'll see that I used the above linked pages to simply demonstrate that the sources used in the article – sans the Anita Sarkeesian publication, for obvious reasons – can be considered WP:RS by the community, but also note that that was merely step one of the source review: you'll see how I went above and beyond that by taking into account every piece of advice given by you on Frekiorp's talk page. I've posted a heck of a lot of detail up there, noting the credentials (both academic and professional) of every single author. I certainly went above the bar this time. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I did check the source review. I saw the following (among others):
  • "Ref #4: Uproxx article being used in infobox to identify a voice actor, and in prose to reference the quality of voice acting in the game. Author has also written for Cracked, IGN and GameSpy—which are all listed at Video games/Sources as reliable sources. No issues here."
  • I'm not seeing where the high quality requirement was addressed here - just a reference to it being on the "Video games/Sources as reliable sources"
  • You remember your advice, right? Good. Uproxx has a dedicated editorial staff, and is the primary publication of a much larger company—UPROXX Media Group, Inc. You also said that you look for credentials when performing a source review, and you take into account if the author is an actual journalist who has written for other quality publications. Well this author has also written for IGN, of which you literally said: IGN would definitely meet the "high quality" for a videogame source. (on Freikorp's talk page).
  • "Ref #24: Kotaku—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source, being used as a source to identify the character's appearance in Project X Zone 2."
  • I'm not seeing where the high quality requirement was addressed here - just a reference to it being on the "Video games/Sources as reliable sources"
  • "Ref #27: 1UP.com—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. Author has also written for USGamer: a sister publication of Eurogamer, which are both listed at VG/S as reliable sources, this source is used to describe the character's appearance, and later in the article for the author's opinion of one of her outfits being an "embarrassing relic" from a period in which game producers concentrated on the teenage-boy demographic. All adequately paraphrased and accurate."
  • Again, nothing about it being a high quality source, just pointing to Video games/Sources as being reliable.
  • Defunct website, owned by IGN at the time of this article's publication. It was written by an author who has gone on to write for other established publications.
  • "Ref #29: Edge—listed as a reliable source at Video games/Sources. "
  • See above.
  • Physical publication operating since 1993. Owned by Future plc.
  • "Ref #40: Eludamos—listed as a reliable source at Video games/sources. This article's author, Esther MacCallum-Stewart, is a research fellow at Staffordshire University's Digital Cultures Research Centre, her work specifically examining, among other things, the role of sex and sexuality in videogames. This source is being used to reference the difference in gameplay between the male and female characters of the game. Notable publication, notable author."
  • Here we have something going past the plain reliable standard, and showing that it's more than just reliable. However, notablity of a publication/author has no bearing on whether its high quality or not. People and publications can be notable but not even reliable by WP:RS standards, much less the standards at FAC.
  • Semantics, really. I don't recall why I used "notable" there, but the website's appearance at VG/S demonstrates that it is WP:RS, and I believe the author's position and credentials demonstrate that she is qualified to offer an opinion on this subject matter, which is in her field of expertise.
  • "Ref #51: Digital Spy—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source, being used to source Guillory's return in later films in the series."
  • Nothing showing why it's high quality.
  • "Complex—listed at Video games/Sources as a reliable source. Used as a reference to support the character's appearance in that publication's list of the best ever "video-game mascots", it seems to me to be a high-quality notable publication, so I see no problem with this."
  • Not seeing why you think it's a high quality source, just that you do.
  • It's 50% owned by Hearst Communications (see above); 50% owned by Verizon Communications—another multi-billion dollar company.
I'm not picking on you... but there were similar comments on much of the source review. It was definitely better, but still not fully engaging with the high quality part of the criteria. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I know. You're just keeping me on my toes, right? ;) If you have any issues with any other references, it may be better to move this on up to the actual source review. This page is getting pretty huge as it is. Don't wanna scare off any newbies. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
And if all of the above had been in the source review - it would have been great. I think the problem here is that you're trying to prove things. That's not really what you need to do as the source reviewer, the source reviewer picks out the things that don't look to meet the FA criteria and asks the nominator(s) about them. Same as any other part of the review - the people reviewing for prose pick out the bad prose bits, etc. There is no need for the source reviewer to look and make such a detailed review ... it's hard to take a source review as being from someone not involved in the article when the source reviewer seems to be spending all their time trying to show that the sources ARE reliable. Just point out the bad ones and leave it at that. And it really IS better if someone not invested in the article or the topic or the whole subject area does reviews ... its a lot easier to pick up on things that "everyone just knows" when you're not deeply immersed in the subject area. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Is this a WP:JOKE? @Ian Rose: @Sarastro1: Ealdgyth specifically picked out 6 references and asked me to explain my rationale for considering them "high-quality" sources. I've explained why I did so, but now she's complaining that I've been made to explain? I mean, c'mon. 1Up.com, Digital Spy, Kotaku and Uproxx are all fairly huge sources – in abundance on other featured gaming articles: 32X · 4X · Aquaria · Bastion · Batman: Arkham Asylum · Batman: Arkham City · The Beatles: Rock Band · BioShock – so her reasoning for questioning them in the first place was dubious. And now she is casting aspersions on the integrity of the entire source review, conveniently neglecting to mention that it resulted in several low-quality sources being removed? I've tried my best to be polite, but this has descended into farce. This just doesn't make sense anymore!! Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
it's not a joke and it wasn't meant to cast aspersions on the source reviews you did, merely trying to point out a way to make it less onerous in the future for you. You don't need to go through and list each source and justify it in a source review, that's all I'm saying. All a reviewer needs to do is question any sources that they don't think meet the FA criteria. And I pointed out that sometimes it is easier for a reviewer who is not knowledgeable about the subject to spot sources that might not meet the high quality criteria. ...because they are not so close to the topic. That was all. I don't feel the need to do another source review, the sourcing is much improved from the first FAC, I'm just trying to help others not make more work for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If that were indeed the case, you wouldn't have responded the way you did at 20:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Homeostasis07, she is explaining that you don't seem to be approaching this as a reviewer, but as someone who is trying to prove that sources are high quality. That's not what reviewers do. I agree that this has descended into farce, however, the personal attacks, threats and canvassing have made this impossible to review. SarahSV (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk)

Actually I posted the six sources to show that there were a few spots where you didn't show that the sources were high quality. That's all, but you really don't have to do that level of source review. I'm not trying to disparage your review, it was quite thorough, but it was way more work than really needs to be done. Don't believe me if you like, but I'm trying to save you effort. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I'm keeping a fairly close eye on this. If the nominator wishes that I recuse, I am happy to do so but personally don't see the need as I have no opinion one way or the other on this article. However, just a couple of points: It would be helpful if everyone would limit their comments to the state of the article now, and whether or not it meets the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Any other commentary is unactionable and can be disregarded; I'm happy to provide clarification if there is any disagreement as I don't want this one to run away from us. I also notice a little personalisation creeping into this once more, and I will move anything that is not about this article to the talk page. I've no intention of closing this any time soon, and there is zero danger of this being archived as it has not been open two weeks yet and has a lot of support. I think we should be able to reach a consensus here this time, and my personal inclination is to leave this open until we do. Finally, it would really, really help the nominator, who is trying really hard to compromise here, if everyone could try to focus solely on the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Sarastro1. I don't see any need for you to recuse yourself. I'd really appreciated it if everyone moved forward and focused on the article like you said. Now that more than one editor has raised concerns about the reception section I will make changes to it, though I stand by my opposition to the request that high-quality best-of lists need secondary sources commenting on them, as AdrianGamer stated, that's a bizarre idea. Freikorp (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cognissonance[edit]

The article has come a long way since the peer review. (moved to talk) I agree with CR4ZE's concerns, but show my support under the circumstances. Cognissonance (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(moved to talk)

Comment from czar[edit]

I wouldn't support this as it stands. SV's bullet point concerns are solid, the Reception needs to be reorganized. First, it doesn't describe a Reception, but mostly the character's Legacy in the series and as a female character. There are a few different ways to organize that, but I would start by organizing along those themes within the paragraph if not splitting to separate sections, the problem with the listings/listicles isn't primary sourcing, but the attention called to the list. "In 2013, Complex's Michael Rougeau ranked Jill 30th on the list of greatest heroines in video game history, describing her as the most likeable woman in the Resident Evil series" gives heat without light: What's the importance of 30? 30 out of what? The rank signifies nothing (especially here), so it only clutters the prose. Along the advice of Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections, combine the sentiments: "Multiple video game journalists ranked/listed [your choice] Valentine among the greatest heroines in the medium.[ref][ref]..." Then follow with the specific, clarifying comments ("X described her as the most likeable", though that's not very descriptive/helpful either). This presents the importance of the citation without overstating the individual list's importance, it also makes for better prose.

This isn't even to touch the sourcing, though I agree that the development could use connective tissue not just describing but explaining why the character has developed, if those sources exist. SV makes the point that the "supports" above may reflect video game articles being held to a lower standard. She's right, the article assumes familiarity with Resident Evil and isn't smooth reading for a general audience. Worth addressing and not a big deal for a normal article (last 20% is 80% of the work, etc.), but we expect more of FA status. Sometimes video game articles pass (I've seen many...) without reviews external to the topic area. It means we should be even more grateful when outside editors show us endemic blind spots, the goal, though, should be nothing less than to make this article a model for its type, and we sorely lack model fictional character articles. (moved to talk) czar 17:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • As for Sarkeesian on Valentine, I wouldn't call Fem Freq a RS without more assurances on their editorial processes, but its RS status is irrelevant if we're not citing it for fact but for opinion (with due weight). Sarkeesian's noteworthiness as a commentator on sexualization in video games is well established (cf. her whole article) so while I'm not finding RS that note her commentary specific to Valentine, there is plenty of coverage specific to any of her videos by theme. I'd cite one of those RS on the video related to the Valentine coverage to establish the theme and noteworthiness of Sarkeesian's opinion, and as necessary, use the primary source transcript (WP:SPSAS) to (briefly!) flush out the crux of her position as commentary/opinion. This can be done without delving into factual, challengeable claims, which should instead be backed by a RS (with editorial reputation for fact-checking/accuracy). That's at least the rationale—it would have taken less time to just write it: [27] czar 08:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • To be honest, having someone neutral decide how much weight this particular source is given works for me. My end-goal with this nomination is to improve the article, and I think it would be best for the article if neither myself nor SlimVirgin has any say on how much weight it is given. I am happy to leave this entirely up to you and then I'll just reorganise what you've added around the other content when I restructure the whole reception section. Freikorp (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want, ping me when you've done the reorg and I could take a stab at a concise copyedit but caveat emptor, my edits are brutal (hence my usual lack of participation) czar 15:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see a compelling reason to use Uproxx or CheatCodes.com as a source. Having an edit staff listed is not the same as having a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, or editorial credibility, for what it's worth, the Virgin Media site is low-grade too, despite its corporate pedigree. It's 2008-era Buzzfeed with "Hot PC games", "Top game babes", "Get your geek on!", not high-quality content, no author bylines or signs of editorial credibility, etc. czar 16:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no qualms with ditching the CheatCodes or Virgin Media sources, since they're not being used for anything of real importance. Unless it's literally going to make the difference between you supporting and opposing the nomination, I'm going to keep the Uproxx source. I accept that it's probably at the lower end of high-quality, but firstly, we're not citing it for fact but for opinion. Secondly, it fills in an important blank in the history of the character's portrayal. Only one actress has portrayed the character in live-action cut-scenes, and if we don't use this source, we can't give the reader any idea of who it was. I really think the information this source backs adds something valuable to the article. Freikorp (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's exactly why I wouldn't trust it. If Uproxx is the only source that repeats the otherwise unsubstantiated, fan-researched claim[28][29] that "Una Kavanagh" is the voice actor, then it's as good as the claim being unconfirmed. I wouldn't trust Uproxx's editorial process/pedigree for even simpler facts, nevertheless one that requires investigatory work. We shouldn't view the actor identity as case-closed-rumor-confirmed on the basis of a site like Uproxx. That's the beauty of source reliability. czar 23:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: OK. Would you be OK with me using the source to verify the first sentence only? So just to say that the original actors used pseudonyms? I really think that's beneficial to the reader. I've already made the change, and I ditched the virgin Media and CheatCodes sources. Freikorp (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a good reason to trust it with that either, but if you want, you can request an outside opinion at WP:RSN czar 14:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Niwi3[edit]

I'm surprised that this article has received so many supports and nobody noticed the following obvious issues:

  • The first two paragraphs of the lead simply talk about fictional details and who portrays her in the video games and films. This is an article about a fictional character that was created by artists, and there is nothing about how the character was conceived or developed.
  • I've spent a lot of time looking for information about how the character was conceived and developed. Pretty much the only thing I found was the comment from the original game's director stating he liked to design strong female characters. However, SlimVirgin already complained about this being in the lead, so I removed it, as sources in the reception section indicate, commentators have mentioned that Jill lacks depth as a character; few personal details were given about her at the time of the game's release. Personally I think the reason there's little coverage on how she was developed is because little effort was actually put into it. My honest assessment is that her design process consisted of slapping an inappropriate military-ish outfit on a pretty girl; in any case, I can't add information to the article that doesn't exist.
  • Why is the "Design and portrayal" section inside the Appearances section? It should be its own section at the top of the article. It should also explain how the character was conceived and developed, the section also lacks focus.
  • I've moved it to its own section. As mentioned above, I can't find any information on how the character was conceived or developed.
In that case, the Design and portrayal section needs to be condensed to retain focus. It has way too many irrelevant details, for example, is the following sentence really necessary: Completing the 2002 remake with Jill will unlock the ability to dress her as Sarah Connor from Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and finishing it a second time will unlock her "much-appreciated" costume from Resident Evil 3. And this: In the mercenaries minigame within Resident Evil 5, two versions of Jill can be unlocked. One in her catsuit from the game, which is described as a 'Battle Suit', and one in her BSAA uniform; the outfits come with different weapon and item allocations. All that looks like trivia/fancruft to me. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It's funny you have an issue with the paragraph about costumes :). I only added it because SlimVirgin cited the lack of information about costumes as a reason for opposing the previous nomination. Point 3 of her oppose cited that there was no indication of when the costumes Anita Sarkeesian complained about being sexist were introduced. I only added the information in an attempt to gain her support. Once I had added the information about when the costumes Sarkeesian complained about were added, I thought it would be inappropriate to not mention when all her other costumes were introduced as well. Freikorp (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This is not what I understand from her point. She noted the lack of context and character development. You simply added trivia/fancruft material without any context; in my opinion, it doesn't add anything relevant to the article and feels out of place. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. I guess we both interpreted what she wanted differently. I do not enjoy collecting trivia. I didn't want to write it, that being said, I do find it interesting, but that probably has at least something to do with the fact I am a fan of the character. I'm going to ask for a third opinion; I will side with whatever the third opinion is, unless other people chime in protesting its removal, in which case we can all talk it out. One question: If the paragraph is removed, do you think the information about the extra costume being added during the development of the Resident Evil remake, and the way they staff modified the camera angles etc to accommodate it, should still remain on the grounds it still constitutes as development? Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Third opinion requested. Do you think the paragraph on costumes in the development section should be removed? Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Were the costumes covered in an independent source? That would be better than the affiliated strategy guide. If sources mention the costumes as significant to her portrayal, then it's worth mentioning that there were other costumes. Either way, save some space/attention in this ¶ by removing the unlock conditions and other granularities. Try gearing the paragraph for a general audience: the reader wants to know that there are alt costumes, perhaps some examples of them, how they work (how the player gets them, how they function in the game and out), but in generalities—the granular detail and jargon won't interest a general audience (e.g., finish first/second time vs. just "finished"; which costumes were in which specific game, unless it matters; that a catsuit is a "Battle Suit", or explained if that's supposed to be a joke). I started to edit the paragraph myself but I wasn't sure why the costume was "much-appreciated" (or if that's a euphemism for "sexy"). (Are there any other sources that address the sex appeal of her costumes, as Sarkeesian started to do?)
It's a tricky balance: while this paragraph is definitely about Portrayal, the majority is really about a specific costume, and that part would much better fit alongside the other content on the character's sexualization. A dedicated section on "sexuality" could be too heavy-handed, though, and would depend on how the Reception/Legacy is organized. I lean towards keeping the cursory dev overview detail in the Design section, and briefly recalling some of said detail as appropriate within the Reception/Legacy/"Sexualization" section. So next step is to pare down the detail in this paragraph and do any other major reorgs and then I can take a pass at copy editing. czar 15:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
"Much-appreciated" is definitely a comment based on the outfit's sex appeal, though since it doesn't appear that that is clear I'll happily remove it. As indicated in the reception section, the Resident Evil 3 uniform received praise and criticism for being overly sexual. Other than that in my search for sources on alternate costumes in order to write that paragraph the only other thing that I found was a source which stated that the Resident evil series was well known for its sexualised alternate costumes, however, the source didn't mention Jill at all so I didn't use it. CR4ZE told me he was going to do a copy-edit of the article soon so I won't make any modifications to the prose until that happens. Freikorp (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Freikorp, Niwi3, and Czar, the same tone as the "much appreciated" dog whistle prevails throughout the article like layers of fat through bacon. Newsflash, Freikorp: most people aren't heterosexual men. Equivalent language about a black character wouldn't be entertained for a minute. Please don't treat sexism as less damaging than racism. SarahSV (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I don't see how being condescending (Newsflash) is helpful, but OK, I'll bite. Firstly, "Much appreciated" was a direct quote from the official strategy guide, not some non-reliable "sexist" source. I had already stated my intention to remove it, and would have happily reworded it to clarify who it was the opinion of if asked. Secondly, not all men are bothered by men being viewed as sex objects (I am not), and by that same token, not all women would be upset by the fact that people appreciated a revealing outfit on a women. I noticed when you took the liberty of rewording the reception section the only 'sexy character lists' you didn't delete were the two compiled by female writers. You never directly answered my question of whether you only have a problem with men finding women sexual, as opposed to women finding women sexual, but I supposed you did answer it with that edit, after you complained about the "sexism" at the first nomination I asked for feedback on the article from a bi-sexual female friend and a lesbian friend of mine. Both said they didn't find the article sexist, and both said they also found Jill attractive. My point is, sexism is in the eye of the beholder. You probably see the term "much appreciated" as degrading; I do not. I see it as appreciating sexuality (that's not why I added it incidentally, I added it because it was the only description given of the outfit in the source provided, and I don't see how it is offensive), and I wouldn't be offended by a women appreciating a man wearing a revealing outfit either. Please believe me when I tell you I am not trying to assert superiority over women. I really don't appreciated you comparing finding an outfit attractive to racial supremacy. My ex-wife owned a t-shirt that had this image printed on it, which I always thought was a very good point: [30]. You probably wouldn't appreciate having your beliefs compared to nazism. By that same token, I do not appreciate you comparing me to a racist. Freikorp (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: @SlimVirgin: Let's just focus on the actual article and please avoid personal matters or subjects that are not of general interest. The problem here is basically a lack of context, which (as a result) makes the article's tone sexist. If all these irrelevant quotes were supported by proper context, we wouldn't have an issue. Part of the problem is that the article's original author was problematic and used to add a lot of fancruft and controversial material, so I highly doubt that we can find proper sources that back his additions up. That's why I think they should be removed, it might even be easier to TNT the whole article and start from scratch using this and the previous FAC as a guideline. --Niwi3 (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right about staying focused Niwi3. I am a person of colour so using a racial comparison did not sit well with me. Anyway moving along, I was under the impression most of the stuff the original author wrote that would be considered 'problematic' had been removed. I added the 'much appreciated' comment, and also the comment about people fancying her, both of which SlimVirgin recently removed even though there was no consensus to do so and nobody else had complained about them being sexist. I really think starting over from scratch would be rather drastic, considering how far this has come. Anyway, now that those two statements have been bowdlerized, in your opinion, what exactly is still remaining in the article that is creating the sexist tone? Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Niwi3, Freikorp, I agree that this should be blown up and started again, which is why I keep talking about the history. The previous author wrote deeply sexist articles that objectified female characters, so it's not just a question of removing a bit of fancruft and some sexism and finding a decent article underneath. When I read the article as a woman, it's immediately clear that it's not addressed to me. It's addressed to some other group about me, the current author has continued the same tone.
In addition, the structure is confusing, and much of the article is about the games and films, not the character. I've tried to read it several times, and I still don't know much about Jill Valentine. And there's nothing about the evolution of female characters in general during that period. Compare it to Nancy Drew. There we see clearly the evolution of the character and her appearance. There are fewer sources for Jill Valentine, so we can't reproduce Nancy Drew, but I'd like to see something closer to that clarity and more about the artists and developers.
I'm not convinced that the high-quality sources have been found and mined. If I were writing this, I would contact the creators and academic sources, and I'd ask for their help in finding sources, both about Jill Valentine and about how developers responded in general to the criticism of their female characters. SarahSV (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, if it makes you feel any better, I don't know much about the character either. This is because so little information is given about her in terms of development. Nancy Drew is a poor comparison. There are volumes of books about her, making it easy to document the characters evolution. When it comes to Jill, even the games she's featured in aren't really about her, at the end of the day, whether you like it or not, she's pretty much just an attractive looking avatar designed to appeal to male audiences. I get it. I really do. I don't agree with how women are portrayed in games, but at the end of the day, blowing up the article and starting again isn't going to create coverage of the character that doesn't exist, or change the fact the producers of the original game probably didn't give the character any actual depth because they were too busy making her outfit sexually appealing. Freikorp (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Freikorp, then why did you pick it to take to FAC? Again, I have to talk about the history (otherwise it's like discussing WWII without mentioning the Treaty of Versailles.) This was written to be maximally offensive, and you continued it; you added "cock tease", for example. I briefly wondered during FAC1 whether it was a breaching experiment to get one of those articles on the main page. Or maybe it was just for points for WikiCup, but that's over now. Why continue with it? It would be faster to rewrite it than to go through this. Maybe it needs to shed the fancruft and be shorter. SarahSV (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree with SV. Since there is so little information about how the character was conceived and developed, the article needs to be much shorter; in fact, I think the article meets the notability guideline just by a close margin. Currently, it has way too many details that are of importance only to fans of the franchise, these irrelevant details just confuse the general readers, who instead want to know more fundamental things. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Niwi3, I checked the Japanese version (translation), and it has a lot more detail about the character, her weapons and moves. All unsourced, so presumably sourced directly to the games. SarahSV (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Freikorp, you asked me to stay away but, at this point, I believe it's appropriate to highlight what @Vanamonde93: said below: With respect to concern[s] raised above that the article needs to discuss how her portrayal changed in response to scholarly critique: yes, ideally, we would have such a description, but that presupposes that such a change occurred at all, ie: that the developers cared what analysts (rather than the market) were saying. Talk of TNT and this article barely meeting notability is undue: it's a good article, after all. It seems to me that this nomination is being sidetracked toward what some reviewers want this article to be, rather than what it should be. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Niwi3, SlimVirgin I picked it for FAC because I thought it met the requirements. Despite the fact there's little information regarding the characters personal development, there's still enough information on development to fill several paragraphs. Read between the lines; the article is an accurate reflection of how the character was developed - the producers clearly cared more about shaping her aesthetically than giving her any depth. If there hadn't been enough information to write a development section at all, I wouldn't have nominated it. I feel like you're punishing the article because you're unhappy with how the character was developed. I adopted five articles written that were heavily contributed to by the same original author who worked on this one. One (about a game, not a character) I have already promoted to featured status, this was the only other one of the five articles that I thought could be taken to FA level. I don't see how I can be accused of trying to breach the main page, especially since only one of the other articles I adopted is about a female character (Sarah Kerrigan, and I have no intentions to take that to FA level). And as you've pointed out, I'm no longer in the WikiCup, so this isn't about 'points'. Why are you so intent on assuming bad faith? Have you considered that the maybe the reason I took this to FAC was the exact same reason I took the last 10 articles to FAC? Maybe it's because I enjoy writing Wikipedia. I don't think this article was written to be offensive, and I'm offending by you insinuating that that was my intention. I'm not offended by human beings having their sexuality commented on, but since other people thought there was too much information about this, I reduced the coverage on this. Freikorp (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Freikorp, you could strip out all the sexism and fancruft, and it still wouldn't be FA quality. It's difficult to read and follow, it lacks structure and flow. I tried to copy edit the lead today and found that I couldn't understand parts of it, the damsel-in-distress thing, for example, is just plonked there. What point was the source making? These things need to be contexualized. SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's usually advisable to make structural prose changes before the copyedit, lest the work be done twice. I'd include that "Resident evil series was well known for its sexualised alternate costumes" mention, particularly as set-up for the part/section that addresses her role as a sexualised character. If it isn't already clear, such a section is going to need balance between the flippant "praise" of video game journalists and what appears to be a mostly academic "criticism"; in function, I wouldn't refer to praise/criticism per se but instead try to show/paraphrase the perspective of each source (e.g., describe the source's position, and if the source has a simple position, stack it with similar sources to make a single sentence with multiple refs—I can show this in practice as needed after the copyedit/rework are finished). Also wanted to add that if the costume was actually called "Much Appreciated" in-game (perhaps a reference both to a voice line as well as the sexual overtone already acknowledged), then it's also worth noting that phrase as the developer's choice as long as the sourcing does so as well. czar 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes yes, I agree about the copyediting in general. CR4ZE left me a friendly message on my talk page saying he was in the middle of a copyedit which was interrupted by my tweaks to the article, so I was just giving him time to finish since he was already apparently in the middle of it. Anyway, just for the record, the term "much-appreciated" appeared in the section of the strategy guide devoted to un-lockable secrets within the game, the author simply says "Clear Jill's game twice at any difficulty setting to fashion this much-appreciated costume." I only used the term because it was the only way the costume was described. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Freikorp: In the "Design and portrayal" section, you should not mention or describe her outfits unless there is information about how they were designed by the artists/developers. In my opinion, the fact that the article mentions several costumes without any explanation or context makes it look like the article was written by a fanboy (not trying to be offensive at all, just want to be frank and clear on this). All of the following doesn't add anything to the article and should be removed: The outfit appears as the alternate costume for Jill in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D as well.[15] Jill appears dressed as a pirate for her alternate costume in Resident Evil: Revelations.[56] In the mercenaries minigame within Resident Evil 5, two versions of Jill can be unlocked. One in her catsuit from the game, which is described as a "Battle Suit", and one in her BSAA uniform; the outfits come with different weapon and item allocations.[57] Of course, if you can find a reliable source with an explanation you can keep it. The bit about the Sarah Connor outfit should also be removed, but you can keep the RE3 costume that is featured in REmake because there is an actual explanation. I would reword it to something like this: Developers decided to include the RE3 costume in REmake as an alternate outfit because they liked it a lot. However, they changed the colour of her panties to match that of her skirt and modified some of the game's camera angles to reduce the amount of upskirting. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is there a gameplay section? This article is about a fictional character, not a video game.
  • I've moved gameplay to be a sub-section of "Design and portrayal". Don't you think how the character plays is a part of her design?
The current gameplay section essentially describes gameplay mechanics of a few (not all) games where she is a playable character. These should not be forked from their corresponding game articles. You can certainly discuss how critics interpret her gameplay mechanics, but not describe the gameplay of certain Resident Evil games in this article, for example, the following sentence is wrong: "In Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, Jill became the first character to perform a quick 180-degree turn, which has since become a staple of the series". Instead, it should be: "Resident Evil 3: Nemesis is the first Resident Evil game to allow players perform a quick 180-degree turn." Also, the IGN reference does not say that Jill was the first character to perform it and that the mechanic has become a staple of the series. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Jill is the playable character in the game, and the source explicitly states the 180 degree turn is a new feature. I think it's a reasonable jump to say that Jill was the first character to perform it, the source does not confirm the fact that the turn has become a staple in the series, so I have remove that half of the sentence. I do not feel strongly about this sentence at all though, so I will happily remove it if you still have an issue with it, that being said, I have an academic source which comments on how the difference between Jill and Chris have altered gampleay. I think at the very least, the information about the differences between these two characters is of interest, and can be followed up with the coverage from the academic source on the matter (which I can probably flesh out a bit). Would you feel better about it if I scrapped the Gameplay section, only retained the differences between the two characters in the first game and academic coverage of it, and added that as probably the first paragraph in the Design and portrayal section? Happy to hear alternate suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The thing is:
a) Jill is not the only playable character in RE3. The 180 degree turn is a gameplay mechanic of RE3, and therefore is applied to every playable character that appears in that game; in my opinion, saying that Jill became the first character to be able to perform it seems to imply that the character is special, which is wrong.
b) That IGN ref only contains one paragraph that discusses the actual game, not Jill. As a result, it has little value in this article
c) You can certainly explain that the gameplay contrast between Jill and Chris in the first game received special attention from multiple sources. That's perfectly fine, but it should be moved to a critical analysis section.
d) The gameplay section needs to be avoided simply because this article is not about a video game. Having a gameplay section will probably confuse readers who are not familiar with the franchise, this is an article about a fictional character; the article loses focus if you start discussing gameplay mechanics that are already covered in their corresponding game articles. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the gameplay section. I've moved the paragraph I intend to salvage to the reception section; in the meantime it's going to make the section look even more poorly organised until I rewrite the whole section. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The cultural impact section is not very well organized. It should be split into two sections: critical analysis, and legacy. I consider the memes section to be trivia/fancruft, and should be avoided in my opinion, it is irrelevant and silly.
  • I'll do an overhaul on the reception section soon. I'm going to dissagree with you regarding the memes. I've actually found reference to the Jill Sandwich meme in an academic paper, which I am adding to the article.
If you think the memes section is relevant, then its content should be simplified and merged into a legacy section that offers better context. Having them in a separate section gives them more importance than necessary.--Niwi3 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you think of the reception section now? I'm not finished, but it would be nice to know if I'm at least on the right track. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It is better, but I will do a more in-depth review once you think it's ready. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with SlimVirgin's comments in this and the previous FAC.
  • Duly noted.
--Niwi3 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose from Niwi3[edit]

