Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2015 [1].

Panama–Pacific commemorative coins[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... five coins that were issued for the Panama-Pacific Exposition, a very successful World's Fair-type event in San Francisco. They were not popular at the time but are rather expensive today. And the $50 pieces are very handsome. I wish I owned one.Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I sometimes think Wehwalt must be in league with the Devil: how else can he write such readable articles about so dry a topic as coins, for Heaven's sake? This one is well up to standard: clear, balanced, well sourced, beautifully illustrated and in top notch prose. – Tim riley talk 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Old Nick has not as yet requested conom credit.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • One circular link in the template involving a hyphen rather than an endash (I think). No DABs and external links OK.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • submitting designs, which are similar to the actual coins Shouldn't this be "were"?
  • Since the US was not yet engaged in WWI in 1915, I'm not sure why Swiatek and Breen thought it ironic. But that's on them, not on you.
  • Shouldn't Art historian Cornelius Vermeule deemed the obverse of the half dollar "a halfway point between the designs on French silver pieces early in the new century and A. A. Weinman's 'Walking Liberty' for the half dollar". be in the section on the half dollar rather than the quarter eagle?
  • I fear that Swiatek and Breen misidentified Athena's armor; it's scale mail, not plate mail.
I'll just say mail, then.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done except where commented. Thank you for the review & support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Flickr_-_…trialsanderrors_-_Panama-Pacific_International_Exposition,_San_Francisco,_aeroplane_view,_1915.jpg: bit confused about this - the image description says PD but the licensing tag is CC? PD seems more likely, as copyright would probably be expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of that. Thank you for going through it in such detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the following nitpicks:

  • Background: "In 1904, San Francisco merchant Rueben Hale proposed an exposition in his home city for 1915, both to commemorate the opening of the Panama Canal and to mark the 400th anniversary of Vasco Núñez de Balboa becoming the first European known to view the Pacific Ocean from the Americas..." As other cities were clearly in the running to host the exposition, would it be more accurate to say that Hale proposed that his city host the exposition, rather than implying that he originated the whole idea?
From what I can tell, New Orleans tried to poach it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the fourth paragraph of the Background section is misplaced? The successful outcome of the exposition is not really part of the background to the issue of the coins.
It's the least awkward place to put it. I generally have such a paragraph late in the article, but I think it necessary to discuss the PPIE early.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "as they are today" are probably best removed, and left to inference, to avoid question about what "today" means.
I've modified it to avoid the word "today", but I feel the reader may not be familiar with the pramtice, so have to lead him along part of the way.
  • Legislation: what happened to H.R. 16902?
According to what I can tell from Congressional ProQuest, it never came out of committee. They were probably using both sides of the Capitol to see who would pass the bill first. But I don't find the legislative history finder in there reliable enough that I can draw any conclusions for the article. That being said, the Congressional ProQuest has been a great help in this kind of article, and I will miss it when my access ends at the end of summer.
  • Design: Link Union shield
  • Production and distribution: "There, hubs would be made that the Mint could use to produce coinage dies, as they could do it faster than could the Mint." Slightly hard to follow, without a clearer definition of "they". Perhaps "the company" rather than "they"
  • I'm a bit puzzled by this sentence: "Such an outcry could have caused the Mint to re-issue the coin, this time with the mint mark" – isn't that what happened?

The usual slightly dodgy goings on, told with the usual brio. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just based on how my teachers taught me to right, many moons ago in New Jersey, but thanks. My deep gratitude for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes except where noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taught you to right??! Maybe one lesson too few. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my commentary on the New Jersey Edyukation Systum was a bit understated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 7: The publisher of this page is The California Historical Society, not "ppie100.org" which is merely the web address.
  • Refs 15, 17, 18: I would add "US Government Publishing Office" as publisher
It's an automatically generated template. I think the link is sufficient and that it is not inconsistent with other refs.
  • Ref 19 format appears incomplete. Presumably US Congress is the publisher? Or LegisLink?
I've fixed that now.
  • In the list of sources, the states are included in the locations, except in the cases of Chicago and New York. Is this usual?
That's how I've been doing it. I am starting to reconsider as states have gotten added to a couple of existing FAs, but for now I'll let it stand.