@Freikorp: @SlimVirgin: After going through the whole article again, I think the article fails criteria 1a (engaging and professional prose), 2b (appropriate structure), and especially 4 (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail). Although several improvements were made to the article over the past few days, it still has major issues that I think are not easy to fix; the article doesn't stay focused on the main topic, lacks context, has too many irrelevant details, and its prose is very average. I'm sorry, but I have to oppose this nomination. Here are some examples of its current issues:

  • A special-operations agent, she made her debut appearance in 1996 as one of the original Resident Evil game's protagonists, in which she and fellow Special Tactics And Rescue Squad member Chris Redfield are trapped in a mysterious mansion. -- I don't think this is gramatically correct; "In which" should point to a place, not to "one of the original Resident Evil game's protagonists".
  • Too long and confusing: In the 1998 novel Resident Evil: The Umbrella Conspiracy, Jill is said to be professional thief Dick Valentine's daughter and accomplice prior to her career in law enforcement (in apparent conflict with her supposed Delta Force background), explaining her infiltration and "master of unlocking" skills. - It also assumes the general reader understands the "master of unlocking" meme.
  • Sienna Guillory portrays Jill in the live-action film series. - This should be merged into the Design and portrayal section, along with the image.
  • The "In merchandise and attractions" section should be merged into the cultural impact section, maybe in a "promotion and merchandise" subsection?
  • In January 2016, Voth released pictures of herself cosplaying as Jill, and stated her intention to appear at conventions as the character. - This would fit better in a promotion and merchandise section
  • Within the Resident Evil universe, she's invaluable to her Alpha Team; competent, clever and professional, she's the resident bomb expert and, of course, the master of unlocking. - Again, the general reader will not understand the "master of unlocking" bit without reading the last paragraph of the article. The highlighted quote also assumes the general reader knows Rebecca, Claire and Ada's individual strengths.
  • In the Appearances section, there are too many fictional details that are not properly introduced (Alpha team, Arklay Mountains, Spencer estate, Racoon City).
  • This is wrong: Eventually, she and Chris discover that STARS commander, Captain Albert Wesker, has betrayed them. After defeating the monster Tyrant released by Wesker, Jill escapes the self-destructing mansion in Brad Vickers' helicopter along with Chris, Barry and Rebecca Chambers. - The game has several endings, depending on the players actions
  • Jill is infected with the T-virus, though Carlos is procures a vaccine from a nearby hospital. - the article assumes the general reader knows what the T-virus is. Grammatical error in bold.
  • The article assumes the general reader knows what the "Uroboros virus" is.
  • The article repeats content from other articles: Jill is a playable character in two Resident Evil 5 downloadable content (DLC) scenarios: Lost in Nightmares shows the events leading up to Jill's disappearance,[14] and Desperate Escape shows her fight to escape the facility she was being held in. - As a result, it loses focus.
  • Irrelevant trivia: She appears as a bonus character in the special edition of Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds (2011).[22] In addition, she makes a guest appearance in the action-adventure game Under the Skin (2004),[5] and appears as a playable character in the crossover tactical role-playing games Project X Zone (2012)[23] and Project X Zone 2 (2015).
  • More content forking: At first, the films' director Paul W. S. Anderson chose Natasha Henstridge, but she was unavailable;[26] he then considered Mira Sorvino though she declined.[27] - This should belong to the corresponding film article.
  • This should be moved to the critical analysis section: In a negative review of Resident Evil: Apocalypse itself, Cinefantastique described Guillory's performance as the film's only "saving grace"
  • Off-topic: Guillory was set to appear in the sequel, Resident Evil: Extinction (2007), but she had commitments to other work.[30] Instead, producers Anderson and Jeremy Bolt decided to have Claire Redfield appear alongside the film's lead, Alice.[31] - This material should belong to its corresponding article.
  • Jill is the main antagonist of the fifth film, Resident Evil: Retribution (2012),[32] where she ultimately regains control over herself during a duel with Alice. - Lack of context. It does not explain why.
  • Jill was not featured in Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016). Her character disappears from the series' ongoing story-line, along with several other reoccurring figures, without explanation. - Why is this relevant in an appearances section?
  • Jill has been featured in various Resident Evil merchandise, including action figures, such as one made by NECA in 2011. - is the "such as one made by NECA in 2011" bit really necessary?
  • More content forking (already covered in the RE3 article): Mikami, who served as the producer for Nemesis, said that Jill became the protagonist as they could not use any of the characters from Resident Evil 2 (1998) for reasons of continuity, and Claire Redfield had already been chosen for Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000), meaning Jill was "the only suitable character remaining.
  • Irrelevant fancruft: and has a "control device" on her chest which players must remove in order to free her from Wesker's influence."
  • Sexism: Because the skirt was so short - It is previously explained that she wears a miniskirt. No need to put more emphasis than neccessary
  • Irrelevant fancruft: The outfit also appears as the alternate costume for Jill in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D.[16] Jill appears dressed as a pirate for her alternate costume in Resident Evil: Revelations.[57] In the mercenaries minigame within Resident Evil 5, two versions of Jill can be unlocked: one in her catsuit from the game, and one in her BSAA uniform.
  • Too many gameplay details that are not of importance to the general reader: She has two more inventory slots, access to stronger weapons, and is armed with a pistol and a survival knife at the start, whereas Chris begins with only a Bowie knife. She carries a lockpick to open doors and caches, whereas Chris must find keys. Against this, Jill runs slower, takes more damage from attacks, is less accurate with firearms and has less reach with her knife. - Saying that she is physically weaker than Chris, but noting that she can carry more and better items should be more than enough.
  • No context: Writing in Participations: International Journal of Audience Research, Samantha Lay argued that Jill lacked depth as a character in the original game. - It does not explain why she lacks depth in the original game.
  • Unnecessary trivia/fancruft: The memes have been referenced in subsequent Resident Evil games, such as a poster in the mobile game Resident Evil : Uprising (2009), which advertises a recipe for a Jill Sandwich,[86] and Barry asking "Who’s the master of unlocking now?" after physically destroying a door in Resident Evil: Revelations 2 (2015).[91]
  • And I haven't even reviewed the references. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Niwi3, you've raised some valid issues, and you are in any case entitled to your opinion on this. Nonetheless I confess I am baffled by your complaints about content forking, this article should discuss the character Jill Valentine at what the community decides to be an appropriate level of detail. That will of necessity involve including details also present elsewhere, and is not a violation of any policy. Objecting to a detail because it is too much detail is reasonable; but I do not find it reasonable to suggest that a detail shouldn't be present because it should be covered elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sergecross73[edit]

Just another one jumping in to say that I can't support it unless/until the reception section is cleaned up a bit, some of that stuff is just really low grade stuff. Comments about sexuality can be done well, sure, but there's too much bare-bones "Website X called her the (number) hottest character. Not FA level stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Rest assured I will make changes to the reception section and will ping you back here once it is done. Freikorp (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Sergecross73, I've made some major changes to the flow of the reception section. I still plan to tweak it around a bit, but this is basically how it is going to look. Do you have any major concerns about it now? I agree the section shouldn't be peppered with "Website X called her the (number) hottest character" stuff. However, I have several high-quality sources placing her on such lists (and several more I could add to the article but I think five sources backing up the single sentence that she's been placed on many lists is sufficient), at the last nomination, an editor seemed to think fleshing out one of the list mentions was all that was required. I agree with this. I've chosen to only have one in depth mention of her appearing on a list, and I've also deliberately chosen it to be a list of the sexiest "characters" (as opposed to women; the list includes men also). Freikorp (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I approve of your changes - it's all handled much better now. I no longer have any objections. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: I've just gone through the whole FAC page and moved anything which I do not consider relevant to deciding if this article meets WP:WIAFA to the talk page with this edit. I've also moved what I consider to be comments about editors, and not the article. I am not passing judgement on what I have removed, it is simply that I don't consider it relevant and it is material that the coordinators will disregard in judging consensus, it is also material that is likely to deter new reviewers. If anyone has any huge problems with their comments being removed, they are welcome to put that particular comment back if they feel it is moving this review forward. I also apologise if anyone's comments have been mangled when they were moved to talk, but we really must focus on the article from this point. Any irrelevant commentary will be moved to talk immediately.

To reiterate what I wrote earlier: It would be helpful if everyone would limit their comments to the state of the article now, and whether or not it meets the criteria at WP:WIAFA. Any other commentary is unactionable and can be disregarded; I'm happy to provide clarification if there is any disagreement as I don't want this one to run away from us. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

When Freikorp invited me to comment here I did not expect a slugfest of 14 (?) reviewers. I believe that more scrutiny can never be a bad thing, so I will offer a few comments as well, though given the nature of some of the objections above, I think I will limit myself to general observations at this stage. If the general issues are resolved, perhaps we can return to specific prose questions. Though I do have concerns vis-a-vis neutrality/portrayal of gender, I think these are the result of the industry to a fair extent, and that the nominator has made a genuine effort to address these. Though that isn't necessarily enough, it should be acknowledged.

  • The lead says "She is widely regarded as one of the most attractive female protagonists in video games, though her sexualization and role in relation to gender stereotypes has received both praise and criticism." This is the right sort of balance to strike, but we could make this more nuanced. Who regards her as the most attractive? It isn't Sarkeesian, that's for certain. Similarly, who praises, and who criticizes? Or at the very least, what were their criticisms and praise about?
  • I think I made a good addition to the lead. Happy to hear alternate suggestions if you think this could be better. Freikorp (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm uncertain if the generic "attractive" is the best adjective here, but there's problems with the alternative "sexually attractive" also, so maybe there's no easy way out of this.
  • I think the paragraph beginning "For the 2002 remake of Resident Evil" needs to be slightly reworded, so that we're distancing ourselves a little more from the words of the producer. I'd suggest something like "Kobayashi stated that ... which, according to him..."
  • That's a good point. Done. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That quote about her ethnicity is strange at the moment. If it is actually referring to the phenomenon wherein Asian women are portrayed as "exotic" in Western popular media, this is a relevant comment to make, but needs to be made a little clearer. If we're referring to something else, I'm not sure what that is.
  • I can only assume the comment was about the exotic appeal of Asian women, but the source only stated exactly what I said in the article so I can't expand on it at all. In the meantime another editor has removed the information from the article anyway, and I'm too over it to argue so I'm just letting it go. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I confess that the "critical analysis" section as it stands here does not strike me as problematic. I will investigate other reviewers comments in more detail, because I am familiar with some literature on fictional characters, but not so much with video games.
  • With respect to a concern raised above that the article needs to discuss how her portrayal changed in response to scholarly critique: yes, ideally, we would have such a description. But that presupposes that such a change occurred at all, ie that the developers cared what analysts (rather than the market) were saying...I'll take a look into the literature if I'm able, but I guess my point is that we cannot expect the article to cover stuff that is not covered by reliable sources, even if we would like it to be.
  • Thanks so much for your comments Vanamonde93, I really appreciate them. I've addressed your concerns that required a response. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Freikorp (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from bridies I've been involved with this article, I think copy-editing and GA-reviewing with the "original author who no longer edits Wikipedia" (and is the elephant in room, perhaps; although I haven't bothered to check out all the stuff removed collapsed/redacted from this discussion, I assume it involves that editor and his style/obsessions). I would casually state that the article is nowhere near as sexist and biased as it was at one time, but that there are some sentences/quotes that (even if are merited, because a reviewer said it) not as put as professionally NPOV as is possible (pretty much as I think Serge said above). I would also stress that I don't formally oppose on those grounds atm and that I currently have no specific instances to point out (atm), because I haven't read the article (atm...) and I'm not familiar enough with the secondary discourse on the subject matter (if it's all about attractiveness, and one thinks that's crass, what is one to to?). The familiarity I do have is with the original game (and only that, really). I also used to edit old video game articles and got several GAs and an FA in that area. So my question/borderline beef is there why nothing contemporary on critical reception of the original character? There appears only to be only 1 indirect reference (cited in later work, referenced). The sources appear high quality and definitely merit inclusion, but some are up to a couple of decades after the Jill first appeared. Overall I'm not sure there's a good picture of how the character was perceived initially. Sure, the whole franchise is much bigger now than that first game (and first Jill), but the original (game) is looms inordinately large because of its influence, no? Whatever the case, IME at video game FAC, there must be multiple quality contemporary reviews (difficult to obtain though they be, due to being print magazine) which provide a representation of criticism at that time, It may be that the nominator has checked contemporary reviews and found that Jill is not discussed (though if that's the case, one would expect the later academic research to have noted and mentioned this, and that it should in turn be mentioned in the article, no?); otherwise that contemporary discourse has to be included. I'm not outright opposing because I have not followed all the previous discussion(s) and I don't what research the nominator has done in the contemporary media and what he got or didn't get from it. Just a question/concern. (After previewing, I cannot seem to format this correctly; can some current-FAC person fix it for me; much obliged.) bridies (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Double Dare (Nickelodeon game show)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Chad1m Email Talk Cont. 15:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about, arguably, the most popular American kids' TV game show ever, Double Dare, it helped jump-start the media behemoth known as Nickelodeon and, 30 years later, still has a long-lasting effect on a generation of young adults. I crafted this article from the bottom-up, practically by myself (with assists from Bcschneider53 and Twofingered Typist), taking a mess with very few citations six months ago and turning it into what I feel is a very well-crafted and cited article on how Double Dare worked, its history and current evolution, and the impact it has had on television and culture. The GA process went really well and even though the first FA nomination stalled, I'm optimistic about this time around. I took some comments from the first try into consideration and have bettered it further, I think. Thank you! — Chad1m Email Talk Cont. 15:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Double_Dare_logo.png: n/a and empty parameter should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Cardiff City F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Welsh football club that competes in the English Football League. I have recently rebuilt the page and it was promoted to GA status soon after. I was encouraged by the reviewer and another editor to make an attempt at becoming a featured article. I look forward to any suggestions for improvement. Kosack (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I reviewed this for GA status and found it well-researched, comprehensive and a pleasant read. I can't find any other quibbles (ensure you change all-caps titles in references to title case though..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Lemonade51 - always nice to see a football nom here, not a detailed review:

  • The usual issue when it comes to sports articles, are clubs singular or plural? The first paragraph of the history section reads "The club was founded in 1899 as Riverside A.F.C.," yet under that there's "Despite their exploits in Europe, the club were still struggling in league competition". I'm not sure what WP:FOOTY's consensus on this is, but consistency is vital. Maybe @Struway2: could shed some light?
    • More heat than light, probably... I doubt if WP:FOOTY has a view, but both usages are grammatically correct; in the first, the club refers to a single entity, so takes a singular verb. In the second, it refers to Cardiff City's football team, which has a collective meaning and in British English takes a plural verb: who are Cardiff playing on Saturday. Having said that, to avoid the appearance of inconsistency without drifting into mid-Atlantic grammar, it might be an idea to restrict the words "the club" to when you're talking about the entity that is Cardiff City Football Club, and use "Cardiff" or "the team" when you're talking about what the football team did. Or if you do use "the club" when writing about what the football team did, only do it if the verb form is the same for both singular and plural :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Is "South Wales FA" the same as South Wales and Monmouthshire Football Association? If so, wikilink it.
  • When did Cardiff stop participating in the Welsh Cup, and why? If they qualify for Europe like Swansea did, do they represent England? Think the answers to these questions could be included somewhere.
  • Bit about Thames being Cardiff's record league win: it's mentioned twice in the article (which isn't a problem), but the club are wikilinked twice.
  • Cardiff's win against Real, "Despite going out after losing the second leg 2–0 the result would still go down in the club's history," doesn't really add anything. Every game Cardiff play will go down in history if you get my drift. I'd rephrase that line.
  • Looking at recent seasons: "On 18 August 2013, Cardiff played their first ever Premier League match away to West Ham United, losing 2–0.[33] However, Cardiff won only three games in the first half of the season...," however is unnecessary here.
  • The other concern I have is sourcing. Crosschecked the sentence "In June 2009, the club completed construction of a state-of-the-art 26,828 seater stadium on the site of the now-demolished old Cardiff Athletics Stadium at a cost of £48 million," and the capacity is nowhere to be found in the source.
  • Source formatting is a minor problem. Footnote 39 and 41 for instance use different parameters for BBC Sport. The Guardian and The Independent are newspapers so they need newspaper= parameter.

This is not far off meeting the criteria, but it needs another once-over from you. Go over the sources, format them consistently and make sure the material in the article is covered by it. There are some sentences that are excessively long and could do with trimming, namely in the 'Colours, kit and crest' section. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the reviews both, I'll get onto those improvements as soon as possible. Kosack (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Lemonade51: I've implemented all of the improvements you noted above and given the article a bit of a once over, rewording and adding refs where required. Hopefully it's considerably better than it was. Kosack (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Second "the" should be removed in "the most recent being in the 2013–14".
  • 1920's success & later decline: Should the apostrophe be in this subsection header?
  • Typo in "suspnded" towards the end of this subsection.
  • Post war & European competition: Another excess "the" in "one of the most famous victories in the Cardiff's history".
  • Is "present" missing from the Recent history section title? It looks odd to have 2000–: there. Maybe it's because the formatting is a little different than the other section titles.
  • I'm seeing a bit of repetitive language in various places, such as "Hammam invested heavily in the team, investing in new players". A little more variety in word choice would be good, both here and in a few other places.
  • Ninian Park: Is "of" missing from "due to the scaling down grounds"?
  • Not doing a full source review here, but I'll note that the bibliography should probably be in alphabetical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thanks for the review, I've fixed all of the typos and errors listed above. I've changed some of the more repetitive lines that I could find, if there's anymore let me know. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • A few pedantic points
  • "BBC Sport" should not be italicised in the references (refs 40, 42, check for others)
  • Neither should "WalesOnline" – ref 70, check for others
  • No citations to the Grahame Lloyd book C'mon City... which shouldn't be listed as a source
  • Same thing with the David Collins book. Both Lloyd and Collins could be listed as further reading.
  • Reliability: A number of online statistical sites are referenced. I am not at this stage questioning their reliability, but I'd like a little more information about these sites, in particular who, in each case, is the publisher with ultimate responsibility for site content, the websites I have in mind are:
  • English Football League Tables
  • Welsh Football Data Archive
  • Historic Football Kits
  • The Football Fan Census
  • 11 v 11

Brianboulton (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, I've fixed the issues raised above. In regards to the sources used:
  • English Football League Tables I'm unsure of the website publisher, I can replace this ref if necessary
  • The Welsh Football Data Archive is compiled by a research team which is listed HERE
  • Historical Football Kits I'm also unaware of but I believe it's considered a reliable source and is used in other features articles such as York City F.C. and Luton Town F.C. and it includes its sources at the bottom of the page Here
  • The Football Fan Census is run by a company of the same name.
  • 11 v 11 is the official website of the Association of Football Statisticians.
Kosack (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to accept the opinions of other editors with more expertise in football articles than mine, as to the reliability of these sources. If they don't object, I won't. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Referendum Party[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a minor British political party which stood in the 1997 general election. A single-issue party, it was devoted solely to Euroscepticism, after it dissolved, many of its candidates switched to the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which subsequently helped to force UK membership of the European Union as a major domestic political issue and resulted in the 2016 referendum on the topic. The recently GA-rated article therefore provides an interesting slice of history for those wishing to understand the current situation that the UK finds itself in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brian Boulton[edit]

An interesting article – I'd completely forgotten about this short-lived forerunner of UKIP. I'll need to read it through more carefully, but for the time being I'll make a few comments on the lead:

  • In the opening paragraph: "Specifically, it wanted a referendum on whether the British population wanted to be part of a federal European state or whether they wanted the EU to revert to being a free-trade bloc without wider political functions." Much clunking there, with three "wanteds" in the sentence. More importantly, the sentence muddles the question the party wished to put to the British people which, according to your wording in the main text, asked them to choose between being part of a federal state or "to return to an association of sovereign nations that are part of a common trading market", the British people could not by referendum determine the nature of the EU; thus, if they voted for the latter option they would be choosing to leave the EU and return to a non-EU bloc such as EFTA (of which it had been a member between 1960 and 1973).
  • Good points. I've changed the wording to "Specifically, it called for a referendum on whether the British people wanted to either be part of a federal European state or revert to being a sovereign nation that was part of a free-trade bloc without wider political functions." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Third paragraph: " psephologists argued that it deprived the Conservatives of a victory in several parliamentary seats, and thus helped Tony Blair's Labour to defeat John Major's Conservative government." You need to delete everything from "and thus helped..." Labour's overall majoriity in the 1997 election was 176 and its lead in seats over the Conservatives was 253. You estimate that the Referendum Party deprived the Conservatives of from 4 to 16 seats; even the higher total would scarcely have dented Labour's majority.
  • I was humming and harring about this when I put it in the lede. You have confirmed my initial concerns, so I shall remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "it was recognised as Britain's most successful minor party in recent years". I would dispute use of the word "successful", even if cited sources use the term, the party put up more candidates and gained more votes than other fringe parties of recent times, but since none of its candidates came remotely near to winning a seat (only four achieved even 7 percent of the vote), how can it be called "successful"? You could say "its performance was recognised as the best by a minor party in recent years" or some such wording.
  • I've removed this wording, but in its place I have added a new sentence to help retain some of the original meaning: "It stood candidates in 547 constituencies, the most that any minor party had ever fielded in a UK election." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a few oddities of language:
  • The British are a "people", not a "population"
  • "it gained 811,827 ballots, representing 2.6% of the national vote". We don't use the word "ballot" in the individual context, we say "votes". Thus: "it won 811,827 votes, representing 2.6% of the national total".
  • "it failed to attain any MPs in the House of Commons" → "it failed to win any seats in the House of Commons"
  • I was a little cautious that readers in countries without parliamentary systems might be unfamiliar with the term "win any seats", but I am okay changing it unless someone else pops up to endorse my concern. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll add further comments in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments from me
  • Lead
  • Add the words "shortly before that year's general election" to the end of the second paragraph
  • Background and ideology
  • First line: the verb "transformed" used in this sense is transitive, and therefore needs an object. Thus "transformed itself"
  • You should very briefly explain that this transformation created a political union, membership of which involved some loss of individual national sovereignty. This was – and still is – the heart of the Eurosceptic argument.
  • I've added an additional sentence to this effect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "a Member of Parliament (MP) elected " should be "Members of Parliament (MPs) elected", and you should delete the redundant "then"
  • The sentence beginning "It also claimed that..." is likewise redundant, as the same exact point is made in the following sentence which includes the Goldsmith quote.
  • I've rejigged the wording slightly so that we now have only one sentence rather than two, as opposed to simply deleting one of the two sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Early growth
  • This is an unsuitable title, since the section covers the whole history of the party up to the 1997 election. I suggest "Establishment and growth"
  • The word "little" occurs twice in the first line. (One could be "limited")
  • I have replaced the second instance with "limited". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Third para: generally, paragraphs should not begin with a pronoun. You could simply delete the "Its"
  • 3rd para second sentence: the "it" is ambiguous, and would should be replaced by "the new party"
  • the words "for his party" after "endorsements" seem unnecessary
  • 1997 general election
  • 2nd para: close repetion of "The Referendum Party". The second could be replaced by a pronoun
  • You should also avoid "...candidates. Candidates...". You could merge the second and third sentences, to read: "... its selection of candidates, who had only one interview..." I'd also replace the words "before becoming the official party candidate" with the more concise "before acceptance".
  • These are good ideas. I've amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You might mention who carried out these interviews.
  • Unfortunately, it does not specify this in the RS we have. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 5th para: "these positions" should be "this position", since only one has been mentioned
  • "enter...enter into": the second could be replaced by "engage in"
  • Another suggested sentence merge to avoid verbosity: "The electoral threat posed by Goldsmith's party was taken seriously among the Conservatives, among them Major, Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, Brian Mawhinney and Michael Heseltine, who launched vitriolic..."
  • I've merged the two sentences as you suggest, although I have not followed the exact wording as I wanted to avoid a repetition of the term "among". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "putting forth": "putting up" is idiomatic
  • Results
  • A minor confusion re deposits. In Brit electoral law a candidate's deposit is returned if he/she gets 5% or more of the constituency vote. You say that 46 RP candidates achieved this, but later: "42 of their candidates gained a sufficient number of votes that they had their deposits returned". Both figures can't be right. A further nitpicky point is that sentences should not begin with numerals (MoS).
  • Hmm, you are right - there is a discrepancy. I've double checked the two RS and the Wikipedia article does accurately relate the information contained within them. I'll try and delve a little further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've done some delving, and that has simply raised more questions. Carter et al say, quite clearly, that "42 saved their deposits." That would be supported by the data from the PoliticalResources website (here), which says that of the 547 Referendum Party candidates, 505 lost their deposits (which leaves 42). At the same time, McAllister and Studlar state that "There were only 46 constituencies where the Referendum Party's vote reached 5 percent or more", and when examining the list of Referendum Party results at our own article (Referendum Party election results), I can count 46 instances where the party secured over 5%. So 42 or 46? Perplexing. Perhaps, for some reason, there were four candidates who did secure over 4% of the vote but did not retain their deposit... are you aware of extenuating circumstances that result in such a situation? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll look at this again in the morning – got to go to bed now! Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've looked, and the answer is simple: our article, and perhaps other sources, have rounded percentages up/down to one decimal place. In four constituencies where the RP percentage is shown as 5.0, the actual figures was slightly smaller: Cambridge SE 4.995, Havant 4.955, Richmond Yorks 4.957 and Tiverton/Honiton 4.999. This explains the discrepancy between 46 and 42. How you deal with this in the text is up to you – personally I'd amend the sentence cited to McAllister and Studlar to read: "The party's best results were in four constituencies where it achieved more than 7% of the vote." Or you could simply delete the sentence. But the statement that "The party gained over 5% of the vote in 46 constituencies" clearly has to go. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That explains it! Thanks for figuring that one out Brian. I have amended the McAllister and Studlar quote in the manner that you suggest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You should state the amount of the deposit. It is £500 according to this
  • But was it £500 back in 1997? The PDF dates from 2009. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's been £500 since 1985. This may not qualify as a RS, so I'll try to find something better. But it isn't a critical point. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is a reliable source that confirms the deposit was £500 in 1997. Brianboulton (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Brian. I've added a few words, linking to the reference that you provide, referring to the cost of the deposit at the time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As a matter of interest, can you provide any gender division between the 547 candidates? My instincts tell me that they would have been overwhelmingly male, since we generally are the more obsessive-minded. The information might exist somewhere.
  • I share your suspicions, and indeed, the list of names over at Referendum Party election results does suggest something of a sausage fest. However, the RS do not seem to specifically provide us with any breakdown of the figures. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • My OR indicates that between 70 and 75 of the RP candidates were women – about 14% of the total. That's about par for the course in nineties terms, roughly in line with the Conservatives, who only achieved 19% in 2005, and as recently as 2010, 24%, but none of the reliable sources I've comsulted seem to cover this question, alas. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Although failing to win any seats, they..." Better if you replace "they" with "the party".
  • Legacy
  • A brief explanation of Goldsmith's death should be provided, as this was the reason why the movement disbanded so rapidly. He had been terminally ill during the campaign, and lasted a mere eleven weeks after polling day, his ODNB entry provides a source - if you don't have access I'll deal with this for you.
  • Good idea. I've used the ODBN entry to provide an additional sentence on his terminal illness and death. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Other issues
  • The article is light on images, for obvious copyright reasons, with only Farage gawping in the bottom right corner. In view of Goldsmith's closeness to the Referendum Party – its sole begetter, financier and leader – it would in my view be justifiable to include an image of him in the lead, under a fair use rationale. I would strongly support this. I suggest you have a word with Nickimaria who is an image guru. See what she advises.
  • Personally I'm doubtful that we will get away with using such an image, but I'll drop Nickimaria a line at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

There, I'm done. I will see no reason not to support when these issues have been considered. I've much enjoyed this first-class article, a timely reminder of the nineties. it's been a pleasure to review it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Postscript: A candidate representing the "Referendum Party" stood in the Kensington and Chelsea byelection held on 25 November 1999, long after the party had disbanded. Details p. 268 here. I guess this was a rogue element and nothing to do with Goldsmith's party, but you could mention it if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I have added a brief sentence about this in the "Dissolution and legacy" section. It's interesting, if perhaps fairly tangential. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: There's a couple of points I'm waiting on, but the nominator seems to be absent at the moment. I will be away from wiki myself for several days after today, but I'll check in as soon as I'm back. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your comments Brian; if there is anything else then please don't hesitate to let me know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: Excellent and informative. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would encourage you to add ALT text for the images.
  • For the James Goldsmith quote box, there is an extra space between the citation and “1994”.
  • I am not sure how currency is linked in articles (as it was never really necessary in any of my projects), but do you think it would be helpful to link the first instance that the pound sterling symbol is used in the article?
  • You typically include a short descriptive phrase in front of a person’s name upon their first mention, but you do not include one for James Goldsmith. Do you think one would be helpful, not only for clarity, but also for consistency? I would also include phrases for John Curtice and Michael Steed, again for clarity and consistency.
  • This may be a silly request, but do you think it would be necessary to put UK in parenthesis following your first mention of “the United Kingdom” in the lead and the body of the article as you have done for EU with “the European Union”.
  • I was wondering this myself. I'll add the acronym in. Certainly, it can't do any harm. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you think that you should include the link to single-issue politics in the body of the article (i.e. “a classic single-issue party”)? I have seen that the link is used in the lead, but not the body of the article.
  • At the start of the “1997 general election”, you use “the United Kingdom” in full while you primarily use “UK” throughout the article. I would recommend changing that instance to “UK” for consistency.
  • Please include the full title and link for MP (i.e. Member of Parliament) in the body of the article. You only use the full title and link in the lead, and you only use the acronym unlinked in the body of the article. I have received notes in that past that everything should be linked on the first mention in the lead and body of the article (and please correct me if those comments are not correct as I have seen some mixed responses to it).

Great work with this list. Unfortunately, as an American, I have very little knowledge on this matter (or any political topic outside of American politics) so I cannot check for anything else beyond questions on prose. I hope that my comments help out at least a little. I will support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read the article and for offering your comments, Aoba47. I have responded to every one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments! This was a very interesting read, and you have done a great job with this. I really do need to learn more about world politics; maybe, one day in the future, I will work on a more politics-based article or list. I support this for promotion. If possible, could you look at my current FAC? I understand if you do not have the time or if it falls outside of your interests. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting article on a party of which I was probably aware but have long forgotten:
  • "which was experiencing high rates of unpopularity" I might say "which was becoming highly unpopular" or maybe "increasingly unpopular"
  • I've gone with "increasingly unpopular". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "a Member of Parliament representing Britain's Conservative Party" do MPs represent parties? Is that the proper term?
  • I've always thought so, although if you think that there is a more appropriate term then I would certainly be interested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Goldsmith's intervention in British politics has been compared to that of the multi-millionaires Ross Perot in the United States and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy.[6]" It would be more effective if you could say "was" rather than "has been". Surely there were comparisons at the time.
  • On that I am not sure. It may have been that the comparisons were only made by later academics. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Its new headquarters was in London.[13]" I might see if this very short sentence can be merged into the one before or following.
  • "It also sought to attract the support" I would say "The party" rather than "It"
  • "the politician George Thomas," he was titled by then though I'm fine with it either way.
  • We initially gave his title although I presume that he is more widely known by his actual name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Goldsmith's party was the biggest spender on press advertising in the 1997 campaign;[32] it spent three times as much as the Conservatives and five times as much as Labour on press adverts." I would strike the last three words. It's implied.
  • I see your point, however I can also see the possibility of the latter half of the sentence being misunderstood that they spend three times as much as the Conservatives and five times as much as Labour on the entire campaign, rather than just press advertising. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Goldsmith talking directly to the camera to promote a referendum." rather than the last four words, I would put a comma and "arguing for a referendum".
  • You might toss in the date of the 1997 election.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments, User:Wehwalt! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Vanamonde[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN, and think it's a high-quality article worthy of promotion. I just have few quibbles over wording. Feel free to revert any copy-edits I make.

  • "The party's sole policy was for a referendum to be held" I'm uncertain if "policy" is the right word here: I somehow think of "policy" as applying to things you have control over. "objective"?
  • "having greater political functions" tad vague
  • It's complicated, and to be honest I'm not really sure if it is best if the prose starts getting expanded at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, but you don't need to extend much, if at all: even saying "political authority" or "regulatory authority" or something like that would be better than "political functions."
  • I've gone with "political authority"; that works nicely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "that it resulted in increased German hegemony in Europe." Hegemony is a strong word here; control, perhaps? could also lose the "resulted in".
  • I've gone with "dominance"; do you think that that works better? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, better.
  • I wonder if there is a link we can add to Perot's campaign at "Perot in the US"
  • May be worth adding a footnote to explain the three other colors in the election results box not mentioned in the caption
  • I did not really want to add too much on Northern Irish politics to the article, but I have now added a short sentence: "In Northern Ireland, where it did not stand, domestic parties took all of the seats." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay
  • "Much of this press coverage was negative" not entirely clear what the "negative" refers to here; the party, the EU, or the referendum
  • I've gone with "Much of this press coverage took a negative stance toward the EU". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Can we find a link for by-elections?
  • uncertain whether "adverts" is an accepted abbreviation or a colloquialism: it sounds odd to me, but that doesn't mean much.
  • "Ads" would certainly be an colloquial abbreviation but I am not so sure about "adverts". I could change it to "advertisements" if you think it important? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'd say "advertisements" would be better: "adverts" just makes me pause in my reading, which is ultimately what we want to avoid, right?
  • Sure thing; I've changed the two uses of "advert/s" to "advertisement/s". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "making it the largest minor party to have ever contested a British general election." I think how you phrase it in the lead is better.
  • I've changed the prose in the body to match that in the lede on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it common to use "Labour" as a description for multiple party members: as in, "they are Labour"? Otherwise, the parenthetical (65 of them conservatives...) needs rewording.
  • Yes, in the UK it is. It's not very common to see "Labourites" or anything like that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Link or explain "psephologist", perhaps.
  • I've added a link rather than an explanation because at this juncture ("analysis by the political scientist John Curtice and psephologist Michael Steed,") it would be very difficult to smoothly insert a description without it looking very messy indeed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I just realized the year is actually never mentioned in the last section, and I think it needs to be, for folks skipping to the section; maybe with GOldsmith's date of death.
  • Support A worthy candidate for promotion. Vanamonde (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301)[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a medieval kingdom in Central Europe, it received two reviews and underwent a comprehensive copyedit. Thank you for all comments during the process. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "the introduction of new taxes and their farming out to Muslims and Jews": I don't know what "farming out" means here.
  • "The Mongols "burnt ..."": Don't mix quote marks and blockquotes, because usually, it's not clear what the quote marks mean. Is someone else being quoted in the middle of a quote? Who?
  • "four or two": two or four? And, was one number much more likely than the other?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done, as always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dank:, thank you for your edits and support. I hope I fixed the problems you addressed above ([31]). Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay, check my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your edits. "Tax farming" is the practice when tax revenues are leased to individuals. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, now I understand. What difference does it make to the history of Hungary exactly how the taxes were collected? What would be wrong with "Royal revenues decreased, which led to the introduction of new taxes"? I doubt that a description of the financials is relevant ... but if it is relevant, then you'll need to explain it, rather than just relying on the term "farmed". - Dank (push to talk) 04:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I see. I tried to provide a context for the relevance of the sentence ([32]). Borsoka (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

The article seems excellently sourced. A couple of points:

  • I'm getting repeated error messages from the link in ref. 2. Maybe it's a temporary fault, but please check it out.
  • The Spinei book is lacking publisher.

No other issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I fixed the above problems ([33] [34]). Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Best add a retrieval date to ref 2, since you are citing an online copy rather than the magazine itself.
Fair point. Retrieval date added ([35]).

Sea mink[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a species of mink that went extinct in the 1800s, and everything about its behavior and biology comes from skull fragments and stuff fur traders said   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Very pleased to see this here.

  • "It was found on the New England coast and the Maritime Provinces, though its range may have stretched further south during the last glacial period. Conversely, its range may have been restricted to solely the New England coast, specifically the Gulf of Maine, or to just islands off of it." Perhaps you're a little too firm in the first sentence?
added "probably"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." If you mean the century, perhaps "the late 19th century" would be less ambiguous?
I always thought they were synonyms, is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Debate has occurred regarding whether the sea mink was its own species, or a subspecies of the American mink. Those who argue that the sea mink was a subspecies often refer to it as Neovison vison macrodon.[5][6]" I wouldn't start with this. I think starting with the initial description date would make more sense
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The second half of the paragraph (beginning at "Another study conducted in 2000") could do with some attention. It's a little repetitive, and I'm not really keen on "the study said".
I removed the use of the word "said" and I used the authors of the studies instead of just saying "the [year] study"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I think "refuted" is a little strong; unless we have a clear consensus in the literature that a particular claim has been refuted, I think "challenged" or something might be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Pausing there, sorry- a little distracted... Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

A few more thoughts:

  • Would it not be typical for the range section to go below the description section? Description often goes above taxonomy, as well, but I quite like a taxonomy section first.
I always do it Taxonomy --> Description --> Range --> Behavior, but in this particular case I felt that Range was sort of needed after Taxonomy if people got confused, and could easily reference it. Also I kept bringin up info about its range in the Description section, so it seemed necessary to have it beforehand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "914 millimetres (36 in) from head to tail, with the tail being 254 millimetres (10 in) long" What does your source say? I'm guessing 36 in and 10 in; if this is so, 914mm and 254mm is false precision.
It's in millimetres, I just set the sig figs to 2   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem, then; sorry! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "a hybrid by a 1966 study" As before; you have also have a few references to "a 2000 study"
the 1966 study's only mentioned once, so I figure to just leave it as "1966 study," but I fixed all the repeating study mentions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was described as having course fur that was reddish-tan in color, though much of it was faded from age most likely." Are you talking about the mounted mink?
yeah, I made it more clear   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than American minks, such as the wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." This sentence is all over the place.
fixed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "and hard-bodied marine invertebrates like the American mink, though in greater proportions" The American mink is not a hard-bodied marine invertebrate!
I reworded it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "proceeding 1860" Surely you mean preceding? Or do you perhaps mean following?
no, I meant after 1860. Is "proceeding" not allowed?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't use it like that; I'd say "following" or simply "after". Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hope this is useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

is there any sort of difference between 1800s and 19th century? ...No... There isn't, this suggestion is confusing. TimothyJosephWood 18:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"The 1800s" is ambiguous between the decade at the start of the 19th century and the 19th century itself. Thus, the phrase "became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." is ambiguous between "became extinct some time around 1808-9" and "and became extinct sometime around 1880-99". Is this clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have always referred to 1800-1899 as the 1800s, also I find 19th century confuses some people because they might confuse it with the 1900s, but I'll do it if you insist   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • File Herring Cove (10105704513).jpg misses ALT text.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:The Canadian field-naturalist (1988) (20332897078).jpg needs a copyright tag.
it looks like it has all the right licensing displayed already   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, my bad, I thought we should have had a CC there, but I guess it is fine. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks great otherwise! Adityavagarwal (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

Nicely done. I bring no special biological expertise to the article, but I have a few suggestions about the prose.
Lede
  • ¶1 "The justification for it being its own species is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur." – Slightly smoother might be "The main justification for a separate-species designation is the size difference between the two minks, but other distinctions have been made, such as its redder fur."
  • ¶1 "Likewise, its actual size is speculative, based largely on tooth remains." – Delete "Likewise"?
  • ¶2 "or to just islands off of it." – Trim to "or to nearby islands"?
  • ¶2 "As it was the largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders than other mink species, and became extinct sometime in the late 1800s." – Trim and smooth? Suggestion: "Largest of the minks, the sea mink was more desirable to fur traders and became extinct in the late 1800s."
  • ¶2 "in the late 1800s" – This claim matches the lede but does not match the claim in the final section of the article.
Taxonomy and etymology
  • ¶1 "The skull fragments used to first describe it were recovered from Native American shell middens in New England like most remains of the sea mink, however a complete specimen does not exist. Most remains are skull fragments as well." – The claim "does not exist" makes the assumption that no one can ever find one. I would also smooth this a bit. Suggestion: "Prentis based his description on skull fragments recovered from Native American shell middens in New England. Most sea mink remains, nearly all of them skull fragments, have come from middens, but a complete specimen has never been found."
  • ¶2 Link paleontology?
  • ¶2 "Furthermore, Graham reported that Mead et al. assumed..." – I wonder if it's strictly necessary to repeat the "et al."?
  • ¶3 "The sea mink had various names given to it by the fur traders who hunted it, including: the water marten, the red otter, and the fisher cat." – Flip to active voice and trim? Suggestion: "Fur traders who hunted it gave the sea mink various names, including water marten, red otter, and fisher cat."
Range
  • Since you link Massachusetts, you should probably link Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Nova Scotia.
  • ¶2 "Mead et. al concluded..." – Maybe drop the "et al."?
  • ¶2 "Alternately, the sea mink may have just evolved after the last glacial period in order to occupy a new niche." – The phrase "in order to" suggests that the mink evolved thoughtfully. Suggestion: "Alternately, the sea mink may have evolved after the last glacial period and filled a new ecological niche."
Description
  • ¶1 "...though its relatives and descriptions given by fur traders and Native Americans give a general idea of what this animal looked like and its ecological roles." – Smooth a bit? Suggestion: "though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles."
  • ¶2 "...however this was found to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid by a 1966 study." – Flip to active voice? Suggestion: "...however, a 1996 study found this to be a large American mink or possibly a hybrid."
  • ¶4 "Mead et al. that concluded that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism." – This refers obliquely to a report in a way that is not quite grammatical. Suggestion: "Mead et al., concluding that the mink was restricted to nearshore islands, suggested that the large size was due to insular gigantism."
  • ¶4 Maybe drop the "et al." here too?
  • ¶4 "The dentition of the sea mink suggests that their teeth were used often in crushing hard shells more so than the American mink, as they had wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades." – Tighten to "The sea mink's wider carnassial teeth and blunter carnassial blades suggest that they crushed hard shells more often than did the teeth of the American mink."?
Exploitation and extinction
  • ¶1 "eventually led to their extinction, which is thought to have occurred anywhere from 1860 to 1920." – The lede says "late 1800s." They shouldn't be contradictory.
  • ¶1 "using an iron rod with a screw on the other end" – Would "the far end" make this more clear?

fixed all the above   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That's what I call a quick turnaround. Switching to support on prose, as noted above. I enjoyed reading this. Finetooth (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Vanamonde[edit]

  • Some inconsistencies in capitalization style: some refs use title case, others do not.
I'm not really sure what a title case is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just realized this is still an issue. See [36]. Essentially, you have "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference", but "Updating the evolutionary history of Carnivora (Mammalia): a new species-level supertree complete with divergence time estimates". You should make this consistent. Vanamonde (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • What makes scotcat.com a reliable source?
The author is part of the Catfish Study Group which is a journal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Other sources are either high-quality scholarly sources, books from reliable publishers, or what appear to be reliable natural history publications.
  • Earwig's tool does not flag anything of substance. I googled a few randomly selected sentences, and found nothing but Wikipedia mirrors.
  • I performed a spot check on the source used for the phylogeny; the source supports the content.
  • I also spotchecked the Manville 1966 source. I have some minor concerns with its use:
  • "Its closest relative is the common mink (N. v. mink), which also inhabits the New England area." is cited to Manville. N.v mink is a subspecies of the American mink, Neovison vison. Therefore, unless N.v. is a polyphyletic taxon, this sentence makes little sense. If it is a polyphyletic taxon, then we need a source to say so. Overall, I'd say the claim here is doubtful, and should at least be attributed in the text.
It's saying that the closest mink subspecies to the sea mink is the common mink, not that the common mink's its own species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not what I mean: if the sea mink were its own species, then it cannot, by definition, be more closely related to one subspecies (N.v. mink) of another species (N.v.) than to other subspecies of the same species. This only makes sense in light of the source's conclusion that the sea mink was not its own species, and was also a subspecies of N.v.mink. So, you need to mention that, or remove that sentence. Vanamonde (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC) (Corrected, for the benefit of anybody reading later. Vanamonde (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC))
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not certain how you derive "The sea mink was the largest of the minks. However, as only fragmentary skeletal remains of the sea mink exist, most of its external measurements are speculative and rely only on dental measurements." from the Manville source, though I may be missing something.
there're a couple of other sources lined up there, the Sealfon one says that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "and the carnassial teeth make a more acute angle" Not an error, as such, but should specify angle with what.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Remains of toad sculpins, ocean pout, and garden banded snails were the most common around their dens." That's not quite what the source says: the snails are reported as part of their diet, but not because of their presence on middens.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, not necessarily an error: the source reports the fish eaten as "horned pout (probably Macrozoarces americanus)" which appears to be a mismatch between common name (which, on WP, redirects to Brown bullhead) and the scientific name (which, presumably, you used to link to ocean pout.
Yeah, common names change but the scientific name is generally the one you wanna trust with species identification   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe I missed something, but where does Manville specifically say "however, these kills are speculated to be of large American minks."?
oops, it's only for the 1894 kill. Manville's describing the specimen collected in 1894, and at the end concluded that it's an American mink   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • If you are relying so heavily upon Manville, it's probably worth mentioning his conclusion that the Sea mink is a subspecies of the American mink. This would also help resolve my first point.
  • That's all I have for now. If I find the time, I may check the other source, too. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Looks okay now. If I have more time, I may do another spot check, but I don't think that should be required for promotion. A general note: Dunkleosteus, you do fine work with neglected marine mammals, but this is the second time in two reviews that I have flagged issues with interpreting phylogeny. May I ask that you be a little more careful in the future, and possibly ask for advice before somebody flags it at FAC? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now......

  • Add descriptor of who/what Prentiss was.
I just added a wikilink to his wikisource page   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I meant describe him...like, "American doctor and naturalist" or something similar before the first mention of his name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • last 2 sentences of first para of Taxonomy and etymology section repetitive....? Streamline?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok this segment: The sea mink was hunted to extinction before it was formally described by scientists. Subsequently, its external appearances and behaviors are not well-documented, though its relatives, as well as descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological roles. - has unnecessary emphasis as you've already told us (twice) that it has become extinct. Hence, it should be something like "As it vanished before it was formally described by scientists, its (external) appearance and behaviors are not well-documented. However, descriptions by fur traders and Native Americans, as well as the physique/morphology of its relatives, give a general idea of this animal's appearance and its ecological role. (note also that "external" is redundant, and appearance should be singular).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
You don't need to mention that it was hunted to extinction again as you did so in the previous section. It comes across as laboured otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why you've chosen millimetres rather than centimetres (I think most laypeople think in the latter as default measurement)
the source gave it in mm so I just did it but I changed it to cm   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The last recorded kill of a sea mink was made in Maine made in 1880 near Jonesport, and the last known kill was made in Campobello Island in New Brunswick in 1894 - I don't understand the distinction between "last recorded" and "last known"
there isn't I was just worried about repetition, but I can change it if you want   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
In which case if you want to include both you could say, "the last two reported kills were..." or somesuch. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Exploitation and extinction I'd flip the material in the first para, so that methods of killing come before last killings and vanishing.
I just ordered it in level of importance, people're gonna wanna know when they died out before how they died out   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah but it sounds funny as it sounds like the hunters are trying to kill them...when they are all already dead....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I can split it off into a different paragraph if that'll make it better, but I've always layered it thematically because the reader's most likely looking for a time of extinction, and they're not gonna want to sort through a wall of text on killing minks to get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That wouldn't help. I think I am not so opposed to it to make it a deal-breaker..so I can agree to disagree on that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I can't see anything else jumping out at me prose-wise nor can I see anything missing..so a tentative support from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Groix[edit]

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

An article about a largely-forgotten naval battle of the early French Revolutionary Wars. By earlier standards it was a significant victory for the Royal Navy, but by the standards of the war to come it rather paled in comparison.

I have 12 FAs to my name, but none since April 2010. I wrote this in 2012 and moved on to other things, with a full break in 2015. I am now returning to Wikipedia after two years hiatus and felt this might be a good place to start. I've revised and copyedited it and I think it is ready. I can't see any major changes to the criteria in the last 7 years, but let me know if there is anything I've missed. Many thanks in advance.Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jackyd, welcome back -- as it's been a long time between drinks for you, we might get a spotcheck of sources for accurate usage and avoidance of close paraphrasing, on top of the regular image licensing check and source review for reliability/formatting, but apart from that I don't think there'd be too many surprises... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I'm in the hands of you fine people - let me know what needs fixing!--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bridports_Action_Groix.jpg: source link is dead and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Done and found another cool image to use in the process. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ykraps and source review[edit]

  • There is currently a mixture of British and American spellings. What English variation is being used here?--Ykraps (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It should be British - I've scanned for American spellings and can't see any but it might be a function of my spell-checker, which is unapologetically American despite my best efforts. Can you let me know where they are? I also reverted a couple of changes you made, one was an alteration to odd capitalisation in a direct quote and the other was to return to the French military rank "Vice-amiral". Also, court-martialed only has one "l". Thank you very much for the copyedit.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it was User:Finetooth who changed amiral to admiral but guilty as charged over the others. I wondered at the time if the caps were part of the direct quote, hence the question mark in my edit summary, with regards to court-martialled/martialed, both dictionaries I own Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5.  and The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8.  give the spelling as martialled. This is consistent with words like dialled and initialled. Collins also states that martialed is the US spelling. Totaled (Aftermath, 2nd paragraph) should also have two 'L's. Compass points (south-east etc) are generally hyphenated in British English and never all one word, this is mentioned in the manual of style here:[[37]]. 'Maximize' is more commonly 'maximise' in modern British English but both spellings are still acceptable so I'll leave that one up to you. 'Maneuvered' should be 'manouevred' in the translation from the French quote in the last paragraph.--Ykraps (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Which ever of you made the edits, thanks to both for the copyedit. I've checked several versions of "court-martialled" and there is no consistency, so I've gone with yours. Made all other changes. Thank you very much for these notes, much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any consistency with "mizzen" either. I always thought it was two zeds but I was looking at a book by Sam Willis this morning where it's spelt with one. I have hyphenated the compass points but if you think I'm wrong you can of course revert.--Ykraps (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Allen, Joseph (1905) [1842]. Battles of the British Navy. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Co. , used to reference the first sentence in the second paragraph of the 'Battle' section, should be labelled as Volume I. Also can you check the page number? Unless you have a wildly different version, I think you'll find it's 418.--Ykraps (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
My copy of this (from 1905), is a single volume and the page reference appears to be correct.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I thought it might correspond with this version [[38]] and as the digits were identical I thought it was a typo. Obviously not!--Ykraps (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the text on page 59 of James' The Naval History of Great Britain, Volume 1 supports the statement, "...followed by a purge of suspected anti-republicans which resulted in the death or imprisonment of a number of experienced commanders". Do you have another source?--Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Good spot. James references the mutiny, but not the ensuing repression. I've added a new source. --Jackyd101 (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The first two sentences in the second paragraph of the "Background" section are referenced to page 256 of Clowes but the supporting text to the first sentence appears on page 255. I would suggest either citing those sentences "pp.255-256" or adding a separate citation to the first sentence.--Ykraps (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Same with the rest of that paragraph, James p.238 cited but ought to be pp.237-238.--Ykraps (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Background" section, 6th sentence of 3rd paragraph - Cornwallis had ordered the frigate HMS Phaeton to range ahead of his squadron making false signals announcing the imminent arrival of a British fleet. These concerned Villaret so much that at 18:40 he called off pursuit and returned to the French coast... James, to which this part is referenced, says on p.242, "At 6 p.m., as a singular coincidence, there actually appeared, in the direction to which the Phaëton's signals had been pointing, several small sail. The British frigate immediately wore to rejoin her squadron ; and very soon afterwards, as has already been stated, Vice-admiral Villaret, to whom the strange sails must just then have discovered themselves, gave over the chase and tacked to the eastward...", indicating that it was a combination of these two events that caused Villaret to withdraw. Can the sentence be rewritten to reflect this? "This ruse de guerre coupled with the arrival of several sail on the horizon at 18:00, concerned Villaret so much that he called off the pursuit...", or similar?--Ykraps (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Done all of these - are you intending to go though every reference like this? If so thank you, but wow that's quite a job. Let me know if you find anything else.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I was only intending to look a sample but because I have an interest in this type of article, I often find myself doing some extra reading. Fortunately/unfortunately I have the books you have used for sourcing the article. If it's any comfort, given what I've seen so far, I'm not expecting to unearth anything major.--Ykraps (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, first paragraph: "It was one of Warren's ships, the frigate HMS Arethusa, that first discovered the French as Villaret led his fleet out from the sheltered anchorage. Lookouts on Arethusa miscounted the French fleet however, identifying 16 ships of the line and ten frigates; Warren immediately sent word to Bridport while ordering his convoy to turn away from the French" is referenced to Clowes p.260 but Clowes makes no mention of 'Arethusa' nor "16 ships of the line and ten frigates". This might be better referenced by James p.244 which does have this information.--Ykraps (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, second paragraph: "The adverse southeasterly winds delayed both fleets..." I wonder if delayed is the right word here. To me, a delay is when something is expected to arrive somewhere at a particular time and doesn't, the source gives no indication that the fleets were expected any earlier. Perhaps 'hindered' or 'hampered' might be better? Unless of course they were expected earlier.--Ykraps (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, not 'hampered', I can see you have used that a little later on. 'Frustrated'?,'impeded'?--Ykraps (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, second paragraph: "To maximise his chances of catching the French, Bridport specifically ordered his fastest ships HMS Sans Pareil, HMS Orion, HMS Colossus, HMS Irresistible, HMS Valiant and HMS Russell..." Not sure we can say they were the fastest, even if they were; Brenton p.231, doesn't mention that as a reason.--Ykraps (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
However, Clowes p.261, says "...his best sailing ships", so add that as an additional reference and we're good.--Ykraps (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, third paragraph: "To ensure that his fleet was in a position to intercept..." Brenton doesn't mention the signals given at 19:00 and 19:25, so again an additional source is needed here, such as James p.245.--Ykraps (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Villaret's retreat, third paragraph: "...The main body of the French fleet was sailing in a loose cluster with three or four ships trailing behind and one ship, Alexandre under Captain François Charles Guillemet far to the rear and only 3 nautical miles (5.6 km) from the British vanguard". Guillemet is mentioned on p.246 of James, so strictly speaking, the citation here is pp.245-246.--Ykraps (talk) 08:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Battle, second paragraph: "As the French crew scrambled to extinguish it, Sans Pareil, flagship of Rear-Admiral Lord Hugh Seymour, reached the ship and fired a broadside in passing..." The engagement between Sans Pareil and Formidable is described on p.246 of James with the casualties on p.248. So again, shouldn't this be pp.246-248?--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Battle, third paragraph: "The entire combat was slowly pulling closer to the fortified rocky island of Groix..." Needs pp.262-263 of Clowes.--Ykraps (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Battle, last paragraph: "...which Bridport was not aware had already surrendered", might be better referenced by James pp.246-247 as Clowes doesn't really make it clear that Tigre had previously surrendered and had to strike a second time to Royal George.--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Aftermath, first paragraph: "Bridport had remained off Quiberon to ensure that Villaret did not return to harass the expeditionary force, returning to Britain on 20 September but leaving the bulk of the blockade fleet off the Breton coast under Rear-Admiral Henry Harvey. The 68-year-old Bridport was forcibly retired in October after an unrelated argument with First Lord of the Admiralty Earl Spencer, but was reinstated in 1796 and continued to serve in command of the Channel Fleet until 1800". The ONDB source only confirms the last sentence. Clowes p.267 can be used for the first bit.--Ykraps (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Aftermath, second paragraph: "Villaret meanwhile gathered his scattered ships and called a council of his senior officers on Peuple to discuss their next course of action". This sentence is referenced to James p.249 but James says the council was held "...on board the Proserpine frigate, in which his flag was flying".--Ykraps (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the sentence, "In common with the battle of the Glorious First of June the previous year, rewards for the British victory at Groix were unevenly distributed" (Aftermath, third paragraph). I can see why you've said that but without a source to verify it, it looks a bit WP:SYNTH.--Ykraps (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Also in third paragraph of 'Aftermath' section, "The name of Alexandre reverted to the former Alexander, and although James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, this claim is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball", needs a source. Winfield, Rif (2008). British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793–1817: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates. London: Seaforth. p. 51. ISBN 1-86176-246-1. , will do nicely here.--Ykraps (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not absolutely necessary but I just wonder if some sort of footnote listing the ships might be helpful. There are so many with similar names; Prince George, Royal George, Prince of Wales, Prince, that one could be forgiven for thinking they were one and the same.--Ykraps (talk) 06:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for this - let me know when you are finished and I'll address them all in one go.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Jackyd101, I think I’m just about done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - should get to this by the weekend, best --Jackyd101 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Done all of these except the footnore - there is an Order of battle in the Biscay campaign of June 1795 linked in the infobox and in a hatnote which should help people to differentiate between the ships. Thanks for your comprehensive review. Quite a few of these were cases where the text in question was originally referenced further down the paragraph and then a new reference was inserted between the text and its reference.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Jackyd101 - There are just three other points which appear to have been overlooked: The claim that Sans Pareil, Orion, Colossus, Irresistible, Valiant and Russell were Bridport's fastest ships isn't supported by the source; the meeting on Peuple occurred on Proserpine (This one?) according to the source, and the claim I suggested could be seen as synthesis.--Ykraps (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry. Changed fastest to best-sailing and gave source you suggested; added the frigate, good catch on the error (it was this one actually) and I added a source about the concern regarding the 1st of June, which should keep us in line with the facts.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
As long as the comparison between the two events is sourced that's fine and if you don't think the footnote is necessary then that's fine too.--Ykraps (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