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that very much. Except where noted, I've taken care of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2015 [2].

Microscopium[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onward and upward - this is the next in a bunch of constellations that are being buffed. Thought it was boring but has some fascinating tidbits. Has had a professional lookover from astronomer Mike Peel and a reasonably thorough GAN from Curly Turkey - so let me know what else needs doing. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—the article's gone through only minor tweaks since I saw it, and I thought it was up to snuff then (except for some unfortunate sandwiching with the infobox). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Based on a read through, I think it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Regarding 'Mic' (with single quotes), my sense is that consensus at FAC, even for non-AmEng articles, is for double quotes except for single letter abbreviations (sometimes) and a few other special cases. See WP:MOS#Reasons to prefer double quotation marks to single quotation marks, which applies the principle to phrases like "must see" as well as to quotations. It wouldn't bother me at all if consensus changed at either MOS or FAC, but I haven't seen evidence of that so far. I only mention this once per customer; I don't like to push this point because it might be seen as a pro-AmEng agenda, which it's not. The IAU (at http://www.iau.org/public/themes/constellations/) seems to use italics rather than single or double quotes, which would also be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx - my feeling is italics probably as a word-as-word situation. However we have a bunch of other constellation FAs with the single quotes. I think the best thing is a quick RfC and change all constellations at once to preferred version. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Cas, works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – usual high quality stuff. One thing: "The stars that comprise Microscopium are in a region previously considered the hind feet of Sagittarius, a neighboring constellation." -- Who considerd this? CassiantoTalk 23:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx -will double check. source doesn't say but it'd be early celestial cartographers before the 1750s I suspect. This is the logical answer but not stated in source however.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem if it doesn't. Perhaps its best to avoid OR even if the answer is obvious. CassiantoTalk 08:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Blue-linking "French" is pushing things a bit, in terms of WP:OVERLINK, and your bibliographic style is not entirely consistent: you tell us that Cambridge and London are in the UK, but we are left in ignorance of the whereabouts of Florida and New Jersey. That apart (and looking just a little askance at "to all intents and purposes") I have nothing but praise for a fine article that is comprehensible even to someone like me, to whom astronomy is a closed book. – Tim riley talk 09:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oh dear, I unlinked French. I've always done states for north america and australia and countries elsewhere.....thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Source review:

  • Some journal titles are linked, some aren't (Popular Astronomy, for example).
did that. checking others linked all I could Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like "self-published" ought to be capitalized. Thoughts?
fine by me - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 15 - wrong date? The source says it was published in 2002, not 2003.
whoops, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 25 - can you pipe the link to the journal so "The" is included in the link? Looks awkward.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, everything looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2015 [3].

Irataba[edit]