All my points have been satisfactorily addressed and I am happy that the sourcing meets FA standards: Reliable and of good quality, consistently formatted, and I have checked a good proportion for accuracy and close paraphrasing. Examples below -

  • Article: Throughout the day the French vanguard kept up a distant but continual fire on the rearmost British ship HMS Mars, until eventually the ship began to fall behind the others. In an effort to protect Mars, Cornwallis interposed his 100-gun flagship HMS Royal Sovereign between the British squadron and the French force, its massive broadsides driving the French back
Source:(Clowes pp.257-258)…at length, the Mars, considerably damaged aloft, began to fall to leeward. Observing this, Cornwallis signalled her to alter course ... …and then, in the Royal Sovereign, the Vice-admiral himself bore round towards her, followed by Triumph, and delivered raking broadsides… This manoeuvre saved the Mars… Four French van ships, which had bore up hoping to secure the Mars, considered it wise to haul to wind.
  • Article: At 06:15, Queen Charlotte passed Alexandre and began firing on Formidable, Linois returning fire against his much larger enemy for fifteen minutes before a fire broke out on the poop deck.
Source:(Allen p.184) At about 6h. 15m. the Charlotte fired her starboard broadside into Formidable, Captain Linois, and a close action commenced.....at about this time, [0630] the French ship [Formidable] caught fire on the poop.
  • Article: Bridport gave instructions as he withdrew for Alexandre, Formidable and Tigre to be taken under tow by HMS Prince, HMS Barfleur and HMS Prince George respectively.
Source:(Clowes p.263) The Admiral ordered Prince, Barfleur and Prince George to take the prizes in tow; and the fleet stood away with them to the S.W.
  • Article: Following their advice, Villaret decided to shelter the fleet in the nearby port of Lorient to seek supplies and repairs before returning to Brest. He found however that, having sailed without sufficient provisions, Lorient was not equipped for a fleet of such size and Villaret was forced to discharge the majority of sailors as he was unable to feed them, it was not until December and the winter storm season that a number of the ships were able to travel quietly up the coast to Brest, while others were sent southwards to Rochefort.
Source:(James p.253) The ships in the latter port [Lorient] ; having, as stated before, quitted Brest with only 15 days' provisions on board, had been compelled, owing to the poverty of the place, to discharge the principal part of their crews ; disease and desertion had gradually thinned the remainder.
  • Article: All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy. The name of Alexandre reverted to the former Alexander, and although James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, this claim is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball. Tigre retained her French name, while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle.
Source:(James p.250) Of his three prizes, the Alexandre, or Alexander, as now again entitled to be called, was scarcely worth anything ; but the Tigre and Formidable were fine new 74s, similar in size to the Impetueux and America captured by Earl Howe. The Tigre was allowed to retain her name ; but there being a Formidable 98 already in the service, the name of the Formidable 74, as if to perpetuate an acknowledged discreditable mistake, was changed to that of the island, close to which, instead of to Groix, the action was supposed to have been fought ...
  • Article: Twenty-first-century historians Noel Mostert and Richard Woodman have compared Groix with the battles of Genoa and Hyères fought earlier in the year in the Mediterranean, where in similar circumstances another elderly admiral, William Hotham, had also allowed scattered and retreating French fleets to escape when they might have been destroyed.
Source:(Woodman p.61) Two similarly unsatisfactory actions between British and French squadrons were fought in the Mediterranean, where Vice-admiral William Hotham had relieved Lord Hood. Off Genoa in March Hotham took a French 80 and a 74, and in an action of Hyeres in July...
Source:(Mostert p.164) The French had lost their opportunity off Fiorenzo, the British off Hyeres, where a superior fleet of twenty-three British ships had failed to come to action with a French fleet of seventeen... ...For the British the consequences of Hotham's failure were soon to become apparent. There was nothing better on offer from the Channel Fleet at the Western Approaches, on 22 June, an unusually powerful Channel Fleet... ...Bridport's explanation echoed Hotham's off Hyeres...

Support--Ykraps (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

This is a well-written account of an interesting sea battle. Here are my questions and suggestions. I think a map would be especially helpful.
General
  • Images need alt text.
I used to have to do this and was wondering if it was still necessary, couldn't see anything about it on the FA criteria page. In any case, done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Even if not required, it's a nice thing to do for readers who can't see the images. Finetooth (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Link aquatint in the lede image caption?
done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • View of the Close of the Action Between the British and French Fleets, off Port L'Orient on 23 June 1795; aquatint by Robert Dodd, from the original by Captain Alexander Becher, RN; published 12 June 1812, NMM – I would omit the publication date and the name of the publisher since those details are readily available on the image description page.
Date reduced, but I think it is important to have the date for context - whether the image is contemporary or not is crucial to its value as an illustration. The Maritime Museum is the owner of the image (i.e. its an image of a print from their collection), not the publisher. I always put the owner of the image in a caption when I use one - its both professional and polite.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • An exact Representation of the Capture of three Ships of the Line, and total defeat of the French Fleet, by a Squadron under Command of Admiral Lord Bridport, on the 23 of June, 1795" E. Godefroy & J. Pass, 1795. NMM.]] – For a more clean image, I would consider cropping the text from the image itself and re-uploading the cropped image to the Commons, and I would eliminate the publisher's name and the publication date from the caption.
See above. Also, I think that the text is an important part of the image in this instance, the print is a composition as a whole, not a simple picture.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Finetooth (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A map showing Brittany, Lorient, Brest, Groix, and Belle Île would be helpful in understanding the ship movements. It could be a map of any time since 1795, not necessarily an old map, as long as it showed the relevant coastline, cities, and islands.
Haven't found an appropriate one yet. Still looking.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I haven't found one either. This one would do as an appropriately licensed base map to which a few names and a couple of city locations could be added. I don't want to hold things up, so I'm striking. It's something you might consider adding later. Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Lede
  • ¶2 "Several of his ships were too slow however," – I don't think you need the "however".
Background
  • ¶1 Link "anti-republicans" to something explanatory, perhaps Republicanism?
I've linked the purge to the Reign of Terror, of which it was a small part, but a link to Republicanism isn't going to be helpful. The people executed were political prisoners from a range of ideological stances from monarchism through a bewildering rainbow of republican factions; most were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and were actually executed on trumped up charges anyway (e.g. sailors executed for protesting a lack of edible food or dock administrators executed for failing to meet impossible work quotas), so the link might actually be misleading.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. Finetooth (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "the French fleet sallied out into the Atlantic" – Delete "out"?
I don't think its a tautology, but sure, OK. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "The febrile atmosphere..." – "Fevered" would be more familiar to most readers, I think.
I quite like the word febrile and I don't think fevered really matches the tone of what was happening - I've compromised with "tense".--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "French commander Vice-admiral Villaret..." − Elsewhere in ¶2, you have "Vice-Admiral William Cornwallis". I'm not sure whether little "a" or big "A" is preferred. Should they be the same, or is the difference important?
Its actually an important difference - the French ranks of vice and contre-amiral are not exact equivalents of Vice and Rear-Admiral in the Royal Navy, and in the context of this article are proper nouns and should I think be rendered in the original French (note that I refer to contre-amiral, but anglicise it to French admiral when I'm not using it as a proper noun, as they were still collectively admirals). THis is also consistent with my many other articles in this field.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. That makes sense. Finetooth (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 Link Contre-amiral since even "counter-admiral" may be unfamiliar to most readers?
  • ¶3 "heading out into open water " – Delete "out"?
  • ¶3 "the ship began to fall behind the others." – Delete "the others" as unnecessary?
Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Battle of Groix
  • The Manual of Style advises against repeating the article title in a head. Instead of Battle of Groix here, would Engagement" be better? Or something else?
That's a new one on me and I'm not sure why its a problem, but sure, changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Umm. Redundancy is the problem. MOS:HEAD contains the guideline I'm thinking of. It says, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life) or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." In your revision, the word "battle", which is one of the main words of the article title, appears in the subhead "Battle off Groix" and in the sub-subhead, "Battle". Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I've made changes as you suggest, but honestly, having read that guideline, I still don't see how having redundancy between the title and section headings is a problem for readers in any way. Seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Villaret's retreat
  • ¶3 "The ship was a poor sailer, whose position was worsened by poor handling by Guillemet... " – Since a ship isn't a who, maybe "The ship was a poor sailer, and its position was worsened by poor handling by Guillemet..."
Most sailors would I think disagree with your first statement, but changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The same guys who like to think of a ship as a she? Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Battle
  • ¶3 "had been forced out of the engagement due to severe damage to his rigging and sails" – Use "its rigging" here instead of "his" since the damage was to the equipment, not Douglas?
I would humbly suggest that this is okay. It is his ship so by extension, his sails and rigging. --Ykraps (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ykraps; there is a standing convention in a lot of naval histories to conflate the captain with the ship in this way - i.e. as captain authority over the ship's equipment rested entirely with him and thus they were in a very real sense "his". Have no objection to changing it to "the rigging" though if you'd prefer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
No change necessary. Most of my suggestions are minor, and I'm an outsider who is mostly unfamiliar with sailing conventions. Finetooth (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "At 07:14, he drifted past that shattered hull of Alexandre, Captain Guillemet, opening fire briefly before surrendering as the first rate returned it with devastating effect." – Something's amiss here. Remove the comma after Guillemet?
Yep, bad comma. Changed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Aftermath
  • ¶1 "The British fleet had lost 31 men killed and 113 wounded, with Queen Charlotte and Colossus with the heaviest casualties of 36 and 35 respectively." – I'd suggest replacing the double "with" in this sentence. Maybe "The British fleet had lost 31 men killed and 113 wounded; Queen Charlotte and Colossus had the heaviest casualties, 36 and 35 respectively."
Good call.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶2 "opposed by Rear-Admirals Kerguelen and Étienne Eustache Bruix" – Since you used "amiral" and "contre-amiral" earlier, should "Rear-admiral" be given in a French equivalent, if there is one?
Yes, this was an error, good spot.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "by the Parliament of Great Britain, who voted thanks" – Should Parliament be a "which" rather than a "who"?
  • ¶3 "All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy, Alexandre reverting to Alexander (James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, but this is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball), Tigre retaining her French name while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle." – Too complex. Maybe "All three captured ships were taken into the Royal Navy. Alexandre reverted to Alexander. (James suggests that the ship was never again fit for frontline service, but this is refuted by Alexander's presence in the line at the Battle of the Nile in 1798 under Captain Alexander Ball.) Tigre retained her French name, while Formidable, as there was already a ship of that name in the Royal Navy, became HMS Belleisle, apparently due to confusion between the islands of Groix and Belle Île in the aftermath of the battle."
Rephrased.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶4 "in the opinion of French admiral Kerguelen" – Admiral or amiral? To maintain consistency, it might be better to use all-English titles throughout rather than using the French equivalents.
See above about proper nouns (French) and common nouns (English).--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Bibliography
  • To deal with questions like one that Ykraps raised above, it would probably be helpful to include OCLCs for the books without ISBNs. WorldCat lists them. Your edition of Battles of the British Navy, for example, is probably the 9th edition or the revised 9th edition of the Simpkin publication: here. You might also add the full title and the edition info to identify the source more exactly.
Added edition. Not certain which is the OCLC number on the link you sent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's kind of a thicket of stuff to wade through. The trick is to click from the title on the page I sent you, and that takes you to another page specifically about the 1905 9th rev. ed. from which you scroll down to the "Details" section. The OCLC, 85994488, is cleverly hidden there. I added this OCLC to the article. You should be able to add OCLCs to any of the others. Here, for example, is the OCLC list of possibles for Chasseriau. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the finely detailed review. Comments above, otherwise I think I've done everything you've suggested. Let me know if you have additional comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Done except for the two remaining open questions about the head-subhead redundancy and the other missing OCLCs. Leaning toward support. Finetooth (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - should get to this by the weekend, best --Jackyd101 (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Done these both. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. By the way, I found a map that would work, but needs a red dot on it for clarity. I can't work out the formatting for putting red dots in images not in the infobox though. Can you recommend anything?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
If you provide a link to the map, I'll take a look and see what might be done. You'll need to tell me where you want the red dot to appear. Finetooth (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The map is below. The dot should go off the southern side of the island of Groix, halfway up the southern coast of the Breton peninsula. Any help much appreciated.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed the map itself from this FAC page because I thought it might slow the page loading. Working on a solution. Finetooth (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Modified the base map, uploaded it to the Commons, and installed it in the article. If you want further alterations, just let me know on the article's talk page or my talk page rather than extending the map discussion here at FAC. Finetooth (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Emily Davison[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Emily Davison was an interesting woman. Highly intelligent (Oxford educated in the time before women were awarded degrees), she joined the militant suffragette movement in 1906 and became one of the more active and high profile of its members. Always with an eye for high-profile activities to promote the cause, three of her arrests followed her hiding in Parliament over night.she is, of course, best known nowadays for her death following being struck by a horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby. Elizabeth Crawford, a historian who has written extensively on Davison, has been kind enough to read the article and to provide comments, directions and corrections where necessary; Dr June Purvis, another notable contributor to the literature about Davison, has also agred to read through the article, and I am awaiting any comments she comes up with. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • A quick update: June Purvis has got back to me with warm comments on the article. There is one addition to make regarding the suicide, which I will do shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Add and fill infobox. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure that would be advantageous. There is no requirement to have one, and this article has been without one for some time, without any loss of understanding of the subject. Are there any thoughts you have on the body of the article? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Support from Gerda[edit]

Per the peer review --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts there; they were much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support, per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both for your earlier assistance. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

I commend you for taking on such an important topic.

  • I find the ordering of the lead a bit odd; jumping from talking about her funeral to her early life is a bit odd. I understand your desire to have her death in the first paragraph; I think I'd be inclined to do it a little more like this, but it's up to you.
  • Similar comment: I personally like infoboxes, but understand the concerns about them, and have no great objection to this article not including one.
  • "Emily was the third child born to the couple; she had an elder brother, and a younger sister who died of diphtheria in 1880 at the age of six." An elder brother, a younger sister, and another elder sibling? Slightly confusing?
  • "After her release she wrote to the Votes for Women newspaper "Through my humble work in this noblest of all causes I have come into a fullness of job and an interest in living which I never before experienced."" I can't help but feel that there are a couple of words missing, here. How about "After her release she wrote to the Votes for Women newspaper, saying that "Through my humble work in this noblest of all causes I have come into a fullness of job and an interest in living which I never before experienced.""
  • "her suffragette colleague, Constance Lytton threw hers first," This doesn't read as well as it could. How about "a suffragette colleague—Constance Lytton—threw hers first,". Relatedly, it might be nice to note whether Lytton was jailed for her actions.
  • Perhaps you could introduce Votes for Women as the WSPU's newspaper on its first mention?
  • "for The Suffragette—the official newspaper of the WSPU—" So what was the relation between The Suffragette and Votes for Women?
  • "35 miles (56 km) an hour" Would per hour not be more accurate?
  • "as at 2017" of?
    • I think "as at" is the correct British version of the American "as of"; perhaps I could ask Tim riley to comment on this point to clarify? -SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • For the moment, yes, but the American usage will displace the English one before long, I fear (cf "on So-and-So Street" rapidly supplanting the long-established "in So-and-So Street"). Tim riley talk 21:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Collette also sees a more current trend in historians, "to accept what" Is that comma necessary?
  • Could something about her Christianity be added to the lead? It was a surprise to see it first mentioned so far down the article. (Same for socialism, actually.)
  • I wonder if it might be worth mentioning some key biographies/other texts foscussed on Davison in the legacy section? And who was the playwright for Emily?
  • The playwright's name added; let me think on the first point. I've added it for some articles I've written, and not for others, and I'm always in two minds about them. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I quite understand the choice to place the paragraph on socialism in the "Legacy" section rather than the "Approach and analysis" section.

My first impression is that this is an excellent article, and one that will prove a highly valuable resource for readers. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Josh. Unless mentioned above, your comments have all been acted upon in these edits. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Support. Highly commendable. I'm watching the page and may chip in with further thoughts, but I am happy to offer my support in the mean time. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Josh - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments edwininlondon[edit]

I often pass the house where she recovered from her hunger strikes, it feels wrong for me not to review this...

  • I don't see a link to Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom. Would the link Women's suffrage in the first sentence be a good one to replace with the more specific UK article?
  • After a church service in Bloomsbury, her coffin was taken by train to the family plot in Morpeth, Northumberland. -> I'm not convinced this is important enough to be included in the lead
  • The lead doesn't say anything about her controversial position in the WSPU
  • Maybe one to think about: add to the lead when the UK women were allowed to vote
    • Let me think about this one. The final decision to grant suffrage was less to do with ED and more to so with Emmeline Pankhurst's strategy during the war, and the war itself. SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • she went to a day school then -> I would add a comma: she went to a day school, then
  • When she was 13 she attended Kensington High School and won a bursary -> was she 13 when she won a bursary?
  • Activism: is there no source that says anything relevant in the lead up to joining the movement? Or why the WSPU and not the non-militant
    • No, there is no information on why she joined, or why she joined the WSPU, rather than the NUWSS. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Activism: Just one sentence on the start of the suffrage movement in the UK would be good for context. When did the NUWSS start?
    • I'm not sure we need to go back as far as that. We've got the start date of the WSPU, which is the key one, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • which prompted Sylvia Pankhurst -> bit of context here would be good, that she is a founding member of WSPU
    • She wasn't the founder - Emmeline was, but I've added some context for SP. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • publicising her message to the wider public -> is there anything on how that public responded to this?
    • Not to Davison. There is to themiltant campaign in general. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Davison was not one of the 122 people arrested -> was she part of the 300 women with the petition?
    • It appears not. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Jones suffered a -> I wonder if it flows better if details of what happened to Emily come first. Move the bit about Jones to maybe after the queen's comment?
  • the Derby or walking -> and instead of or?
  • A flag was gathered ...measures 82 by 12 inches (210 x 30 cm) -> I don't think this is in the right spot. It breaks the flow of what happened. Not sure if it even warrants proper mention. Maybe better off as footnote?
    • With apologies for butting in on someone else's review, maybe the information about the flag could be moved to the legacy section? The fact that it hangs in the Houses of Parliament, whatever its provenance, is important. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • No worries about butting in. Yes, I agree that is important. Not sure about all the auction stuff though.Edwininlondon (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I think it's best left where it is. The 'flag on horse' theory is widely known, and we deal with it all in one paragraph here; ditto the choice of the king's horse, which we do in the next paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Great article. Interesting to read you have enlisted experts to help. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Edwininlondon. Unless I've commented otherwise, I've dealt with your points in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Edwininlondon. No rush, just making sure this didn't fall off your radar. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Support from Tim Riley[edit]

The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view, it gives the reader a balanced, comprehensive study of the subject. The sourcing is impressive and the text is highly readable. I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 21:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim - your earlier comments were most useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from caeciliusinhorto[edit]

  • "studied at Royal Holloway College, London, St Hugh's College, Oxford, and the University of London": which college at the University of London? By the time she graduated, Royal Holloway would have become part of the university. Was it there?
    • Yes, it was. It is probably slightly misleading to have it and Holloway there, so I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "£20 in 1892 equates to approximately £1,961 in 2017 pounds": approximately, to four significant figures? I am always dubious that to the nearest pound inflation calculations are actually as meaningful as the level of precision implies at >100 year remove.
    • Agree - I've rounded it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Was there any particular reason that Davison was targetting Walter Runciman in 1909? It is striking that she tried to throw stones at him twice in two weeks...
  • "Davison spent a night in the Palace of Westminster in June 1911.[22]" it is not clear to me what the relevance of this footnote is...
    • Tweaked slightly. We make a big deal of the other two stays in Parliament, and state that she stayed there three times, so we have to refer to it, even though the sources don't really give many details. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Currently the article implies that the only difference in eligibility to vote after the Representation of the People Act (1918) was the age difference (21 for men vs. 30 for women). Might be worth making it clear that the property qualification for male voting was abolished in 1918.

These are all really nitpicky little details, though, and I'm happy to support promotion as the article is now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto. Very useful comments, and I've acted on them all, hopefully to your satisfaction. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Coming back to this review close to a month later, I just wanted to explicitly note for the closing co-ord that I agree with SchroCat's decision not to change the lead as Vanamonde suggests. I don't find the way it is currently presented jarring at all, and not mentioning the manner of Davison's death in the first paragraph of the lead – the thing she is best known for today to the general public – would, in my opinion, be jarring and confusing to readers. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

From Sarastro1[edit]

Support: Recused as coordinator for this one (I was just looking through, and this caught my eye!). An excellent, comprehensive article which I think gives the context particularly well. Just a few very minor points which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Suicide attempt: We give her description of what happened, but this makes it a little vague. "as soon as I got out I climbed on to the railing and threw myself out to the wire-netting" does not make it clear where she was or what the wire netting was. I'm assuming inside the prison, but I think we can make it clearer as not everyone will know what a British prison would have looked like before WW1.
    • Yep, good point. I've added a short explanation before the quote, which should cover it. Let me know if you think it needs more. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Davison towards the end of her life, showing the effects of hunger strikes and force feeding": This is a caption for the photograph which says it shows her near the end of her life. But I think we need a source to give the interpretation that she is showing the effects of hunger strikes and force feeding.
  • We give an overview of modern opinion of her, mentioning the plaques, etc, but I wonder is there anything more to be said about how views of her have changed. Obviously, she was a pariah when she died for daring to interrupt a horse race but she is now officially "approved". How and when did this opinion of her change? And has anything been said recently about her place in the grand scheme of things? We talk about how the tide turned for the suffragettes but we avoid saying how much of how little Davison and her death played a part in this. (I know some of these are unanswerable and that the reply might simply be "no idea", but I just felt the questions should be asked!)
    • I'm afraid I'm going with the 'no idea' answer! It's not a point the modern sources pick up on: it's just taken that it is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • In the Activism section, we have four consecutive paragraphs that begin with a date. Perhaps a little variety could be added here?
  • The images do not have alt text. I am aware it is not a requirement, but I always feel that FAs should demonstrate best practice.
    • Argh - my constant blind spot (no pun intended). I'll sort those now. -SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Now done - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, this is one of the first articles I've seen for a while where there are no duplinks! Which can only be a good thing. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Sarastro1 - you're thoughts are much appreciated. All done 9except fo thealt text, which I'll do now) - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review: I checked to see what academic literature was available on Davison, just to see what was out there, only to discover that everything I found was in here already! All sources high quality, no question, so we are clear on 1b) and 1c). I have not performed any spot checks. Just two minor formatting points. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Ref 19 (Pankhurst 2013, 6363) does not make it clear what the number refers to. Is it a page or a kindle location?
  • In the source list, the Gullickson article does not give page numbers while all other journal articles do. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the SR too: both these now addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: I very much welcome this article on a notable pioneer in the women's suffrage movement, and hope to see it as TFA on a suitable date. My concerns were raised and answered during the peer review, and the article has benefitted since then from other comments made in this review. So I have no hesitation in adding my support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Brian - I found your earlier comments extremly useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Very impressive work here, just a few minor comments. Feel free to revert any tweaks I make. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I find the phrase "where she was more settled" a bit vague. If no detail is available, you might omit it altogether.
    • I think it's probably OK - she was more settled there than her previous place, which is fine. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • About the descriptor "militant", particularly in the first paragraph of "activism"; I agree that the word is necessary, but I'm not certain it needs to be used three times in the paragraph. It would also be helpful, given the current tendency to throw the term around, to explain in a sentence what actions made those women militant, rather than just saying that they were.
  • Is obstruction, in the legal sense, something that could be linked?
  • "Actions of throwing stones": action?
  • "before the police managed to stop her." unclear who the "her" is.
  • "She used her court appearances" Again, "she" is ambiguous, as Lytton was the last one mentioned.
  • "publicising her message to the wider public." Slightly redundant?
  • I wonder if the sentence beginning "A question was asked" might flow better as "Davison's treatment prompted such and such to ask a question.."
  • "have brought the vote to a million women" I think slightly more detail may be helpful here; as I read it I wonder "what about the other women?"
    • I think we would be in danger of swamping too much superfluous detail into what is supposed to be a biography of Davison: the link to the Conciliation Bill is there if people want to find out more. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
    • From the link it does not seem that way: all you need to say is "property owning women" or something like that.
      • OK, I've added, but it's slightly misleading in such a bald way, as there are other criteria involved too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "the WSPU put in a temporary truce on activity" better as "the WPSU temporary halted its activity"?
    • Let me mull on this one. "Truce" is what the WSPU called it, and what the reliable sources tend to call it too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay. It's a very odd phrase, but not, as far as I can tell, incorrect.
  • "Davison was not one of the 122 people arrested, but was incensed by the treatment of the delegation and broke several windows in the Crown Office in parliament. She was arrested and sentenced to a month in prison..." So she was arrested: was it later? I'm guessing some chronological information is missing here.
  • "12 in The Manchester Guardian between 1909 and 1911." But this is before the campaign you mention...
  • "the home straight" could this be linked? Most readers are unlikely to be acquainted with horse racing.
  • Collete needs to be named in full at the first usage.
    • We sort of do - it's in a footnote that would have been dropped down on from one of the earlier sections, but I've repeated the information in the main body. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no knowledge of the source material; does any of it discuss her impact on the movement as a whole, an aspect not really mentioned in the article?
    • Nothing prior to her death; after her death we get the 'suffragette martyr' angle (which we cover), but the First World War and WSPU truce bring an end to any longer impact she may have had. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I was under the (possibly uninformed) impression that her profile rose because of the manner of her death; is this true? Is it worth mentioning?
    • Profile with who? She was well-known within suffragette circles, and her profile rose hugely to the general public on the point of her death because the news of her death was in the worldwide press, but we sort of cover this anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I had some concerns about lack of coverage in some other places, but I see you have addressed those above.
  • I'm a trifle dissatisfied with the lead. I think it ought to mention her writings, for one thing; for another, it seems to jump back and forth a bit. A format I've seen used with success elsewhere is to have a brief first paragraph merely to establish who the subject was and what their claim to notability is, followed by one or two paragraphs for biographical details, and a final paragraph for legacy/influence/assessment. Your final paragraph seems fine, but for the rest we're going "Intro-activism-early life-activism" which is a bit odd. Of course, this is all optional, as there aren't guidelines for the lead beyond the basics.
    • We go 1: details and notability; 2 & 3: reflecting the same run as the article - Biography, Approach and analysis and Legacy. It's a format I've used several times before with biographies, and the lead repeating the same order as the article seems a sensible one

Many thanks for your comments. If I have not commented on a specific point above it's because I have dealt with it in one of these edits. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I have struck most of my comments. Let me think a little further on the lead: I still think stone-throwing coming before college and joining the WPSU is strange. There's a couple of other points. Vanamonde (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
It's to do with her notability. The first paragraph sums up everything someone who wants to learn about her in 30 seconds: her militant tactics are a key attribute to her notability; her attendance at university is not. As you say, there are no hard and fast rules on the the order of the lead, and the approach I've used is a recognised one. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have thought further about the lead, and I am still rather unhappy about it. I accept your point that the fact that Davison was a militant activist is important to her notability, and I am okay with the second sentence being given over to that. But, in that scheme of things I would strongly suggest crafting a new second sentence referring to her militant activism, and breaking the rest of the paragraph off to be inserted with her activities with the WPSU. I appreciate that you have somewhat more experience with FAs than I do, but even as somebody who has read a lot of political biography, I find the lead hard to follow. Not only is her activism broken up; information about her death is in three different places; information about her ideology is in two different places. This is roughly how I would organize it. Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I will have a closer look later, but my first impression is deeply unfavourable. Davison is notable because of the manner of her death - something the sources all agree upon. If we remove that from the opening paragraph then we do the readers a great disservice. I find the opening parargraph of your auggested version rather anaemic in not actually telling us why she was important. I'll have a closer look at the remainder of the suggestion a bit later, but RL intervenes this afternoon. – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Take your time. FWIW, I'm happy for you to mess with that second sentence: it's more the rest of the shuffling that I wanted. Additionally, I do think that if her death is what she is primarily known for, and that is why you feature it prominently in the lead, then you should say so; "she came to national attention for the manner of her death after stepping out in front..." or something to that effect. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • We can't say that because it's not true. She is notable to history because of the manner of her death. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Then say that. The typical "why are they notable" sentence is self-evident; this one is not. Vanamonde (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No. There is no need to spoon feed readers as if they are children. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not going to support this, because I am unhappy with the lead. It is scattered and incoherent; it's structure is such that details of Davison's militant activities come early in the lead to no purpose. Intentionally or otherwise, in my view this perpetuates a problem in coverage of civil rights movements; that of emphasizing a critique of method at the expense of purpose. I am not going to oppose this either, because most of my points have been addressed, and I'm not interested in haggling over details when the nominator has shown a marked disinclination toward taking serious feedback. The coordinators can make of my review what they will. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "...the nominator has shown a marked disinclination toward taking serious feedback". I do not accept that at all. I have accepted the majority of points in your review, and disagree only over your personal view of the lead - something about which there are no hard and fast guidelines, making it your opinion against mine only. I have said I will look over the remainder of your suggestions to the lead, and I will do so later, but I will not treat our readers as half wits or children. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I was grumpier than I needed to be, and I apologize: It's been a long day. Let me amend my statement, which I have stricken above. I feel that you have an all-or nothing approach to comments; if you agree, you implement it, if you disagree, you do not. I don't think you have shown a willingness to meet me halfway on the issues on which we disagree, the rest of my comment above still applies. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That is an opinion I do not share, and which is not borne out by the number of your comments I have accepted, despite reservations. As it stands there are only two of your comments I have not followed through on, and I have given reasons. FAC nominators do not have to follow every suggestion if they think it does not improve the article.
Thank you for your review; it has been most useful, and I am sorry that a difference of opinion has led to the situation we find ourselves in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Sagaciousphil[edit]

I promised almost six months ago that I would never come near TFA/FAC again but feel sufficiently strongly about this FAC to make this one off exception. I have watched this interesting article develop from the early stages of the expansion, making some very minor edits before the peer review etc, the polishing and tweaking it's been given since then and during this FAC leave me in no doubt it meets the FA criteria. I disagree with Vanamonde's suggestion above concerning shuffling the lead around as I feel it presently conveys the essence and flavour of Davison, something that gets lost in the alternate wording. My only extremely minor quibble with the lead would be the second and third paragraphs both starting with the word 'Davison' but that is just one of my own pet peeves/foibles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC) I'll completely back away from TFA/FAC again now.

Support from Ritchie333[edit]

I read this over the weekend, and found it to be a most enthralling article. I think there were one or two things I would have written differently, but I'm blowed if I can find them, so it's a support from me. I disagree with the comments about the lead, immediately after reading it I thought "this is an interesting and historical person; I want to read more" - exactly what a lead should do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

Hi SchroCat, I'm currently reading this through for the second time. It's a great article and a very smooth read. Minor question: "attempted commit suicide". Is that quoted correctly, or is it missing a "to"? SarahSV (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Support on prose. This is an excellent read: well structured and comprehensive. Thank you for the work you put into it. SarahSV (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Sarah. Mea culpa on the quote - the "to" has now been added. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Jessica Chastain[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Back at this after I had to withdraw the previous nomination a year ago. Hoping for more constructive criticism this time around. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • I looked at this a year ago, so I'm working from a diff since Sept 19. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award nominations and nominations for two British Academy Film Awards" was changed to: "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations". First, that's wrong: change it to "two Academy Award nominations and two British Academy Film Award (BAFTA) nominations", and use BAFTA after that. Second, if you're talking about where you visited this summer, and you say "I went to London, then Bristol, then Manchester. I visited London twice and Paris twice.", then many listeners will think you visited London three times, because you're talking as if this is an ordered list of your destinations. After you make the change I just suggested, the lead will say: "Her performance as an aspiring socialite in The Help earned her an Academy Award nomination; in 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty. Chastain made her Broadway debut in a revival of The Heiress in the same year. ... Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations." Most readers, especially if they're reading quickly, will interpret that last sentence as "two additional Academy Award nominations" (unspecified), because you appear to be presenting an ordered list of her accolades. Don't repeat awards in the lead section. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "She is known to prepare extensively for her roles": Some WPian copyeditors automatically change this to "She prepares extensively for her roles", but I think it's worth slowing down and trying to figure out what the source means. If they avoided saying that she actually does prepare extensively for her roles (rather than just being known for that) because they're hedging, then treat it as spurious information, and don't include it at all. If the source said "X said that she prepares extensively for her roles", and some WPian shortened that to "known for ...", then un-shorten that ... in WP articles, it's important who said what, unless you're writing some dusty history article and there really is a consensus of historians we can rely on. That's not going to be true for currently active actors. If the person (or persons) attributed by the source isn't (or aren't) worth attributing, for some reason, then again, that's your cue to leave it out entirely. Bottom line: when you see "known for" or the equivalent in any WP article, check what the source said. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "vocal about social issues such as gender and racial equality, and mental health": I don't know what this is trying to say ... is she vocal about social issues in general? Is she only vocal about social issues that are similar to gender equality and the other things? Which issues are like gender equality? Better would be: "vocal about mental health issues and gender and racial equality".
  • "this aspect of her childhood": What is it that she doesn't talk about?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done, as always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Dank. I've made changes to the lead per your suggestions. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis[edit]

  • Am I the only one to find it strange to have a photograph of Mrs. Chastain, where she looks off-page, in the infobox? I'd pick one where she looks to the left...
This is probably the highest quality picture of her on Commons, but having said that, I wouldn't mind a change if there's an equally good image of her facing left? Do you have any in mind? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "She played the eponymous protagonist in Miss Julie, a film adaptation of August Strindberg's 1888 play of the same name, from director Liv Ullmann." → by director/directed by
  • I also find it a bit stultifying to only have a dismissive review from the tabloid Hollywood Reporter of that very fine picture. The movie was lauded in serious publications like Reverse Shot and Sight & Sound
I tried to reflect the mostly mixed response that the film received in general. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Changed that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise support. Gertanis (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the support, Gertanis. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

I confess that I wasn't clear on who she was from her name, but I do remember her character in Mama and have Crimson Peak on DVD (but haven't gotten to it yet)... Then there are several others I definitely intend to see at some point... Happy to take a look.

  • "Chastain would regularly put up amateur shows with other children" Put up? I'd say put on. Is this a British-American thing?
Changed.
  • Is "adult diploma" a common term?
Added a wiki link.
  • What are "neurotic roles"?
Well, she was typecast in roles in "psychotic roles". Changed to "neurotic characters". Is that better?
  • "which marked her final guest star role in television" Is that in the source?
Nope, removed.
  • "Chastain received her first Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress," I assume you mean to say that this was her first Oscar nomination, and it was for Best Supporting Actress. This is not really what is claimed at the moment
Well, first Oscar nomination, and by virtue, first in the supporting category. Tweaked a bit.
  • "documentary based on her play Salome" her play? What do mean by this?
Based on the production of Salome that she worked on in 2006, as mentioned in the previous section. Tweaked.
  • "the film ranks as her highest-grossing release" Does the source say this?
Added another source.
  • I wonder whether "enhanced interrogation" should appear in scarequotes?
Done.
  • "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone reviewed, "Chastain is a marvel." Can you use reviewed like that?
The usage is quite common IMO.
  • "production budget of $165 million, the high-profile production" Repetition
Tweaked.
  • "She was cast as McConaughey's adult daughter, a role she shared with Mackenzie Foy and Ellen Burstyn; she was drawn to the project for the emotional heft she found in the father-daughter pair" This needs work: both shes are unclear; she didn't play McConaughey's daughter, but McConaughey's character's daughter; and I'm struggling to understand the way in which she shared the role.
Tweaked, and removed the extra info. Not really that important, I guess.
  • "to become Chastain's highest-grossing live-action film" Is this in the source?
Added another source.
  • "in which the city had the highest crime rate" More needed. Worldwide? In the US? In its own history?
In its own history. Added a wiki link to make it a bit clearer.
  • "a small heating-oil company owner" Could small be dropped? It sounds like the owner is small, not the company...
Haha, yes, Removed.
  • "the film became her second top-grossing film in two years" As above
Tweaked.

Down to the end of 2014–2015: Success in science fiction films, and I am stopping there for now. The article reads very well, and I look forward to coming back to it tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Josh Milburn. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, continuing:

  • "whose abilities were on par with the male lead" That should be "with those of the male lead's character", but I appreciate that's a little wordy, so maybe you can come up with a better alternative
Tweaked to "lead male character".
  • "George and Tammy,[125] will appear in Patrick Brice's comedy film Plus One, with Cecily Strong,[126] and will produce and star as the superhero Painkiller Jane in a film of the same name" You have three high-profile films without wikilinks, here; could you add them? Don't be scared of redlinks if the films are notable. (Also, she won't produce the superhero; she'll produce the film.)
Since these three films haven't begun filming yet (and hence don't have their own articles), I guess it'd be better to link them when filming begins.
  • "alternate sexual and gender identities overcome their insecurities" Is "alternate" really the right word? "minority", perhaps? And I'd drop their. (I think that paragraph could do with a few more wikilinks, too!)
"Alternate" is the better word IMO. Provided wiki links for sexual and gender identities.
  • "Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, InStyle magazine published in 2015 that "she’s an adult, which isn't always a given in Hollywood. Unconsciously candid with her answers, she retains a sense of perspective uncommon among her peers and has real opinions"; in addition, the magazine credited her for being the rare actress who is "all bout the craft".[43]" I think you need to check that footnote/reference; something's going very wrong. Also, I'm not really keen on the way you use published, and nor am I keen on the personification of the magazine like that.
Tweaked.
  • "From 2012 to 2014 she was featured in AskMen's listing of the most desirable women,[150] and in 2015, Glamour magazine ranked her as one of the best-dressed women.[151]" Worldwide?
From the looks of it, they feature women working/living in the US or UK, but neither source states that explicitly.

A very well-put-together article. I'm very glad to have read it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the kind words, J Milburn. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@J Milburn: just a gentle reminder. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; please ping me again in a week if I haven't gotten back to this. Things are pretty busy at the moment. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@J Milburn: as directed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Many apologies. Taking another look through:

  • "an Academy Award nomination. In 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty" I think the links here are a little deceptive. You say her "second" Oscar, but the word "Oscar" is yet to appear (not everyone knows that Oscar=Academy Award!), and the article linked to refers to an award for which she had not previously been nominated.
  • "She first developed an interest in acting at the age of seven, after her grandmother took her to a production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.[3] Chastain would regularly put on amateur shows with other children, and considered herself to be their artistic director.[8]" A thought: Would this not fit better at the start of the paragraph, to keep chronology?
  • "to become Chastain's most widely seen film to that point" Does your source say this?
  • "alternate sexual and gender identities overcome insecurities" I note again that I don't really like alternate, but I'll leave that up to you.
Done, but not really sure about the final comment. I am not fond of "minority", so "alternate"/"alternative" seem to be the best option as of now, unless someone can come up with a better word. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a really great article; one of the best BLPs of a "celebrity" that I've read on Wikipedia. So, with the caveat that I've not looked into sourcing/images and will be watching this review for anything I've missed, I'm happy to support the promotion of this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

That's such a lovely thing to hear, J Milburn. Thank you so much for such a positive review, and I hope this prompts you to check out more of Chastain's work, especially my favourites: The Debt, The Help, Zero Dark Thirty, The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby, Interstellar, and Miss Sloane. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from John[edit]

It's looking pretty good. I think there are still too many quotations in it (I make it 40 at present). Can some be summarised? --John (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I've paraphrased/trimmed some of the quotes. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@John: just a gentle reminder. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, and thank you for the edits. I would trim them a little further. I should have time to look properly again tomorrow. --John (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Any suggestions? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry this has taken a while. Right. Here's what we have now. I'll do it section by section.

Early life and background

  • She considers her stepfather to be "one of the greatest people" she knows, and has said that he was the first person to make her feel secure. I suggest this could just read She has said her stepfather was the first person to make her feel secure.
  • She has said, "I used to cut school to read Shakespeare, not to make out in the park". She has described how she used to miss school to read Shakespeare.
  • "artistic director" Just remove the quotes here I think.
  • Speaking about her childhood, Chastain has said:

I [grew up] with a single mother who worked very hard to put food on our table. We did not have money. There were many nights when we had to go to sleep without eating, it was a very difficult upbringing. Things weren’t easy for me growing up. Leave this one.

  • In her first year at the school, Chastain described herself as "a wreck of anxiety"; she constantly worried about being dropped from the program and spent most of her time reading and watching movies. In her first year at the school, Chastain was worried about being dropped from the program and spent most of her time reading and watching movies.

2004–2010: Early roles

  • She initially found the process difficult, remarking that "being a redhead and not having very conventionally modern looks, it was confusing for people and they didn't know exactly where to put me". She initially found the process difficult, which she blamed on other people finding her difficult to categorise as a redhead with an unconventional look.
  • She said, "I played a lot of girls who had something off. Maybe they'd been the victim of some horrible accident. Or they were crazy." She played unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill.
  • Her performance was not well received by the critic Ben Brantley of The New York Times, who thought that she "somehow seems to keep losing color as the evening progresses" Keep.
  • Writing for Variety, the critic Steven Oxman criticized her portrayal in the play: "Chastain is so ill-at-ease with Salome, not quite certain whether she's a capable seductress or a whiny, wealthy brat; she doesn't flesh out either choice". Keep.
  • Writing for The New Yorker, Hilton Als commended Chastain for finding "a beautiful maternal depth in Desdemona". Hilton Als in The New Yorker commended Chastain for finding "a beautiful maternal depth" in the role.
  • William Thomas of Empire termed the film a "smart, tense, well-acted thriller" and noted that Chastain "pulses with strength and vulnerability" in her part. Keep.

More to come. --John (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@John: Done, except for that small quote mentioning Shakespeare, which I believe should stay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
That's fine. Thanks for that. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I've actually come back to this one, I'm afraid. I don't think we can have the wikilink in the quote as we discussed, and I'm not sure how good a source Marie Claire is for such a quote. Could we reconsider summarising it? --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

2011: Breakthrough

  • She considered her part to be "the embodiment of grace and the spirit world"; in preparation, she practiced meditation, studied paintings of the Madonna, and read poems by Thomas Aquinas. Keep, I suppose.
  • Justin Chang of Variety termed the film a "hymn to the glory of creation, an exploratory, often mystifying [...] poem" and credited Chastain for playing her part with "heartrending vulnerability". Keep.
  • Chastain was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand and connected with her "zest and love for life"; ... Chastain was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand and connected with her energy and enthusiasm.

2012–2013: Rise to prominence

  • The film received generally positive reviews from critics, with Richard Corliss finding Chastain to be filled with "poised, seductive gravity". Keep.
  • Brantley was disappointed with Chastain's performance, writing that "curiously for an expert film actress, she is guilty here of oversignaling the thoughts within. And her delivery of dialogue sometimes has a flatness that I associate with cold readings of scripts." Brantley was disappointed with Chastain's performance, saying that she was "oversignaling the thoughts within" and that her delivery was sometimes flat.
  • The difficult subject matter made it unpleasant for Chastain to film, and she later considered it as "the worst experience" of her life. The difficult subject matter made it unpleasant for Chastain to film.
  • She suffered from depression while working and said, "[one day] I excused myself, walked off set and burst into tears". She suffered from depression while working and once walked off the set because she was unable to continue.
  • Peter Travers of Rolling Stone thought that Chastain played Maya "like a gathering storm in an indelible, implosive performance that cuts so deep we can feel her nerve endings." Leave. The good quotes like this will stand out more when we trim and summarise the humdrum ones.

2014–2015: Success in science fiction films

  • The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney thought that the production lacked relevance despite Chastain's "nuanced work". The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney thought that the film lacked relevance despite the subtlety of Chastain's performance.
  • Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix found the film to be "ambitious and amazing" and took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part. Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix praised the film and noted how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part.
  • ...and Mark Kermode, writing for The Guardian, found Chastain to be "terrific" in a part inspired by Lady Macbeth's character. Fine.
  • Del Toro cast her in the film to lend accessibility to a part he considered "psychopathic", but critic Peter Debruge of Variety found her "alarmingly miscast" and criticised her for failing to effectively convey her character's insecurity and ruthlessness. Fine.

2016–present -

Personal life and off-screen work

  • She considers herself to be a "shy" person, and describing her routine in 2011, she said, "I walk the dogs, I play the ukulele, I cook. I’m not a girl who goes to big parties". She considers herself to be a "shy" person, and said in 2011 that she enjoyed domestic routines like dog-walking and playing ukulele rather than partying.
  • Among other issues, she is vocal in her support for equal pay in the workplace: "I think people know, if they’re going to hire me I’m not going to just be grateful. There have been situations where I have lost movies because I’ve said, this is not a fair deal, and I’ve walked away." She strongly supports equal pay in the workplace, and has rejected offers of work that she thought were unfair.
  • Having suffered through the suicide of her sister, Chastain aims to create awareness on depression, saying, "If I can do anything to help someone move through any darkness that they’re in, I’m gonna do whatever I can to help" Having suffered through the suicide of her sister, Chastain aims to create awareness on depression and support sufferers.

Media image and acting style

  • Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, Roy Porter of InStyle magazine wrote in 2015 that "she’s an adult, which isn't always a given in Hollywood. Unconsciously candid with her answers, she retains a sense of perspective uncommon among her peers and has real opinions"; in addition, Porter credited her for being the rare actress who is "all about the craft". Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, Roy Porter of InStyle magazine wrote in 2015 that she was mature, candid, and had perspective and craft in her work.
I think this is a good quote. Paraphrasing makes us lose the essence of it. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Evgenia Peretz, an editor at Vanity Fair, considers Chastain to be "the most sensitive and empathetic actor" she has interviewed. Fine.
  • She believes in extensive preparations for a role: "[I] fill myself up with as much history of the character as I can". She believes in extensive preparations for a role and studies the characters intensively. Is this even worth saying about a professional actor though?
I think she's talking about creating her own "history" for the character she plays, as opposed to simply "studying" the character intensively. This should stay IMO, unless there's a better way to paraphrase this. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Guillermo del Toro (who directed her in Crimson Peak) believes that she is "interested in being chameleonic" and that she brings authenticity even to bizarre situations. Fine.
  • Sarah Karmali of Harper's Bazaar opines that "she goes for total immersion, sinking so deep into character that her face seems to change shape with each one".
  • Lea Goldman of Marie Claire compares her craft to that of actresses Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett and believes that her "looks are always an afterthought". Lea Goldman of Marie Claire compares her to Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett, and writes that she values her craft over her looks.
  • Vogue has described Chastain as being "excessively luscious [with] pale Botticelli features wrapped around a bone structure that has a touch of the masculine, right down to the cleft in her chin". Keep.

Acting credits and awards -

It should go without saying that some of these summaries could potentially be further improved; think of them as a starting point. But we need to summarise rather than quote where we can, that way the article is more readable and encyclopedic and the quotes we do use stand out more. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@John: I've paraphrased the quotes per your suggestions, with some minor tweaks. Thank you for taking the time out to do this, John. Your suggestions have vastly improved the article. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Prose

  • Her highest-grossing releases came with the science-fiction films Interstellar (2014) and The Martian (2015), as she continued to draw praise for her performances in the dramas The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby (2013), A Most Violent Year (2014), and Miss Sloane (2016). The chronology makes this sentence confusing and arguably self-contradictory.
I don't think so. The "as she continued..." part makes it clear that both "events" took place simultaneously. I don't see why it's confusing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's the "as" that I struggle with. Could we replace it with "and" or even just a semi-colon? John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Changed to "and". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Her sister Juliet committed suicide in 2003 following years of drug abuse. "Committed suicide" sounds wrong here; was it a crime where she did it? "Killed herself" is better but maybe "took a fatal overdose" (if that was the MO, haven't checked)? "Following years of drug abuse" is a bit tabloidy too.
I can say died by suicide though, if that's acceptable. The details of the suicide aren't known, but the "years of drug abuse", while sounding tabloidy, is true, per the provided source and some other interviews that Chastain has given. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
That would be much preferable, thank you. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • With too many absences during her senior year in school, Chastain did not qualify for graduation, but eventually obtained an adult diploma. What does "eventually" mean? A date would be better I think.
Exact year is not known, so we need to go with "later"/"eventually". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I might prefer "later" as being more NPOV; "eventually" sounds like a criticism. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Directed by P. J. Hogan, the pilot did not perform well and the series was never picked up for broadcast. Per User:EEng/Principle of Some Astonishment, we could credit our readers with intelligence and just say: The pilot was directed by P. J. Hogan, but the series was never picked up for broadcast.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Later that year, she appeared as a guest performer on the medical drama series ER, playing a woman she described as "psychotic", which led to more neurotic characters for her. She played unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill. Later that year, she appeared as a guest performer on the medical drama series ER, playing a woman she described as "psychotic", which led to her getting more unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill.
Done.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • After struggling for a breakthrough in film, Chastain had six releases in 2011, getting wide recognition for her roles in several of them. Chastain had six releases in 2011, getting wide recognition for her roles in several of them.
Useful to note the "struggling for a breakthrough" bit, because she did struggle for a breakthrough since 2004. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems self-evident from reading the preceding part of the article and the section title. I'm not sure we need to state it. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Better to IMO. Some might say why does the header say breakthrough when there is no mention of it in the text? I've heard such complaints in previous FACs. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Following several delays, the film premiered at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival to a polarized reception from the audience, although it was praised by critics and won the Palme d'Or. "A polarized reception from the audience" sounds euphemistic; if the source talks about cheering and booing, we should say so.
Not euphemistic at all. When a film receives good and bad reviews, we say it received "mixed" reviews; if an audience reacts with cheers and boos, then it represents a "polarised reception". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. Let me think some more about this. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Chastain was cast as Maya, an emotionally hardened CIA intelligence analyst who helped capture bin Laden. Captured? I'm pretty sure he was killed and, though I haven't seen the film, I'm pretty sure he is killed in the film.
Captured and killed, yes, of course. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Just killed, not captured. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Zero Dark Thirty received critical acclaim but was controversial for scenes of "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were shown providing useful intelligence in the search for bin Laden. I don't like the scare quotes. Our article enhanced interrogation techniques correctly says this was a euphemism for torture, and we should call it what it is. More importantly, the controversy (as I understand it) was that the film's implication that the torture yielded useful intelligence was counter-factual. We should spell this out, without entering WP:COATRACK territory.
The quotes were inserted due to a previous reviewer's comment. Since the article on torture is called "enhanced interrogation techniques" and not "torture techniques", I think we should go with that, even if it is a euphemism. (I remember this led to an edit war during the previous FAC; and this is the version that has remained stable since) Also, the fact that it may or may not have been counter-factual is up for debate; hence the controversy. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's called that, but the fact that it's a euphemism is noted in the article and it might be better to use a more neutral term. We should definitely not mention the controversy without explaining why it was controversial; it should be easy to source. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Changed to "torture" for now. Let's see if other's agree on this, as for explaining the controversy, it's way too complicated to describe in an actor's biography. The explanation is better suited in the film's article, so I've provided a wiki link to it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Still thinking about this. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The film received a limited theatrical release and was not widely seen. The film received a limited theatrical release.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In a highly positive review, Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part. Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part.
Why should I remove the highly positive part, when it was indeed a highly positive review for a much-admired film? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
User:EEng/Principle of Some Astonishment again. We're really saying the same thing twice here and there is no need. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • She collaborated with costume designer Kasia Walicka-Maimone to work on the character's wardrobe, and reached out to Armani for clothing of the period. ...and contacted Armani who provided her with clothing of the period.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Despite the character's misdeeds, Chastain approached the part with empathy, and in preparation read graveyard poetry and watched the films Rebecca (1940) and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? Chastain prepared by reading graveyard poetry and watching the films Rebecca (1940) and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?
"Despite the character's misdeeds, Chastain approached the part with empathy" is important to note. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree. Are we implying that she previously only played morally upstanding roles? Is there a source for that? It sounds like editorialising to me. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. It was a clear-cut villainous part on paper (the Hollywood idea of a vixen, if you may), and instead of approaching it as many do such roles, it's important to note that she played the part with empathy. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The source has: Though Lucille is ostensibly the film's villain, Chastain approached the character from a place of profound empathy, reading graveyard poetry and watching films like "Rebecca," "Misery" and "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" to get in the proper mind-set. "I'd never played anyone who was so intensely lonely," she said. "I don't see Lucille as a monster. I have compassion for how she became what she is." I'd like to see a more encyclopedic summary of this before I could support. An encyclopedia summarises the best quality sources. I stand by my version as opposed to what we have. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@John: i've tweaked it; don't know what else to do. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • ...headed by a team consisting exclusively of female executives. headed by a team of female executives.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • She also researched on the world... She also researched the world...
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • She was a pescatarian for much of her life, but following health troubles she began practicing veganism. She was a pescatarian for much of her life; following health troubles she began practicing veganism. This is not a "but" situation.
Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Vogue has described Chastain as being "excessively luscious [with] pale Botticelli features wrapped around a bone structure that has a touch of the masculine, right down to the cleft in her chin". We aren't supposed to wikilink inside a quotation. We could summarise this one and leave the link.
"We aren't supposed to wikilink inside a quotation". Could you please provide a link for this guideline? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:LINKSTYLE, fourth bullet point. And MoS compliance is a FA requirement.
Thanks for the link. Of course it is, I just wasn't aware of the wiki link in quotes rule. I'll keep it in mind now. :) Tweaked it according to the guideline. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2012. That same year, she was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was hired as the celebrity endorser for an Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto. In 2012, Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world, she was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and she endorsed an Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto. --John (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Too long. Tweaked a bit, though. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@John: thoughts? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Duly noted, Krimuk2.0. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@John: done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the edits. Just a few more to go and we'll be there. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources

@John: changed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. Does the Vogue source also support: "She has said that her stepfather was the first person to make her feel secure"? --John (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yep. The NYDN took the quote from there. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The source doesn't seem to back up The play tells the tragic story of its titular character's sexual exploration. In the play, Salome is a 16-year-old, but Chastain, who was close to 30 then, was cast for the part. --John (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@John: which part?; the source says: The original Salome was supposed to be about 16-years-old but Chastain, who was 32 at the time, does not think that her being twice Salome's age mattered in the casting. She said: "The play still shows the themes - it's a woman discovering her sexuality and trying to test its boundaries, it was a very dark, different play for Wilde to write compared to his other comedies." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's it. I think "32" would be better than "close to 30" in this case. --John (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, since she was born in 1977, she would have been 29 in 2006, and not 32 as the source states (which is weird, because they got her age at that time right; she was 37 in 2014). So I guess, close to 30 seems fair. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If there is no decent source capable of doing the simple calculation correctly, I think it would be OK to do the maths ourselves and give her age correctly as 29. It doesn't say much for this source though that they are unable to get something as simple as this right. --John (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
True, that. It is the BBC though, and the article does have some very good material. Anyway, I've changed it to 29. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice work. I've another nit to pick up above, though. --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
And I took out a "would" and moved the discussion of her birthplace to the footnote. Hope that's ok. --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
No, that's perfect. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I really did like the Shakespeare quote, but it's okay, I've taken it out. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the work and your collegiate spirit of compromise. I still wish we could take a couple more quotes out, but I reckon it's easily at FA level at this point. I therefore support. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, John. This has been a lovely experience. I'm much obliged for your help and patience in shaping the article to be the best that it can be. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we are nearly there now. Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need an image review. Also, while John has looked at the reliability of sources, I think we still need a check of source formatting, these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Requested. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Image review:
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've improved the alt text for the second image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

German destroyer Z39[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a German destroyer made under Plan Z, which served two years in the Kriegsmarine, before being used for experiments by the US, and later as a pontoon by France. I believe it meets all the criteria, even though it is a bit short for a FAC article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • There is one Z39 image in the article. It is well-relevant, has no copyright issues, ALT text, and no issues whatsoever, it is good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review = spotchecks not done

  • Further reading should be a separate section
     Done
  • Ordered date differs between infobox and text, and for a couple of other dates the text is unclear - captured, and commissioned by the French. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
     Done I have removed the unclear dates, as its not clear that they were actually done on those dates. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Do you have any further comments? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
    No, sourcing otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • the yard number "G629" is not mentioned in the body and is therefore uncited in the infobox

 Done

  • "After the modifications, she carried 14 2 cm" --> "After the modifications, she carried fourteen 2 cm" (to aid readability)

 Done

  • "between 13–26 April" --> "between 13 and 26 April" per MOS:DASH (please check for similar constructions)

 Done

  • same as above with "from 13–14 April" --> "from 13 to 14 April"

 Done

  • "British Air Force" --> "British Royal Air Force" (proper name) or "British air force" (common name)

 Done

  • there is a mixture of British and US English spelling, for instance "Draught" and "Harbor"

 Done, I believe I have changed all to British spelling. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • "where Schlesien was deliberately grounded her" (typo: "her")

 Done

Comments from Ranger Steve[edit]

Sorry, but it's an oppose from me. Additionally, and I know this will appear harsh, but I'd suggest considering withdrawing this nomination so that it can be improved. I only say this because I feel it is far from complete and FAs aren't the place to make major changes. What's there is good, but what's missing is, in my opinion, quite a lot.

My principal problem is that this article is far too brief in its coverage. You mention above that the destroyer was part of Plan Z, but even that isn't in the article. Per the FA criteria, specifically 1B (comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context), I would expect to see a comprehensive background section, this would obviously include a summary of summary of Plan Z, but I would also expect to see some information on German destroyer use prior to Z39's commissioning and their high attrition rates. The cause of the lengthy construction times is relevant as well, as it is alluded to briefly in the article, but not explained. By the time Z39 entered service, fuel shortages were acute and training was poor (Z39's crew even took training voyages to teach seamanship in Jan '45); these are factors I'd expect to see in more detail in the service history section. Additionally, the impact of these factors and the course of the war in the Baltic and how they ultimately affected the employment of the destroyers (ie. how Z39 came to be principally a minelayer and not a combat vessel) should be in there for context. Somewhere, Project Barbara should be explained as well; why it was felt necessary and the extent of modifications made (Z39 received a full Barbara refit, others did not). Although there's plenty of detail about the voyages made in support of Operation Hannibal, there's no explanation of the evacuation of East Prussia and Courland - not even a link to the articles.

I'm also concerned that, partially through this lack of context, the service history reads as a list of short sentences listing dates and summary events, this is particularly true here: "On 25 March, Z39 finished repairs, while in Swinemünde, and resumed operations on 1 April. From 5 April to 7 April, she escorted transports and parts of Task Force Thiele around the Bay of Danzig.[18] From 8 April to 9 April, she provided naval gunfire support for the German army.[24] On 10 April she and T33 escorted the German destroyer Z43, which had sustained damage from both mines and bombs,[25] to Warnemünde and Swinemünde.[26] On 15 April German destroyers Z5, Z34, and Z39, German minelayers T23, T28, T33, and T36 escort German steamships Matthias Stinnes, Eberhart Essberger, Pretoria and Askari to Copenhagen, with a total of 20,000 refugees.[25] On 2 May she shelled Soviet Army forces from the Oder estuary. On 3 May she, alongside the battleship Schlesien, moved to protect the bridge across the Peene river at Wolgast." For this reason I feel it fails FA Criteria 1A.

I'm sorry, I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult, but you're right, this is short for an FAC and I feel that's because so much is missing that could and should be there. Regards Ranger Steve Talk 18:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Shout[edit]

Nominator(s): Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been a little while since my last FAC, but I think this one is up to scratch. Shout was a New Zealand-born soldier and Australian Victoria Cross recipient of the First World War. Commissioned into the AIF not long after its formation, Shout took part in the Gallipoli invasion on 25 April 1915, was awarded the Military Cross for his "conspicuous courage and ability" over the next two days, and soon after Mentioned in Despatches. His VC was posthumously awarded for his actions at Lone Pine in August 1915 – after Ottoman forces had recaptured a section of trench, Shout twice led small parties of men to clear them out, he was mortally wounded when a bomb he was throwing exploded prematurely. Shout was the most highly decorated man in the AIF at Gallipoli, and his VC sold for a world record auction price in 2006, the article was listed as GA some months ago and recently passed a WP:MILHIST A-Class review. Any and all comments welcome, and much appreciated. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian -- recusing from coord duties; good to see you back, Bryce!

  • Copyedited so let me know any issues; outstanding points:
    • Shout "assisted greatly" in maintaining the position of his men... brought him back "to a place of safety"... As a result of his "great courage" -- if we use quotes I think they should be attributed inline; as it is we don't know if it's the author of the work speaking or an official despatch or something else.
Have tweaked this – let me know what you think.
    • having "served with distinction" during his time in South Africa -- as above.
Will get back to you on this one, as there is something I would like to double check with the sources.
Have cut this one – it was not really vital, and there seemed no smooth way of attributing the quote to Snelling.
    • the couple had a daughter named Florence Agnes Maud on 11 June that year -- not a biggie but I don't think we generally name children unless notable in themselves, nor worry about their exact birthdates.
Have cut the middle names and specific date of birth, but as Florence was Shout's only child I think the name and month is worth retaining.
    • Following the outbreak of the First World War, Shout applied for a commission in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 18 August 1914 for active service overseas. -- I think this sentence has one clause too many for comfort; suggest you lose either "Following the outbreak of the First World War" given the section header, or "for active service overseas" since you explain the purpose of the AIF next sentence.
Have cut the latter.
    • the "impregnable" Ottoman position at Lone Pine -- I seem to recall from my readings that it was generally considered so therefore perhaps not appropropriate to attribute to this particular source but simply to paraphrase in some fashion.
Done.
    • "bitter, savage fighting" over the next three days, predominantly in the form of "deadly bombing duels" -- since the quotes don't relate directly to Shout, I wonder if rather than attributing the first one we could just try paraphrasing; I think "deadly bombing duels" would be worth retaining if attributed.
Done.
    • Shout was fighting with "splendid gaiety" throughout the assault, "laughing and joking and cheering his men on" -- probably worth retaining the quotes with attribution.
Done – let me know what you think.
    • he remained cheerful, "drank tea and sent a message to his wife" -- if only one of the cited sources described him as cheerful I think worth attributing that, as well as the quote.
Ditto.
    • Shout was evacuated from the Gallipoli Peninsula to the hospital ship Euralia shortly afterwards. -- given this is the start of a new section, I think "shortly afterwards" needs clarification; shortly after he was wounded I assume?
Clarified.
    • Although Sasse's Sap "was never wholly regained" -- I think preferable to just paraphrase this one; we need to guard against the article becoming a quote farm.
Done.
  • Structure is straightforward and level of detail seems appropriate.
  • I'll try and look over images and referencing at some stage, if no-one beats me to it.

Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Ian! Much appreciated. The following are my edits: [39]. Will get back to you on the second point asap. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ian Rose. Just wanted to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Support and image review by PM I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and could find little to comment on then, I've had a look at the above improvements, and believe it currently meets the FA criteria. I also checked the image licensing during ACR and they are all fine. Great job on this article and welcome back to FAC! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Peacemaker! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Okay, we have a problem with the use of the "record search" from the National Archives of Australia. These are all primary sources. And it's an 83 page file but all sorts of things are cited to the entire file. I'm pretty sure there are some problems with interpretation of the primary sources going on here - but I'm not going to freaking scroll through the entire slowly loading 83 page file trying to figure out which of the 83 pages (that take forever to load) supports each tiny bit of information, each bit of information should be sourced at the least to a page range, but ideally to an individual page.
  • Actually I have to agree here regarding closer citation. When I've used NAA records, I tend to cite the page (as defined by NAA) or a narrow range where the information comes from across a couple of pages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, will differentiate between cites. However, I will not get a chance to do so until at least this evening. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • there is no rush. To be honest, I probably won't have a great deal of time to get back to it before Monday or Tuesday Ealdgyth - Talk 02:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries – I'll let you know as soon as I am done, but it should be before then. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A lot of these sources are primary sources - embarkation rolls, the various bits of paperwork in the archival records, the Gazette mentions, etc. The extensive use of primary sources concerns me - we should be relying on secondary sources not primary. It's entirely too easy to slip into interpreting the primary sources - can none of these details be cited to secondary works instead?
  • This has not been a problem in the past, as the sources have not been 'interpreted' to make an argument. Rather, in almost every case they have been used alongside secondary sources to provide slight additional detail, such as a specific date. Indeed, the embarkation roll is backed up by Snelling and, while all of Shout's awards can be verified by basically any of the secondary sources used here, the London Gazette provides the date of announcement and a complete and accurate rendering of his VC citation (though this does appear in Staunton and others too). Further, as every single one of the records are freely accessible and available online, there is not really a verifiability issue (excepting perhaps the above, which will be addressed shortly). To be honest, you'd be hard pressed to find an FA-level article on an Australian military figure that does not use similar sourcing, as for the London Gazette, this article features just four entries – compare this case to Richard Dannatt and Donald Hardman (both FAs, the latter promoted just last month), which make use of dozens, though in a similar method for a similar reason. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it isn't clear from the way you reference what the additional details ARE. An example: "Information on Alfred Shout's early life is rather scant, and the details differ between sources, it is believed that he was privately educated in his youth and," is sourced to the records search (page 1) AND to Snelling. What part of the two sentences comes from the records search? There IS interpretation in this sentence - is Snelling supporting the first bit? Even if the records search is just supporting the "privately educated" ... that phrase is actually "it is believed" which is interpreting the primary source document (which is emphatic about him being privately educated on page 1). Another example: "He then joined the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop, and served with the unit until the Boer War ended in 1902." ... which is sourced to three sources: the records search which says that he served in the "Border Horse 1900-2 (Sgt)", to this source which says "Records suggest that he also served with the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop." and then this source which says "He was in South Africa when, as an eighteen year old, he joined the Border Horse and later served with the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop and the Cape Colonial Forces." None of these actually support the sentence "He then joined the Stellenbosch District Mounted Troop, and served with the unit until the Boer War ended in 1902." ... what is actually happening here is that the three sources are being combined together like a historian would to come up with a synthesized statement that isn't supported by the sources.
  • Clarified and substituted for more definitive source. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's another "Following the outbreak of the First World War, Shout applied for a commission in the newly raised Australian Imperial Force (AIF) on 18 August 1914." is sourced to the page 1 of the records search. But nothing on that page says anything about "following the outbreak of World War I" or that the Australian Imperial Force was "newly raised".
  • Arguably common enough not to warrant a further cite, but have added one in. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Another "On 11 May, he was wounded once again, suffering a second gunshot to his arm. He was evacuated to the hospital ship HMHS Gascon but, having recovered sufficiently, rejoined his unit fifteen days later." - this is mostly supported by the source but it puts in details not covered by the primary source - the fact that HMHS is a hospital ship, that he was evacuated to the ship. Nor does the source explicitly state that the reason he returned to his unit was that he had recovered. We can assume that but it's not expressly stated.
  • Clarified and added additional cite. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • A last example: this source is given as the source for "Shout was also posthumously issued the 1914–15 Star, British War Medal, and Victory Medal for his service during the First World War." but nothing in that record states whether it was posthumous or not. It just says he was awarded these awards in addition to the VC.
  • This information is covered on pages 28 and 83 – the medals were not issued until 1921. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to be a pain here, but it's difficult to use primary sources in wikipedia because it is so tempting to interpret them or add information that included in them. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations - the things it's flagging up are the long quote from the citation for the VC, which is properly quoted and attributed.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, Ealdgyth! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth. Just wanted to check whether your comments above have been satisfactorily addressed? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done, as always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and tweaks, Dank! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Rotating locomotion in living systems[edit]

Nominator(s): —swpbT 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This is my first FA nomination, and what I think is a rather interesting topic, the article has had a peer review by User:Dunkleosteus77 (here), and a thorough mentor review by User:Brianboulton (here). I will do my best to respond to review comments as quickly as possible. Thank you to all reviewers. —swpbT 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Mentor's comment: I was not involved in the general preparation of the article, which was already a GA when I offered to act. My role has been to help it bridge that important gap between GA and FA, the article is original and interesting, and I'm satisfied that it holds up well when tested against the FA criteria. I look forward to reading reviewers' comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Consistency review from Gertanis[edit]

  • Be consistent in whether you write "The University of Chicago Press" or "University of Chicago Press"
  • Same goes for shortened page ranges (we have both '182–184' and '167–91')
  • Ditto inclusion of publisher locations

That's the only inconsistencies I spotted. Well done! Gertanis (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've gotten those fixed up. Thanks! —swpbT 20:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Wheeled_animal_-_East_Mexico_cultures_-_Ethnological_Museum,_Berlin_-_DSC00852.JPG: the description states that the artwork is PD because artist died over 70 years ago - to my knowledge Mexico has never used that rule. Should include an explicit tag.
  • File:Fitness-landscape-cartoon.png: what is the source of the data used in this image?
  • File:Buer.gif needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I've fixed the tagging on the Mexican toy and Buer images. The fitness landscape image is notional – the curve is an arbitrary example with peaks and valleys to illustrate the concept of optimization via an evolutionary process; there is no data corresponding to the depicted function. —swpbT 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

This is professionally written, clear, and very interesting. I'm what you might call a lay reader with no special knowledge of biology, thus I can't say much about the more technical aspects of the article. I have a very small number of suggestions.
Rolling
  • ¶2 "Several species of elongate organisms will form their bodies into a loop in order to roll..." – Delete "will" since present tense works just fine here.
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶3 "Tumbleweeds are the above-ground portions of certain plants, which separate from their root structure and roll in the wind to distribute their seeds." – Here I would move the modifying phrase to put it snug against the thing modified: "Tumbleweeds, which separate from their root structure and roll in the wind to distribute their seeds, are the above-ground portions of certain plants."
I've modified this sentence differently than suggested, because, WADR, I think the suggested change would be detrimental. The fact of rolling is the thrust of the sentence, and it carries the most impact at the end of the sentence. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I like your modification. Finetooth (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Rolling resistance
  • I think the illustration of rolling resistance could be made more clear. In the absence of labels, I assume "W" is weight, and "r" is radius. "N" is the reaction force, but perhaps F should be named or explained. The hash marks indicate a counterclockwise rotation for the wheel; the F arrow points left, and the hash marks indicate resistance to movement to the left. Would it be helpful to make the abbreviations and direction of rotation and linear movement more explicit in the caption?
I've added explicit explanation of the symbols used to the caption. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Obstacle navigation
  • The MOS advises against repetition in the article heads and subheads. For that reason, I'd trim the subheads in this section to "Going around" and "Going over."
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend
  • To avoid repetition, I'd tighten the head to "In fiction and legend" and let the subheads expand on the basic idea.
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
References
  • Some of the ISBNs (citations 22, 37, 40, 45, 51, 53, and perhaps others) are missing their hyphens. A converter lives here.
I've been told that ISBN-13 is preferable in all cases to ISBN-10, and that converter appears to only produce ISBN-10s. Do you (or anyone reading this) know of a converter that produces 13s, or are hyphenated 10s preferable to (partially) un-hyphenated 13s? —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah. A sly trick, not explained at the converter site, is to convert the unhyphenated 13 to a 10 and then plug the 10 in and convert it to a 13 with hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a sly trick! Done. —swpbT 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This is exceedingly nitpicky, but in most cases you use sentence case for article and book titles, but in some cases you use title case. You can use either, but consistency is good.
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
That's all. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
To Finetooth: Thanks for your review! I apologize for the delay in my reply; hence the ping. I've responded to each point above. —swpbT 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! —swpbT 12:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Interesting choice of topic....comments to follow..

  • I can't help feeling the Rolling section is on the brief side - and the isolated sentences make it choppy to read. If this section can be enlarged it'd be helpful. Particularly as it is highly pertinent to the subject matter.
  • I generally find little value in See also sections - for the most part, items are important enough to be discussed in the article body or too tangential to warrant a mention.

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

To Casliber: Thanks for your comments so far. In the Rolling section, I've expanded each of the short paragraphs. Re the "See also" section, are there particular entries you take issue with? I've added descriptions to clarify the relevance of entries, and I've tried to only include entries that fall into the sweet spot of being clearly related to the article topic, but not directly enough to be discussed in the body. There are two exceptions, Biologically inspired engineering and Terrestrial locomotion, that are linked in the body, but that I think are important enough to bear repeating at the end. I'm certainly open to revisiting any aspect of the section, particularly if there's concurrence from other reviewers. —swpbT 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • More specifically - I'd add to Rolling section - are all rolling animals doing so for defence/escape? Either adding that or noting exceptions would be good.
  • Adding some examples of species that make tumbleweeds

As noted in the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#.22See_also.22_section - "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." - i.e. it is sufficient if material is already covered in the article body, so Biologically inspired engineering and Terrestrial locomotion do not require links at the end

  • I find the link between this and astrobiology to be too tenuous to warrant a link, espeicially as the latter topic is all hypothetical anyway (and hence maybe covered in the fiction stuff anyway)
Ok. I've added species examples to the tumbleweeds paragraph, and I've removed the "see also" entries you mentioned, as for why animals roll, I think it's generally assumed that defense/escape is the main reason, but I don't think the necessary studies exist to say definitively that this is always the reason, or to delineate cases that may be exceptions. I will see what I can find in RS's that speaks to this, but it might not be much.
Why I am pushing for embellishing on the section is the article has a lot of why but not as much what as I'd like for balance, if you know what I mean, and hence reads a little more like an essay. But overall the writing is fine and is otherwise comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I've reworked the paragraph a bit to speak more to why animals roll themselves up, and in some cases away. —swpbT 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I do question your combining of rotifers and keratinocytes into a single paragraph, and moving them above tumbleweeds. These are two pretty distinct examples – one an organism that doesn't really roll, but appears to and has a name suggesting it does, and the other not an organism at all, but a cell type within a multicellular organism, that does roll. I would like to separate these again, and move them lower in the section, since, like dung beetles, they are not true examples of rolling organisms, but are related enough to bear mentioning. —swpbT 13:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah happy for the revert on that, was just trying to make para less choppy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Overall I think it is comprehensive and straddles the line between exactness of meaning and accessibility well. Nice read (and support). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —swpbT 12:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Seems very readable, have only time for a short comment now, more to follow:

  • "Other species adopt more spherical postures, primarily to protect their bodies from predators; this behavior has been seen in pangolins and wheel spiders (which have been observed to purposely roll away from predators),[5][7] as well as hedgehogs, armadillos, Armadillo girdled lizards, isopods, and fossilized trilobites." I'm not fully comfortable about the present tense describing the trilobites. I'm not sure their behavior has been seen by humans ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Good insight. I've revised "behavior" to "posture", as that can be directly observed in fossils by humans. Looking forward to your next comments; thanks for taking the time to review. —swpbT 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Estimates of the speed of rotation of the style in vivo vary significantly" the style?
"Style" is the technical name for this structure, from the same root as "stylus". —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution," Maybe development for evolution to avoid the repeat?
I've reworded the sentence a different way; "development" is used elsewhere in the article in the sense of embryological development, and I don't want to introduce confusion with that meaning. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " (In species of the genus Vibrio, ..." I might delete the parentheses. Some minor modifications to text might be needed.
I don't know, I think the parentheses are a useful way of showing that this sentence only has tangential relevance – it expands on the content of the previous sentence in a way that may interest some readers, but is not integral to the main thrust of the paragraph. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "wheels are not especially efficient on soft terrain such as soils," I might say soil, not soils.
Changed as suggested. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • " The primary means of obstacle navigation are to go around obstacles and to go over them; each has its attendant challenges." While I don't think what you're saying here is particularly controversial, I would cite it.
I've cited the "each has its attendant challenges" bit with the major sources used further down in the section. The first part of the sentence I argue falls under WP:BLUE. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Without articulation, this can be an impossible position from which to recover." ditto.
I've spent some time trying to find a way to reasonably source this, but I tend to think it also falls under WP:BLUE – this is just saying that there can be a vehicle which, when flipped over, can't right itself by just spinning its wheels, which describes almost all wheeled vehicles in existence. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That's it. Very interesting and well written, it certainly is a novelty.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the complements! I've replied point-by-point above; I'm happy to revisit any concern until you're satisfied. —swpbT 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Support Looks good. I don't have any great concern over that material, it is simple stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review and spot check by Sarastro1[edit]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, as this would be the nominator's first FA, we would require the usual spot-checks of sourcing for accurate use and close-paraphrasing; however, if Brian looked at this during the preparation, we would be OK on that count I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

My comments on sourcing are contained within the peer review, here. I didn't do any spot-checks. So a sources review with spot-checks is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review: All sources high quality, reliable and appropriately formatted. Earwig looks fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Spot check: As this would be the nominator's first FA, a spot-check is needed. No problems with copyvio or close paraphrasing. I chose five references and checked the text for which they were cited was supported by the reference. One issue, but the rest fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • "Although stiff wheels are more energy efficient than other means of locomotion when traveling over hard, level terrain (such as paved roads), wheels are not especially efficient on soft terrain such as soil, because they are vulnerable to rolling resistance. In rolling resistance, a vehicle loses energy to the deformation of its wheels and the surface on which they are rolling. Smaller wheels are especially susceptible to the effect": Checks out OK.
  • "Limbs used by animals for locomotion over terrain are frequently also used for other purposes, such as grasping, manipulating, climbing, branch-swinging, swimming, digging, jumping, throwing, kicking, and grooming. With a lack of articulation, wheels would not be as useful as limbs in these roles": Checks out OK.
  • "Because of this limitation, wheels intended for rough terrain require a larger diameter": Checks out OK.
  • "The processes of evolution, as they are presently understood, can help explain why wheeled locomotion has not evolved in multicellular organisms: simply put, a complex structure or system will not evolve if its incomplete form provides no benefit to the organism": Checks out OK.
  • "The Dutch graphic artist M. C. Escher illustrated a rolling creature of his own invention in a 1951 lithograph”: Checks out ok. However, as a matter of interest, how was this list of artists chosen? Is it in a source, or was it just chosen?
  • One problem: "In typical mechanical systems, some type of bearing and/or lubricant must be used to reduce friction at the interface between two components. Reducing friction is vital for minimizing wear on components and preventing overheating, as the relative speed of the components rises, and as the contact force between them increases, the importance of friction mitigation increases. In biological joints such as the human knee, friction is reduced by means of cartilage with a very low friction coefficient, as well as lubricating synovial fluid, which has very low viscosity." This isn't in the source cited (unless I've missed it) and I think it needs referencing. (The end of the paragraph, "Gerhard Scholtz of Humboldt University of Berlin asserts that a similar secreted lubricant or dead cellular material could allow a biological wheel to rotate freely", is in the given source.) Sarastro1 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I've revised and added three new citations to the paragraph on friction that should address the gaps there. As to the artists in the "fiction and legend" section, the list did not come from a particular source, but is essentially a complete list of the most notable occurrences of the trope, the main article Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend offers a few more examples that are a bit less noteworthy. —swpbT 16:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, did a few more spot checks and everything looks good to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Support from Brianboulton[edit]

As the article's mentor, my support might reasonably be assumed, but I have watched the article's progress carefully over the past few weeks, and am convinced that it it now satisfies the FA criteria fully. I hope this nominator will be emboldened by the experience to return to FAC with another article in the not too distant future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Deeply appreciated. —swpbT 15:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Tukwila International Boulevard station[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yet another transit FAC, to complement my ongoing tunnel one, this one involves the other end of Seattle's light rail system, with the third-to-last stop, an elevated station overlooking parking lots, suburban chain stores, and majestic mountains and hills. The station also boasts a pretty nice design, with a roof that is meant to evoke the wings of an airplane (it's only one stop from the airport). Was promoted to GA a few months ago and recently touched up. SounderBruce 05:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Most images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed the coordinates on the 2006 image. SounderBruce 20:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Passing comments from Vanamonde[edit]

  • I know very little about this subject, but just in passing, I find the diagram of the station layout somewhat confusing, because it suggests the northbound platform is above the southbound one (unless that is correct?) Also, forgive me for asking a pointed question, but isn't this your second solo nomination on this page? Vanamonde (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Vanamonde93: The platforms are arranged side-by-side on the same level (3rd floor of the station), above the mezzanine (2nd floor) and bus terminal (1st/ground floor). The diagram is pretty much the same as most other transit station ones, and the gray line dividers are meant to indicate a floor change, this becomes a bit more apparent in more complex stations like this NYC Subway station, where the levels are more clearly labeled.
    • As for the 2nd nomination issue...it seems I have mis-read the FAC guidelines and mistakenly thought that other users with multiple nominations were also going alone. I hope an FAC coordinator can clear up whether I should withdraw this one or not, given that my other FAC is one step away from closure. SounderBruce 05:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, I overlooked that this was a second solo nom when it was transcluded. Since your other nom is indeed near closure, and you've already attracted some commentary here, we'll leave things as is but in future pls note the FAC instructions, which state that second solo noms are not permitted without seeking leave from the coordinators. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I really like how this article is written. A few comments:

  • In "Location":
    • Second paragraph: "Within a 1⁄2 mile (0.80 km) radius of the station is a population of 4,155 residents in 2,332 housing units, of which 95 percent are considered "affordable". can be changed to A population of 4,155 residents live in 2,332 housing units within a 1⁄2 mile (0.80 km) radius of the station, of which 95 percent are considered "affordable". This is to fix clunky grammar.
      • Done.
    • Third para: "The city of Tukwila adopted an urban renewal plan for the area in 1998 and a comprehensive plan in 2015, both envisioning improved commercial access and additional residential units in the area around the station and on International Boulevard." can be changed to The city of Tukwila adopted two plans for the area: an urban renewal plan in 1998 and a comprehensive plan in 2015. Both envision improved commercial access and additional residential units in the area around the station and on International Boulevard.
      • Decided against having a sentence fragment there, and tweaked the wording. Is that alright?
  • In "History":
    • First para: "leading to a smaller proposal submitted to voters the following year by the RTA," → and as a result, the RTA submitted a smaller proposal to voters the following year.
      • Done.
    • Second para: "The RTA (renamed to Sound Transit)" → The RTA, by then renamed to Sound Transit,
      • Done.
    • Second para: "Ultimately, the board selected a light rail route in November 1999 including International Boulevard through Tukwila and an elevated station at South 154th Street with a park and ride facility." → Ultimately, the board selected a light rail route in November 1999. The route included International Boulevard through Tukwila and an elevated station at South 154th Street with a park and ride facility.
      • Done.
    • Sixth para: "The shuttle service was suspended after the opening of SeaTac/Airport station on December 19, 2009, replacing Tukwila as the new southern terminus of the line." → The shuttle service was suspended after the SeaTac/Airport station opened on December 19, 2009, replacing Tukwila as the new southern terminus of the line.
      • Also, if the shuttle was "suspended", this implies that it was later reinstated. Do you mean "discontinued"?
      • Fixed, and I did mean that it was discontinued. SounderBruce 03:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

More to come later. Good work so far. epicgenius (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I have to look over the rest of the article tomorrow, but I am impressed with the improvements made so far. epicgenius (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

More comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • In lead:
    • Paragraph 1: "It also includes 662 total parking spaces and functions as a park and ride, one of only two on the line." → As one of two park and rides along the line, it also includes a total of 662 parking spaces.
      • Done.
    • Paragraph 2: Downtown Seattle is linked twice. Remove the second link per WP:DUPLINKS
      • Done.
  • In "Station layout":
    • "Since 2013, 62 additional" → Since 2013, sixty-two additional per WP:NUMNOTES
      • Done.
  • In "Art":
    • Para 2, sentence 1: "Sculptor Tad Savinar has three works at the station's mezzanine and platform levels." → The station's mezzanine and platform levels contain three works by sculptor Tad Savinar. (I strongly suggest this because the current wording sounds weird. It sounds like the sculptor is claiming possession over the art, which technically is true because he owns the rights, but the artworks are physically in the station.)
      • Done.
    • Para 2, sentence 2: "... plants and animals; The Seattle Times called it a "regionally apt pop-art image" and praised its wittiness" → it would be better to rephrase to something like: ... plants and animals; it was praised by The Seattle Times, which called it a witty, "regionally apt pop-art image". Or you can write: a witty and "regionally apt pop-art image".
      • Done.
    • Para 4: "It was created by Christian French as part of the Stellar Connections series and its points represent nearby destinations ..." → Best to split in 2 sentences, or replace "and" with a semicolon, since these are two separate trains of thought: It was created by Christian French as part of the Stellar Connections series. Its points represent nearby destinations...
      • Done.
  • In "Services":
    • Not really nitpicking about this, but some of the links in this section are duplicates, including Seattle–Tacoma International Airport and Washington State Route 99. If you want to leave them to give the reader further context, it's fine.
      • Removed the links I found to be unnecessary.
    • Para 1: Replace the semicolon before "during regular weekday service" with a period: ... from 6:00 am to 12:00 am. During regular weekday service.
      • Done.
    • Para 2, first sentence: As this is a run-on sentence, replace the colon with a period after "... four bus routes, including two RapidRide lines, operated by King County Metro". Also, you would have to separate the rest of the sentence into two or four separate sentences to avoid writing another run-on sentence. So sample new sentences would read like this: Tukwila International Boulevard station is also served by four bus routes, including two RapidRide lines, operated by King County Metro. The RapidRide A Line terminates at the station and travels south along State Route 99 through SeaTac, the Highline College area and Federal Way to Federal Way Transit Center, the RapidRide F Line passes through the station on its route between Burien, Southcenter Mall and Renton. Route 124 terminates at the station and travels north through Tukwila, Georgetown and SoDo to Downtown Seattle. Finally, route 128 connects the station to West Seattle, White Center and Southcenter.
      • Regarding the sentence about the A Line: reword "SeaTac, the Highline College area and Federal Way to Federal Way Transit Center" → SeaTac, the Highline College area and Federal Way, ending at Federal Way Transit Center. Otherwise it sounds weird with "Federal Way to Federal Way Transit Center".
      • Both done.
    • Para 2, last sentence: "The routes use the plaza-level bus station under the station" → maybe replace the second instance of "station" with Link platforms or light rail platforms because that word is repeated in short succession: The routes use the plaza-level bus station under the Link platforms.
      • Done.

That's it for now. Once these concerns are resolved, I'll be happy to support. epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: All finished. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. I support this nomination. If possible, could you review my current FAC? (I totally understand if you don't want to do so.) epicgenius (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now:

The alignment would keep light rail off of International Boulevard - I'd remove the "of" here....
Done.
Budgetary problems with the Central Link light rail project lead to the shortening - you mean "led", right?
Done.
Not a fan of single-sentence paras in the Art section but concede it is tricky to rejig...
I merged the two short paragraphs together, since the pictogram generally represents the station as a whole.

Otherwise looks very comprehensive and prose is else ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: All finished. Thanks for your review. SounderBruce 21:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Sources are all of the appropriate quality, and all are formatted correctly. No deadlinks. I didn't think spotchecks were needed, but I'll be glad to do them if necessary. Otherwise, this looks good to go as far as sourcing is concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919[edit]

Overall this seems like a solid, readable article. I only have two issues to raise:

  • The "Station layout" section discusses the station's parking, including the leasing of additional spaces and a carpool permit program, but it omits the reason why ST has added those options. The cited source about the carpool program mentions complaints about inadequate parking. Another source (not currently in the article) about the garage lease mentions commuters overflowing to park on nearby streets, the opening of the Angle Lake station was expected to help, but apparently Tukwila is still "chronically full". I think omitting the parking concerns is a problem for comprehensiveness and NPOV. (In the spirit of NPOV, it may also be appropriate to mention that some local activists think adding more parking at stations is a bad idea, although I didn't find a source about that point that mentions this station particularly.)
  • A lesser issue in the "Art" subsection: It says there are four art installations. It then describes a pictogram by Christian French, three sculptures by Tad Savinar, and an abstract by Clark Wiegman, this seems like it could be three installations or five installations, but I don't understand how it would be four.

The second issue should be an easy fix; the first is more substantive, but I hope I've helped by providing some potential sources. --RL0919 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thanks for mentioning the point about parking. I omitted it mainly because complaints about transit station parking is rather common across the Seattle metro area, with most lots being full before 8 a.m. It's not extraordinary by any means in Tukwila's case, between the early fullness and "park and hide" habits on neighborhood streets, it might be best to cover this in Transportation in Seattle (which I plan to rewrite eventually) or Public transportation in Seattle.
French's pictogram is a component of a singular piece of art that is used by every station, so I don't describe it as one of Tukwila's pieces. I can remove the count entirely, since it's not really that necessary. SounderBruce 02:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Lesley J. McNair[edit]

Nominator(s): Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Lesley J. McNair, a United States Army officer who served as a general during both World War I and World War II, he is notable as the primary architect of the Army as it was organized, trained, equipped, and fielded for World War II. Billmckern (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Some comments from Nick-D[edit]

While this article is in good shape, I think that it would have benefited from a Military History Wikiproject A-class review prior to this nomination; in particular, I don't think that it really captures the debates over McNair's performance in World War II. This is a complex topic: from what I've read, while historians tend to strongly approve of some elements of his approach and strongly disapprove of others, what they like and dislike varies considerably! I have the following comments on the World War II section:

  • "In addition to Mark Clark, other officers who served on McNair's AGF staff and later achieved prominence included: Alexander R. Bolling; Floyd Lavinius Parks; James T. Duke; Willard Stewart Paul; Lyman Lemnitzer; and Robert A. Hewitt" - does this need to be specified? It's not surprising that some of the officers at this very high level and large HQ went on to achieve prominence during the war.
  • "McNair identified difficulty with training National Guard units" - slightly awkward wording
  • "He recommended demobilizing the National Guard" - did he really want to stand down the Guard units (and their personnel), or disband the often-dysfunctional Guard units to free up their personnel?
  • Regarding the 'Fielding army divisions' section, wasn't one of the goals to have a smallish number of high-quality units rather than a large number of average-quality units? The US Army's divisions of World War II were pound for pound probably the best-equipped of any combatant (for instance, the standard US Army infantry division of 1944 was more mobile and had more firepower than the supposedly elite German Panzergrenadier divisions, of which Germany only ever fielded a small number). I believe that most historians regard the organisational structure as a success.
  • The 'Individual replacement system' section seems much too kind to McNair. In particular, the statement that " more recent assessments have viewed it more favorably" isn't supported by the source: its Thomas Ricks quoting with approval a ten year old paper. Recent works continue to be highly critical of this system (in particular, how inexperianced soldiers were posted to combat units while they were on the front lines, leading to appalling and avoidable casualty rates)
  • "McNair attempted to improve recruiting into the AGF through improved public relations" - given that the US had conscription and most conscripts were allocated to the Army, why was this necessary?
  • The 'legacy' section should note the continuing debates over McNair's role in the war. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Billmckern, how are you going working through these comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Ian Rose: I've worked off all but the individual replacement system and the additions to the legacy. I'll try to get to those tonight.
      • Billmckern (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:SandyHookProofBattery1900.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:General_Carlos_Brewer.jpg: source indicates that author is unknown
  • File:Lesley_McNair.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and source links are dead
  • File:McNair-TIME-1942.jpg: not sure about this - press images with the {{non-free historic image}} tag generally require a strong argument in favour of transformative use, and IMO there's not enough discussion of the image to support this
  • File:Lesley_J._McNair_Purple_Heart_1943_(2).jpg: where was this first published? And I think "uncredited" photographer was intended, rather than "unaccredited"?
  • File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sign itself?
  • File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg should include a copyright tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Fixed all but individual replacement system. Work continuing.
Billmckern (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: @Nikkimaria: List of fixes:
Deleted line about officers on McNair's AGF staff
Re-worded line about training program for National Guard units
Added additional details on recommendation to demobilize National Guard
Added additional details about success of 90-division program
Added additional details about individual replacement system
Added additional detail about recruiting effort, and note to review individual replacement system section for additional details on why recruiting effort was necessary.
Added additional comments to legacy section about historical debates over McNair's decisions and actions, including individual replacement system, tank fielding, and tanks versus anti-tank guns.
Edited photo captions to remove periods where necessary
Added new source link for Sandy Hook Proof Battery photo
Added additional details about source of Carlos Brewer photo
Changed out File:Lesley_McNair.jpg for another version with better source data
Updated description of File:Fort_Lesley_J_McNair_-_front_sign_-_Washington_DC.jpg to indicate that sign is not copyrighted (Per DoD Community and Public Outreach Division; written confirmation pending)
File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg - I don't know what I'm supposed to do with this. The current design has a license tag for the current design, and one in the data for the original design on which it's based. If there should be more information included, I don't what or how.
Billmckern (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
PS - I also included details about the publication of the photo which shows McNair wearing his Purple Heart.
Billmckern (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any info on the original design? (The immediate source is plwiki - I'm wondering about the original source). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: File:Legion d'Honneur Officier Ribbon.png - How about using this one instead?
Billmckern (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Same issue. If you compare the other ribbons, they include a tag representing the copyright status of the original ribbon design, but I'm not sure what tag would apply to this since it's non-US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: - Well, what's the fix, and how should I do it? I don't understand how to proceed to solve the problem.
Billmckern (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The fix would be to find a tag that does apply. Would any of these match what is known about the ribbon? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags#European%20Union. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Well, one contributor is from poland and the other from the UK, but I don't see a license tag from either that seems to fit. I don't see an EU one that looks right, either. How about PD-shape, which is contained on File:Legion Honour ribbon (II class).svg and File:Red ribbon bar - general use.svg.
Billmckern (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure the design is simple enough to qualify. But it doesn't matter where the uploaders are from: they didn't create the design themselves, it's based on a pre-existing work, right? That's the original design I'm referring to. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I give up. How about just deleting that image from the McNair article?
Billmckern (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Can I get someone to re-look the Lesley McNair article and see if it's ready for featured status? I confirmed that the sign at the Ft. McNair main gate is not copyrighted, trademarked, or otherwise restricted in terms of making use of a photograph of it. I have no idea what to do to resolve the concern about the Legion of Honor ribbon image. If anyone else is in a position to help with it, I'll be appreciative.
Except for the concern about the Legion of Honor ribbon illustration, I think I've made all the other edits and fixes.
Billmckern (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I have tagged it with {{PD-shape}} Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Some comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

I reviewed this article at GA. I have to agree with Nick that this is a complex topic. So don't feel bad about it. And debates over his performance go a lot further than just military historians, being the subject of heated debate among professionals over the years:

  • In answer to Nick, whether one of the goals to have a smallish number of high-quality units rather than a large number of average-quality units? No, the goal was to have a large number of average-quality units. But the ground Army was forced to halt at 89 divisions ("the 89-division gamble") instead of the 250 originally envisaged.
  • Having fewer divisions led directly to the problem with the divisions being in combat for too long. Replacement shortages led to melting most of the separate regiments into the replacement stream, exacerbating the problem, it also led to divisions being stripped for replacements, which disrupted McNair's training regime.
  • US equipment was not invariably better than the enemy's. Case in point is the heavy artillery, which was used because the German medium artillery outranged its US counterparts. . See Mayo, On Beachhead and Battlefront, pp. 202-204. Note that McNair was an advocate of heavy artillery. See Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 233–234
  • The individual replacement issue was a vexing one because it would recur in Vietnam. Despite far less intense combat, the divisions slowly degraded, as a result, unit rotation was chosen for the War in Iraq.
  • The article is still too soft on McNair's opposition to the heavier tank. See Thomson and Roots, Planning Munitions for War, pp. 280-283 (available online) McNair: "the M4 tank, particularly the M4A3, has been widely hailed as the best tank on the battlefield today ... Other than this particular request, which represents the British view—there has been no call from any theater for a 90mm tank gun. There appears to be no fear on the part of our forces of the German Mark VI (Tiger) tank ... there can be no basis for the T26 tank other than the conception of a tank versus tank duel—which is believed unsound and unnecessary ... there is no indication that the 76mm antitank gun is inadequate against the Mark VI (Tiger) tank."
  • The downsized armoured division was resisted, with the 2nd and 3rd remaining on the old establishment.
  • Note that McNair doubted the value of the armoured divisions, and suggested reducing their number to six. It became frozen at sixteen. See Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, pp. 332–335
  • There is also the light divisision schmozzle, and McNair proposal to convert airborne divisions into light divisions.

Source review

  • Calhoun's 2015 book is not used as a reference; move it to the "Further reading" section
  • Nor is his West Point memorial page
  • And the last of the external links. (Remove the ref card)
  • FN136 source does not mention the M3 explicitly. Suggest Greenfield, Palmer & Wiley The Organization of Ground Combat Troops, p. 427
  • Last use of FN144 in "Tanks" does not support In 1943, Devers and other commanders with tank experience succeeded in convincing George Marshall of the need for a tank with more armor and firepower than the M3 and M4. You need another source, and I think you'll find it was in 1944.

More to come... Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

...Continuing source review

  • FN6, 33, 51, 55, 78, 83, 101, 122, 150, 155, 195 - okay
  • FN186 - Does not mention the museum
  • FN187 - Does not say it was redeveloped as an apartment building. You say that "it was closed and turned over to the German government when the 17th Signal Battalion moved to Kitzingen in 1992", but the source does not mention the 17th Signal Battalion, and although it did in fact leave for Kitzingen in 1992, it was not closed until 1994.
  • FN189 - I think it's the Fort Leavenworth Hall of Fame, not the Fall of Fame.
  • Zabecki's book has the wrong ISBN. The last digit should bve "8"
  • Calhoun's 2015 book should be added to the "Further reading" section; leave the facebook page in the external links
  • Link Command and General Staff College
  • Link Camp Fuji
  • "Seated (right) is Clare McNair's." Remove the apostrophe and the "s".
Otherwise fine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I fixed all the source review issues.
I started working to address the other comments. Stay tuned.
Billmckern (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I believe the edits I've made this morning address all your comments here -- airborne divisions, light divisions, armored divisions, and so on. Please let me know what you think.
Billmckern (talk) 13:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Edits made in accordance with details of your 25 August comment.
Billmckern (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

This is mostly excellent, but I have a few small points.

Early life
  • Why do you list his sisters' husbands?
  • I think the list of classmates is formatted wrong. You could lose the colon and replace the semi-colons with comma.
  • Should "Engineer branch" and "Artillery branch" be capitalized? It seems out of place.
Early career
  • Is "temporary captain" the same as a brevet rank?
    No, it isn't. A temporary rank is normally held while serving in a particular posting; the holder recieves the pay, authority and allowances of that rank, but will revert to his or her substantive rank on termination of the posting. They are still in use today. A brevet rank was an honorary title which conferred none of the authority, precedence or pay of full rank. So they were permanent, but useless, although still highly prized, they were common during the War of the Rebellion, but disappeared from the US Army around the turn of the twentieth century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll follow up with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Coemgenus:
  • I listed the husbands only to make it easier for anyone interested in researching the family to keep track of them. I don't think it's wrong, but I'm not married to it, either. I can change it if that's a sticking point.
  • Not a dealbreaker, I just thought it was unusual. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Changed to commas instead of semicolons for list of classmates.
  • Changed to lower case for engineer and artillery branch.
  • A temporary rank is not the same as a brevet. A brevet was honorary - you could wear the insignia and be addressed by the higher title, but the lower rank was the actual rank for purposes of pay, benefits, and seniority. A temporary rank was actual for pay and benefits, but the individual lost the pay and benefits if he reverted to his lower actual rank; in fact, reading McNair's entry in the 1920 West Point Biographical Register just now, I noticed that he was promoted to temporary first lieutenant AND temporary captain while with the ordnance corps. I'll make that edit, too.
  • OK, thanks, I was unclear on the difference. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Billmckern (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
World War I
  • "In June 1919, McNair was named to the AEF board..." How long did the AEF exist after the war ended?
School of the Line
  • It might be good to briefly explain what the School was, something like "...one of the faculty members of the Army's School of the Line, a training school for infantry and cavalry officers."
  • I think I already did that by explaining that it was the school where field grade officers went to learn how to manage and lead operations at division and higher.
  • Yes, I missed that.
Purdue
  • "Already a prolific author of professional journal articles on technical military subjects, he authored numerous articles..." I'd change "authored" to "wrote" or "penned" to avoid repetition.
  • Fixed

I'll come back with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Let me know if you have other suggestions.
Individual replacement system
  • "friends and buddies" one or the other should do, no?
  • That's really all I have. Nice article, I'm glad to support its promotion. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Rossbach[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

For your consideration, this article is about a crucial battle in the Seven Years' War. About 1000 infantry and the Prussian cavalry of Frederick the Great's army routed the combined French and Reichsarmee forces during a 90 minute battle, it was critical in forcing France out of its support of Austria's strategic goals. As always, I appreciate your ideas and suggestions, as usual, I've used what Ealdgyth considers a funky annotation system. It's what I know and have used since 2009. auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Pbsouthwood[edit]

(on general intelligibility to a lay reader}

Terrain and maneuver

  • What is the relevance of the plateau elevation? Is this the elevation above the general altitude of the lower lying areas, which would have obvious military relevance, or above sea level, which would not? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • general relevance to the type of terrain -- a rolling plateau--. It measures above sea level, of course, but within that there was very little elevation change, this influenced how the battle was fought, obviously. No hill was higher than 120 meters (390 ft), which influenced how and where troops could move, and how visible they were from the highest observation points (usually the church towers, sometimes well-placed manor houses). auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the elevation of the low-lying areas known? the relative elevation would be far more relevant to tactics. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I read through again, and now understand that the battle was fought on the plateau, which had an altitude ranging from 120 to 244m, so the variation of altitude on the battlefield was not more than 124m and may have been less? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ok, thanksw for re reading....is the article clearer now? auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be better to explicitly state whether the battle was on the plateau. The map does not clearly show steep sides to the valley, but suggests fairly steep hillsides, which is not supported by the text or photos. I am not getting a clear impression of the terrain where the actual fighting took place. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • As I've stated in the text, there were no steep hill sides. The entire region is rolling hills--none of them higher than 120 feet above the general altitude of the region. It's all relatively flat. I've tried adjusting the text, and moved the images of the terrain into that section. auntieruth (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to nitpick like this. The section now reads more clearly, but I remain uncertain whether the elevation of the plateau is between 120 and 244m, or lower than this with peaks up to 120 to 244m above the base altitude of the plateau. (which is more than 120 feet as stated above) If I understand correctly, the 120 feet is a typo, and the altitude of the plateau including its rolling hills is between 120 and 244m. I made and reverted an edit which would clarify this point if I got it right. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The elevation of Rossbach is 104 meters (341 ft). Braunsbedra and Reichertswerben are the two closest villages and they are, respectively, altitudes above sea level of: 120 meters (394 ft) and 131 meters (430 ft). The site of the battle field is rolling hills and plains between 120–244, mostly between Braunsbedra, Rossbach and Reichertswerben, but the entire topography outside the villages, where the battle took place, has changed since the mid-20th century (and earlier) because of lignite mining. The steepest hillsides are in Merseburg at the river crossings, and then only in a few places where the river cut through sandstone. If you look at Mapcarta here you can see that the location of the Janus has been completely excavated. There is really no way of telling exactly how high or how steep it was in 1750s. Carlisle, who was there, says the hills were slight. Frederick and Gaudi, who were there and observing from the manor rooftop, could see most of the French troop movements--this means that the hills were not high enough to obstruct the view, the vintage maps do not indicate steep hills, simply "hills" or elevation changes. Better? auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Mapcarta gives Rossbach elevation as 124m, your sources may differ, otherwise good. I see what you mean about the topography having changed, the explanatory note does help. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pbsouthwood: Oh, the whole area looks different than it did 200 years ago. But that's what happens over time. Will you support now? auntieruth (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Within the scope of my review, in that it makes sense to a non-expert, and is well written and interesting, yes, and good luck with the rest of the review. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:The_Imperial_German_Army_1890_-_1913_HU68455.jpg: if the author was a German court photographer, why a UK tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • From what it looks like in the documentation on the photo, the German court photographer took the picture. The German king gave wrote on it and gave it to Hugh Lowther, 5th Earl of Lonsdale, apparently, because that's the collection it came from.
  • Okay - unless there was a transfer of copyright involved (?), this wouldn't be a UKGov work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's in the UK Imperial War Museum. The template doesn't accommodate the specifics of this particular instance. Something created by German court photographer, given by Kaiser to someone; from that person's collection it apparently went to the UK Imperial War Museum, which provided it. So I don't know what to do about it, and if you don't know what to do about it, I suggest we leave it as is, because it was uploaded under auspices of the UK museum, and it had been given by the Kaiser. Perhaps we should accept that the transfer of the photograph as a gift is sufficient? The museum provided the provenance. auntieruth (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Er... the museum provided the provenance and their own IWM licensing; I don't see that they provided anything to support the tags used. Given available information I would think a German/EU tag would be more appropriate. Open to other opinions though if any other reviewers want to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no problems with a change. What do others think? auntieruth (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable given the provenance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • maps are scaled, although I don't know how to do that for the ones in the gallery. auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "moved up the Rossbach itself": What's "the Rossbach"? I'm aware "Bach" is "brook" in German, but I'm not aware that you've mentioned that, unless it's "a small stream [that] ran between Rossbach and Merseburg". okay, fixed.
  • "The fighting soon dissolved into man-on-man combat": Not wrong, but I might say "the columns dissolved", or "the fighting devolved". fixed.
  • "muskets shouldered": Did you mean to repeat that? I only see it once.
    • Sorry, the other occurrence is: " Frederick ... boasted that the victory had come while most of his infantry had its weapons shouldered." - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Really good writing, as always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth[edit]

Another impressive article. I find this set of three fascinating even though they are far afield from anything I write about. I have a few suggestions and questions, as follows.
General
  • Lead image needs alt text. yes, it was there.  :)
Yes and no. When I rolled over the image with my mouse, the alt text showed as identical to the image file name, the fix was to look at what you'd done with the Battle of Leuthen and to imitate. I believe the problem is fixed, but please doublecheck. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the difference between Battle of Leuthen alt text and this one.  ??? auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The gallery images need alt text. WP:PIC in the Galleries subsection shows a way to add alt text using table syntax. I think I did this right
  • I think you can scale the gallery maps if you use the table format that you'll find in the same section of WP:PIC. I think I did this right
The toolbox (dispenser.homenet.org) has been down for a week or more, but you can still check the alt text by mousing over the image and looking at the popup. The table method described at WP:PIC looks like a workable option, but I've never used it, some experimenting might be in order, or perhaps User:Nikkimaria or another image reviewer knows the preferred solution. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
You could also use {{multiple image}} Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added alt text and upright= to all the images. Does this work now?
I see that you have added the parameters. However, if you mouse over the images, you'll see that the alt text does not appear. (You have to have navigation popups turned on in your Preferences/Gadgets user menu to be able to see the popups.) That suggests to me that the template is not configured to recognize the alt-text parameter. I'd like to fiddle around in a sandbox with the {{multiple image}} template that Nikkimaria suggested. I have rarely added galleries to anything, hence my lack of immediate insights. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I use galleries a lot, so when you fiddle, please send me a link, so I can see what you've done....:) auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The layout of the gallery at the bottom of the article looks odd to me because of the 3-4-1 arrangement. Suggestion: use one panorama rather than two, that would give you a more balanced 3-4-0 arrangement, which would look better if you centered the line of 4 images. They will center properly once you remove the bottom line of 1. Alternatively, a table might give you more options than the existing two separate galleries at the bottom. I took out one
  • To avoid bumping against second-level subheads or from displacing the Battlefield today head, I would suggest moving all of the maps to the right. ?
Seven Years' War
  • ¶1 "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war with Austria." – Maybe it would be more clear to say "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war between Prussia and its allies with Austria and its allies." tweaked some, see if this is better
Hmmm. "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; in parts of the globe, it had no impact, and its influence among the European powers it was, however, no better than a truce." – This revision doesn't make sense to me. Maybe leave out "in parts of the globe, it had no impact" since the conflict wasn't global, and maybe adjust the last clause (which has a grammar problem) to say "among the European powers it was no better than a truce."?
  • The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; its influence among the European powers was, however, little better than a truce. Frederick II of Prussia, known as Frederick the Great, acquired the prosperous province of Silesia, but had wanted much of the Saxon territories as well. Empress Maria Theresa of Austria had signed the treaty to gain time to rebuild her military forces and forge new alliances; she was intent upon regaining ascendancy in the Holy Roman Empire. Better? auntieruth (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. That looks good. Finetooth (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Terrain and maneuver
  • ¶1 "The story of the battle of Rossbach is as much the story of the five days of maneuver leading to the battle as it is those famous 90 minutes of battle, and the maneuvers were shaped by the terrain." – Since the "famous 90 minutes of battle" has not been mentioned in the main text before this mention, perhaps modify to say: "Five days of maneuvers, shaped by the terrain, preceded the battle of Rossbach." Or something like that. It was in the caption under the lead photo, and I've added it to the lead
  • ¶1 "at the confluence of the middle Saale from the Buntsandstein" – Some confusion here. Confluence refers to the meeting of two streams, but the Saale doesn't seem to meet another stream at Weissenfels. A map embedded in the Thuringian Basin article shows Weissenfels lying just outside of the basin, so perhaps the intended meaning here is "near the emergence of the middle Saale from..." Another possibility is that the confluence referred to here is the meeting of the Unstrut with the Saale upstream of Weissenfels near Naumburg.
  • ¶1 "in the so-called Weißenfels-Jenaer Saale valley..." – Delete "so-called"? sorry, that's a Germanism....
  • ¶1 "this influenced the troop movements leading up to the battle..." – Delete "up"? done
  • ¶6 "Until that point, Soubise had done nothing." – I had to go back to an earlier part (Situation in 1757) of the article to see who Soubise was. ok. did some tweaking there.
Initial battlefield positions
  • ¶1 "The French general, the prince of Soubise," – He's referred to simply as Soubise in the last sentence of the preceding section. Maybe "the French general, the Prince of Soubise" could replace "Soubise" in that earlier sentence, and you could use plain "Soubise" here. fix parallel construction
  • ¶2 "under the command of Charles, Prince of Soubise and Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen" – Here they are identified again in a slightly different way. Integrate them somehow? Maybe add "Charles" to the first mention of him in the Situation in 1757 section and just go with ""under the command of Soubise and Saxe-Hildburghausen" here. Not quite sure. fixed, I think
I'm still a bit confused. Are Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen and the Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen two different people, or is this the same guy? Yes. Eventually he was "Prince" but at the time, he was "Duke" I've taken out his titles and just referred to him and Soubise by their family names.
I changed one additional "Duke" to "Saxe-Hildburghausen" in this same section. Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Trap
  • ¶5 "When the Allied cavalry came striking distance..." – Missing word, "within"?
  • ¶5 "still in echelon" – Link to Echelon formation?
  • ¶7 "Seydlitz led his cavalry in their third assault." – A minor question. I'm not sure how these things are formally counted. I would have said "second assault". I suppose this is the third if the 20-squadron charge counts as one and the 18-squadron charge counts as the second. I assume the combined squadrons take part in the third assault. Maybe a bit of clarification here? tweaked some for clarity
Aftermath
  • ¶1 "Impressively, the Prussians took..." – Not sure you need "impressively". don't
  • ¶4 "While he did owe his position to his good relationship..." – Maybe "rank" rather than "position" since at first glance that might be interpreted to mean his battlefield position. Absurd interpretation on second glance, but still... "
Battlefield today
  • long quote: "set up his field bed in alcove" – Word missing? Maybe "an alcove"? got it.
  • long quote: "Hauptmann [Franz Leopold] von Funcke" – Missing comma after Funcke? fixed
  • "(Kreis roadway)" – I'm assuming that this means something like a side road or crossroad or secondary highway. Maybe a brief explanation or a link since it probably has clear formal meaning to Germans? Ah, yes, county highway.

@Finetooth: I think I've got them.  :) auntieruth (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Switching to support on prose, as noted above, regardless of how the alt text questions play out. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for comments, contributions and support. Re alt text, it's weird, sometimes the proper box shows up with alt text and the whole stuff on the image, and sometimes it doesnt. auntieruth (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it anywhere, I think we still need a source review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

  • no you haven't missed it. Review is requested. auntieruth (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

I am sure that in terms of reliability and authority, the sources are impeccable, but I found the arrangement of the section very muddled and confusing, with several inconsistencies:

  • What is the purpose of repeating detailed information in the citations that is given in the sources? Why not be consistent in the use of short citations? some people only go as far as the citation. It's listed in full in the first instance and in short form afterward.
  • It seems like a waste of time and space, but I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the sources you prioritise surnames, in the citations you prioritise first names, which makes cross-checking difficult. I understand this. Bibliographies should be organized by surnames. Footnotes start with first names, this is standard Chicago Style.
  • The section headed "Alphabetical listing of sources cited" contains uncited sources: Jeremy Black; Robert M Citino I took Citino out. Jeremy Black is in fn 2.
  • Several other sources are not cited in the texts but are mentioned in the "Notes" in the "See..." format. These should be properly formulated as citations. (Karlheinz Fischer; Kapp & Bancroft; Hellmund Meinholf; Mitteldeutsche Zeitung; Poten & Mayer) They are cited in the note. I don't see the point in adding them to citations as well. If I were writing a print article, this is how I would do it.
  • I think you are not understanding my comment. The "See..." format is an informal method of citation, with the same purpose as regular citations, i.e. to indicate the source that supports the text. These "See..." citations should be converted to regular form. Thus, for example, "See (in German) Bodart, p. 220" should be converted to <ref>Boden, p. 20</ref> What you might do with a print article is not relevant - this is Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I guess I understand. Notes are converted to citations. auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Spencer Tucker and Frederick King of Prussia appear in the citations but are not listed as sources. Frederick was there, spencer Tucker is added.
  • Ref 32 is not properly formatted. What is the nature of this source, and in what way does it support the text? These are standard links to the German webpage.
  • They are links to the German webpages, but where do they reference the inscription that you have cited in the text? The inscription in given in English – is this the language on the stone? And in any event these links need to be properly formatted as references, with publisher information etc. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think Ref 33 is properly formatted, either.
  • In your "Notes" section, Note 1 is unsourced. In Note 3 the sources are not included in your sources list and lack basic information such as publisher, access date and so on. this is fixed.
  • Note 1 is 'not fixed; you have added two external links, but these need to be properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There are also a few minor formatting errors. Those that I see:
  • Ref 2 needs full stop after pp done
  • Ref 7 needs space after p. done
  • Ref 18: page range inconsistent done
  • Ref 20: missing pp. done

The section is in need of considerable attention. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: Thank you Brian, I've responded above. I realize that this can be a nuisance, but I don't see another way around it. I find the short notation style very difficult to follow when I read because I have to refer down to the bib to see the whole thing (publisher, etc). I've at least started to use the shortened references, a, b, c , d etc. which I find confusing in text, but am amenable to making life easier for editors. auntieruth (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what it is that you "don't see another way round". If it's just the question of your use of short citations, well OK, I'll go along with your preference, but I've raised other sources questions, most notably the need to regularise the formatting of citations. These need attention.Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton:, they are all consistent now. First mention is author/title/publication/page number. Subsequent citations are short, or shorter (a,b,c,d,etc, using the ref/ref template). Thank you. auntieruth (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • and I've converted the notes to citations, so the formatting remains consistent. auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I've basically used this as my bible for footnoting since 2009 and 2011, when I was convinced to start adding the refname= tag. auntieruth (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Brian, how is this looking from a sourcing viewpoint now? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Still a bit of a mess, I'm afraid. The nominator has misunderstood some of my comments, and her efforts to comply have made things worse rather than better, she seems to be relying on fixed views and practices which are outside the FAC requirements for the organisation of sources. Someone needs to give a helping hand – it's basically to do with proper and consistent formatting, not the reliability of the sources themselves. I don't think my further participation will be helpful, as I seem not to be getting through, but my original and follow-up comments should clarify the problem, for example, I was not saying that all footnotes should be converted to citations, merely that footnotes needed to cited in the same style as the text, not via an informal "See..." formulation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Maurice Wilder-Neligan[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an English-born Australian Army soldier of WWI who rose from the rank of private to command a battalion during the latter stages of the war. A superior tactician, one of his attacks was described as "the best show ever done by a battalion in France", he was also an eccentric character, once chasing his officers off a parade ground on horseback to show his displeasure with their efforts at drill. An administrator in New Guinea after the war, he died there, probably caused by wounds he received during the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • The URAA tag used by most of the images requires you to specify a publication date, but the Australian "expires worldwide" also means the URAA tag isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We have one, if we have any tag that says "applies worldwide" (as the Australian one does). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Used to, prior to that OTRS confirmation that expiry applies worldwide - including in US. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Source review

  • Why are we linking Bean's name (and the Official History) in the fourth book listed instead of the first?
  • Fixed.
  • Why is "Bar" still being capitalised?
  • That is what the DSO1 syntax does in the postnominals template, so I'm just being consistent with that.
  • In the photograph where you say "Portrait of Wilder-Neligan while he was commanding the 10th Battalion", he is only a second lieutenant, and is wearing the patch of the 9th Battalion (black over light blue).
  • No, I don't think so. The AWM page for the image refers to him being CO 10th Bn, and it looks like a pip and a crown to me behind the Australia shoulder title. Also, the 10th Bn patch was purple over light blue, and this is a black and white photograph, so it could easily be the 10th Bn patch. He's also wearing two ribbons in the photograph, which, given the timing of his awards, must be the DSO and DCM, indicating that it is post the Fleurbaix raid in July 1916, by which time he was already a captain. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Spot check:
    FN 2a, 2b, 3, 12, 15, 26, 28a, 28b, 49, 54, 62 - okay
    FN24a - AWM site does not say that he was acting commanding officer of the 9th Battalion
  • That was odd. I checked, and it was Hill.
  • FN24b = Supports that the 9th and 10th Battalions were part of the 3rd Brigade, but does not mention Neligan
  • Added citation to Lock, who gives the date.

Comment, leaning support – I supported this article during it's recent MILHIST A-Class review and, having reviewing the changes made since then, am confident that it also meets the FA criteria. I have one question/comment before I outright support, however: I see that Wilder-Neligan has been the subject of a recent full-length biography—Peter Holmes' A Magnificent Anzac: The Untold Story of Lieutenant Colonel Maurice Wilder-Neligan (Reedy Creek: Peter Lloyd Holmes Publications, 2013). Not having read the book, I'm not sure of quality or content (though I do note that it appears to be self-published). However, I was just wondering whether you had viewed or considered the source when writing this article? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

G'day Abraham, B.S.. I saw it when I was working through Trove for newspaper mentions, but haven't tried to get access to it as it is obviously self-published, and I couldn't find out anything about the author online. Frankly, I didn't think it would meet the bar for a reliable source in a FA, it is held by a few libraries, including my state one, so I could take a look, but I still think it has the unsolvable issue of being self-published by an unknown, so not subject to editorial oversight etc. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
It is quite rare, but sometimes self-published sources will be by a reputable author. Obviously that is not the case here, so I'm happy to support. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
During the fighting from 10–14 August - either "During the fighting from 10 to 14 August" or "During the fighting over 10–14 August".
Do we know any more about his wife and child? How/why did he abandon them - any contact later?

A nice read overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cas Liber. Fixed first one, second one, no we don't, it is a bit weird, leaving his family in London, but I haven't been able to find anything that explains him moving to Australia or returning after the war. Perhaps he was keeping away from debt collectors? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Ethiopian historiography[edit]

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for FA status because I think it meets all the basic FA criteria, this article has recently succeeded in passing its Good Article candidacy and has seen some massive improvements since then, although it is now stable with very little editing activity going on. There were some disagreements between another editor and I over some of the content and wording of the article, but we have since come to a consensus on how the article should look. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it, the article is filled with a rich amount of historical details that should keep you entertained if you're a history buff like me. I've written and nominated various articles on European and Chinese history for FA status, but this is only the second African-history related article that I've nominated, the first being Ancient Egyptian literature. It's certainly my first nomination focused on a sub-Saharan African country and Semitic culture, two areas of our English Wikipedia that perhaps need a lot of work and still lack critical information, this is my little effort to help remedy that and hopefully spark interest in other editors to follow suit. Let's hope so! Pericles of AthensTalk 15:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • All the 18 images are well-relevant, have proper description templates, and have no copyright problems! ALT text is absent, though.

Looks good otherwise. Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: hello. Thanks for reviewing the images so quickly. I wasn't expecting any response anytime soon! I'm glad to hear that everything is in order. Per your suggestion, I have also amended the article to include alt text for each and every image. I hope that you find the descriptions to be suitable. If not, please let me know! Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 12:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Perfect! No issues, now. It is good to go now. Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent! Once again, thanks for the speedy review. --Pericles of AthensTalk 13:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Initial comments from Hchc2009

An interesting article! Some initial comments, more to follow:

  • "The Church of Saint George, Lalibela and a panel painting inside depicting Saint George slaying a dragon; it is one of eleven monumental rock-hewn churches built in Lalibela, Ethiopia that were allegedly sculpted after a vision by the Zagwe-dynasty ruler Gebre Mesqel Lalibela (r. 1185–1225 AD), in which St George instructed him to do so.[18][19] The city of Lalibela was reestablished as a symbolic new holy site, following the fall of Jerusalem to the Muslim forces of Saladin in 1187 AD, yet archaeology reveals the religious structures to have been built between the 10th and early 12th centuries AD, with perhaps only the last phase carried out during the 13th century AD and reign of Gebre Mesqel Lalibela." - a very long caption, and failed the MOS test for me. I'd advise trimming after "...slaying a dragon."
  • File:St. George Astride His Horse, Church of Bet Giorgis, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3268383996).jpg needs a copyright tag for the underlying image (could be done in a similar way to File:Gebre Mesqel Lalibela.png, for example). The other historical images need checking in this regard as well.
  • After Zagwe dynasty, the number of images produced a solid wall of images on the right hand side of my screen; I suspect that you should cut one or two to bring it into the MOS guidelines.
  • "An engraved book portrait of Ethiopian monk Abba Gorgoryos (1595-1658) by Christopher Elias Heiss, Augsburg, 1691;[72][73] Abba Gorgoryos aided the German orientalist Hiob Ludolf (1624–1704) in the translation of Ge'ez and Amharic, as well as with material for composing a history of Ethiopia.[74][75]" - I'd trim after the first clause
  • "File:Painting of St. Abbo, Church of Bet Mercurios, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3308268798).jpg" - needs an Ethopian tag to cover photography of 2D art images (NB: if this is legal in Ethopia, I don't know!)
  • "File:Battle of Adwa tapestry at Smithsonian.png" - needs a tag for the underlying tapestry image (or painting, depending on which bit of the file you believe).
  • "File:"Yared An (sic) His Disciples Singing A Song In Front Of King Gebreme Skel . . ." (3171512810).jp" - needs an Ethiopian tag to cover photography of 2D art images. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: hello! Thanks for the initial review. Unfortunately I don't have time to address this right now, but hopefully by the end of the week I'll have everything in order. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 06:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: hello? Are you still alive and/or active on Wikipedia? It has been a very long time since you have commented here. I was hoping to see the rest of your review. --Pericles of AthensTalk 16:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
PericlesofAthens' response

@Hchc2009: hello again. I have done several things to address your concerns listed above.

(1) Per your requests, I have shortened the captions for the "File:Bete_Giyorgis_06.jpg" and "File:Aba_Gorgorios,_1681.jpg" images.

(2) I have resized nearly every image after the "Zagwe dynasty" sub-section, and have removed several pictures. Keep in mind, though, that not every monitor and not eevry browser presents the page the same way. Are you viewing this on a mobile device? The page looks fine to me, but I have edited the article per your advice regardless.

(3) I'm not sure what sort of tag I would need for "Ethopian tag to cover photography of 2D art image", so I have simply removed the three images you have mentioned as being problematic. This is perhaps a temporary move until I am able to properly tag those images, but I guarantee that they will stay removed from the article until that happens. I just hope it doesn't lead to an edit war with the editor who added all three of them to the article, since I added the majority of images to the article in its present incarnation, he might take this as some sort of slight or that I'm deliberately attacking the contributions he has made. I hope that won't be the case. Perhaps he can even help in locating the appropriate tags. I'd like for you to elaborate more on this in the meantime, though.

(4) You wrote that "File:St. George Astride His Horse, Church of Bet Giorgis, Lalibela, Ethiopia (3268383996).jpg needs a copyright tag for the underlying image (could be done in a similar way to File:Gebre Mesqel Lalibela.png, for example). The other historical images need checking in this regard as well." - I think you made some sort of mistake here. These two files actually share the exact same tags (i.e. "PD-Art|PD-old-100" and "PD-1923"). I also think your suggestion here is unwarranted given how this article has already passed the initial image review and inspection of media content by User:Adityavagarwal. I'm willing to cooperate on any further suggestions you might have, but I think your particular point here is moot. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 06:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hchc2009: well, it appears that User:Soupforone has found some suitable replacements for the pictures that I had to remove. Feel free to check the tags and licensing on these new images; everything seems to be in order now. Kind regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 17:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • Welcome back to FAC ... you're bringing us an impressive array of underrepresented topics, well-researched and explicated.
  • "AD": There were too many of these, enough to constitute a MOS violation (i.e., we don't have any choice in the matter at FAC, at least not without a big hubbub). WP:MOSNUM says: "In general, do not use CE or AD unless required to avoid ambiguity (e.g. The Norman Conquest took place in 1066 not 1066 CE nor AD 1066) or awkwardness (January 1, 1 AD not January 1, 1), on the other hand, Plotinus lived at the end of the 3rd century AD will avoid confusion". I looked carefully, and the ambiguity required to support the automatic addition of "AD" just wasn't there ... it can be there in some texts, but so far, not in this text. I'll keep looking. I'll be back in a couple of hours, feel free to run through the text catching some of these yourself. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Historiography became an established genre": "Historiography" is a slippery word, and per my standard disclaimer, I leave these kinds of issues to other reviewers. But this is one I think other reviewers might want to comment on ... can the works you're citing in this sentence be considered historiography themselves? Isn't it the study of those works that constitutes the historiography? - Dank (push to talk) 01:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Most slashes should be removed per WP:SLASH (at WP:MOS). I normally try to fix these things myself, but there was some ambiguity. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pericles[edit]

Greetings! Thanks for taking the time to review the article.

  • As for the BC/AD thing, I've had an FA review in the past (Sino-Roman relations) where people griped that I should consistently add "AD" after every date or mention of "century" or "centuries" in that article, to avoid confusion with BC-era dates. I'll side with your view for now, but if someone makes a similar complaint, then we'll have two conflicting if not totally incompatible arguments made by the reviewers, at that point there will be no appeasement for one side of that argument, because there is no seeming compromise to be made. Let's hope it doesn't head in that direction.
    • If there's a complaint, please ping me. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have reworded the bit about historiography being an established genre. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Much better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I have removed the forward slashes from the prose of the article, per your new suggestion above regarding WP:MOS. --Pericles of AthensTalk 16:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dank: do you have any issues with the sourcing? Choice wording of the prose? The narrative structure? Are there any glaring omissions in your estimation? I'm happy to fix all the minor issues like image captions and WP:MOS related stuff, but I'm more interested in tackling the meat and substance of the article. Perhaps I'm being impatient and you're getting to that point after a thorough read of the article? In either case, thanks for your recent edits. Regards, --Pericles of AthensTalk 04:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Normally I get my part done pretty quickly, sorry for the delay, I know it's annoying. When I'm done, what you get is a "Support on prose per my standard disclaimer". I know that doesn't sound like much, but it does tend to increase the chances that this will pass FAC, by counting as a support (and a kind of vetting). Also, any support increases the odds that other reviewers will at least read the article. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Ah! Got it. Excuse me, didn't mean to disturb your mojo, so to speak. Carry on, sir! --Pericles of AthensTalk 18:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done, as always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dank: thank you kindly! The article is in better shape thanks to your review. Cheers. --Pericles of AthensTalk 20:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

No spotchecks carried out, the sources appear to be appropriately scholarly and reliable, with a few minor issues:

  • You should be consistent as to whether you use "Accessed" or "Retrieved"
  • Some publisher locations in lesser-known places are not specific enough, e.g. Abingdon, Westport, Jefferson etc, these should be clarified by adding "U.K." or the US state abbreviation – as you have done with "Lawrenceville, NJ."
  • Bizumeh - source lacks publisher location
  • Two articles, Jalata and Omer, are behind paywalls, so you should add the (subscription required) template

Otherwise, sources are fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: hello! Thanks for taking the time to review the sources.

  • I have replaced all instances of "accessed" with "retrieved" instead.
  • I have improved the info about publisher locations as you've requested, adding US states where needed and "UK" for British publications.
  • There is no "Bizumeh" in the article, although there is a "Bizuneh", which does not require a publisher location, as this is a journal article, not a book. Not sure how you confused or missed that.
  • I have placed the "subscription" template next to the Jalata and Omer articles listed in the references section.

I hope you find these changes to be sufficient. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 18:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: hello again. Just following up here, since I would like to know your thoughts on the recent changes that I made. Is everything in order now? --Pericles of AthensTalk 16:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
No outstanding sources issues Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Habits (Stay High)[edit]

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the song "Habits (Stay High)"—and its remixed version—by Swedish singer and songwriter Tove Lo, both of which became hits in 2014. This is the third time I nominate this article, the past two nominations failed because it struggled to receive reviews from other users, so no consensus was reached. I addressed every comment from every past review, so I think it's ready and I'm open to receive more suggestions. Paparazzzi (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Adityavagarwal[edit]

  • There are 8 images in the article. Have proper description templates and are either under fair use or under CC licensing. All but one images have ALT text. Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done Added ALT description to that image. --Paparazzzi (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Great article, and the images are in great shape too. Good to go! Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • In the body of the article, I would put EP in parenthesis after the phrase "extended play" so that way you clearly define the acronym for an unfamiliar reader and can use it throughout the rest of the text. I believe the first time you use EP in the body of the article is in the "Background and release" section.
  • I am a little confused by the following sentence in the lead (the song under the title "Habits" on 25 March 2013 as her second single.). You say that Lo self-released the song as her second single (from what I originally assumed was the EP Truth Serum), but the next sentence says that the song was released on a different date as the second single from the EP. I am just a little confused by the timeline of events in this scenario. I think you say "as her second independently-released single" instead of "as her second single" that would make help to clarify the chronology.
  • Something about the phrase "she got over the breakup after writing the song" seems a little bit too informal, specifically the verbage "got over". Also, would it be more accurate to say that she dealt with the breakup "through" the song?  Comment: I changed "got over" to "recover", since she says in the interview that she "got better" after writing the song.
  • In the following sentence (The second version was filmed at a Swedish club for three days), I would say "over three days" as opposed to 'for three days".
  • I would link Tove Lo again in the "Background and release" section.
  • In the phrase "to re-released it with proper promotion because", change "re-released" to "re-release".
  • I am not sure you need the following quote "still [had] a lot left to give" and I think you can paraphrase and change the sentence to the following and preserve the same meaning (Then, the label representatives decided to re-release it with proper promotion as they believe it still had commercial potential.)
  • I would suggest adding a topic sentence for the second paragraph in the "Critical reception" section.
  • Please add the year in which "Chandelier" was released to the same section.
  • Not really a suggestion, but I have respect for you for putting the Roosh V review piece in as it is good for comprehensiveness, but that review does make mad and disappointed. Removed
  • You have Kesha linked twice in the "Critical reception" and the "Recognition and accolades" sections. You can unlink the second instance.
  • On the same note, you have Queen of the Clouds and studio album linked in two sections as well. It only needs to be linked on its first mention.
  • Make sure to include the year in which Queen of the Clouds was released when you first mention it. Same applies to Truth Serum.
  • In the phrase (lost to "Blank Space" by Taylor Swift (2014)), I would move the (2014) part to right after "Blank Space" rather than after Taylor Swift.
  • Allmusic should be written as AllMusic.
  • Would it be beneficial in the "Critical reception" subsection of the "Hippie Sabotage remix" section to separate the paragraph into two parts, with one focusing on the positive feedback and the other on the negative?
  • When you mention "Out of Mind", please include the year in which it was released.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope that this receives more attention in this round. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have addressed your comments. I just left one comment above. Thank you so much for your review. If you need something, count on me. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Support from edwininlondon[edit]

I reviewed it last time around and the issues that stopped me from supporting have now been resolved, the two music blogs are no longer used as source. Nice work. And admirable persistence. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919[edit]

I made a few edits; as always feel free to object if you think I did something wrong. Just a couple of comments:

  • Carrie Battan is quoted from a review where she calls the singer "Nilsson". Since the fact that this is Tove Lo's birth name is not mentioned otherwise, this was confusing. Suggest that either you should mention the name prior to this quote, or it may be simpler to just replace "Nilsson" with "[Lo]" inside the quote.
  • The "Composition" section quotes several reviewers regarding the lyrical content, and in the process re-quotes a dozen lines of lyrics. More lyrics are quoted under "Recognition and accolades". I'm concerned that this is too much of the lyrics for fair use, which has as one of its criteria "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" (emphasis added). Pop songs generally and this one in particular don't have a lot of lyrics, so overall we've quoted a significant fraction of them. I think we're fine on all the other fair use criteria, and maybe I'm being a bit conservative here, but I would be more comfortable if some of the quoted lyrics could be paraphrased instead, for example, the lyrics about binge eating could be described by saying "as indicated in lyrics about having the munchies, eating Twinkies, and throwing up" instead of quoting the lines directly. I'm not saying we can't quote any of them (we definitely can), just trying to balance against the fact that we are quoting from a short text.

Overall this looks very thorough and appropriately written. --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@RL0919: Hello, and thank you for your comments. I replaced "Nilsson" with "[Lo]" and paraphrased two of the quoted lyrics in the composition section, including the one talking about binge eating. Have a nice day. --Paparazzzi (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the prompt response. Those were my only concerns, so I support this on prose and comprehensiveness. --RL0919 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Source review requested! Thank you and have a nice day, Paparazzzi (