Nominator(s): RO(talk), ·maunus · snunɐɯ·, and ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important Native American leader named Irataba. I believe it should be featured because of the quality of the article, which has been edited and reviewed by numerous respected Wikipedians. RO(talk) 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - For the edification of anyone revisiting this for review, can the nominators provide a high-level summary of what was changed since the last nomination? I recall substantive disagreement in FAC1 about the suitability of Waters. I see he his no longer cited in the article—but has all the prose written in consultation with his text been removed? Also from FAC2: "Maunus ... seems to have some specialist books now to further expand it". Was that done? --Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laser. Maunus had a book coming at the time of withdrawal, but I believe he has since added all he intended adding. I did tell him that if he began expanding it again during the FAC I'd revert it. He finished on it about ten days ago and believes it is now comprehensive and FA standard I think. He also took care of some of the past sources, including Waters I believe. RO has since copyedited it and everything should now be stable and above board. I opted out of the renomination though because I wasn't prepared to deal with possible catty comments, but I hope this continues to attract decent input regardless.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I have removed the material that relied un unreliable sources, and added material from other specialist sources. I feel the article is ready for a review now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the sourcing has been checked, but I've also requested a source review: ([4]), and several parts of the article have been rewritten by Maunus, who has finished with his expansion/copyediting. RO(talk) 16:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dr. Blofeld and Rationalobserver. --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has undergone substantial review and reworking since it was last put up for FAC. In particular, the copyvio issues The issues with sourcing and tone raised at the time of the pervious FAC have been resolved, as far as I can see, problematic edits have been fixed and overall the article is substantially improved. I do not believe I am eligible to review this FAC in this round because since the previous one I have made at least some minor contributions to the article, as has @Maunus:, who also was an FAC reviewer last time. However, the issues I raised then have been addressed, so though I am now an "involved" editor, I think I could support this FAC, though I do invite new reviewers to give it a thorough looksee. Montanabw(talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, thanks for the vote of confidence, but the "copyvio issue" you linked to above is a false positive set off by a Wikipedia mirror site. Please consider striking that part of your comment, which is not accurate, as copyvio did not even come up at any of the previous peer reviews or FACs. RO(talk) 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Looks like you are correct. Will do. Should clarify my issues, the copyvio concern was less the issue for me anyway. Montanabw(talk) 18:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Alt text isn't required, but if it's included it should be accurate - File:Irataba_by_Balduin_Möllhausen,_1857.jpg is a lithograph, not itself a pencil drawing - and shouldn't duplicate the caption
Fixed. RO(talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Irataba.jpg: recalling the conversation from the previous nom, suggest including source for date and authorship (and if authorship is truly unknown suggest not including it)
I am not sure about those. Dr. Blofeld found that awesome image. RO(talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is the ideal main image, yup. I believe I asked We hope to look into it. It would have been taken about 1864, and given that he's in uniform, probably by the army. It's undoubtedly PD, but some more details about it might be good.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the previous conversations about the Irataba 1864 photo and others in the article. Right now, I don't know what the map listed below is based on--would need to start searching for something similar to try determining that. We hope (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Colorado_River_Indian_Reservation_in_Relation_to_Arizona,_California_and_Associated_Counties.jpg: what is the base map here? The caption at the bottom suggests previous publication. Also, what is the source of the data reflected here? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure, but I think it's the original work of User:Cenglish, who has been inactive since 2011. RO(talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of other maps of the reservation online, but none that really look like this one except for the shape as far as I can find.[5][6]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if the uploader said it was own work, it probably is. If it comes down to replacing the image or sourcing, I did a search at the BIA web site and per US-PD, I think these could be replaced if need be, and in the meantime I will add citations to the image page at any rate (Nikki? Verify?) Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would need to see the potential replacement to comment on it. The source looks good for the second question (thanks), but I'm not sure about the first - often self-uploaded maps use a pre-existing map as their base and impose data on top of it. I've tried tracking the ID number at the bottom, no luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment from John I took a wee hack at the prose which has been substantially rewritten since I last reviewed it. However and subsequently need to be used with care. I think on prose it now marginally passes FAC and the sourcing also looks ok to me, though I will defer to others on this. --John (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irataba's travels Would he have used the Panama Canal Railway to cross the isthmus? It seems likely but I'd be interested to know. We can't just say he sailed to New York as modern readers may think he would sail via the canal, which was decades away at this point. --John (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, but I don't think any of the sources specifically state that. RO(talk) 19:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shame. Oh well. --John (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This source tells a little about how the travel from SF to New York was done in those years. We know he traveled on the SS Orizaba to Panama.[7]·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I think I am ok with the current wording, if everybody else is. If it isn't described in the sources we cannot describe it here. I just didn't want us to falsely imply that he could have sailed direct from SF to NYC before that was the route. --John (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing As this has been raised in the past, can I confirm whether supporters (Montanabw (talk · contribs), Tim riley (talk · contribs), Ssven2 (talk · contribs), Ipigott (talk · contribs), Jaguar (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs)) specifically support the current sourcing following review? I don't feel able to do this as I don't fully understand the questions that were raised in the previous FAC. I think I could support if this is the case. I am reasonably happy with the prose but a bit like Montanabw I have now edited the article quite a bit so may be thought to have a COI so my putative support would have to be read with that in mind. --John (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John for double checking but I have already handled this with my support below.--Ipigott (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Maunus (talk · contribs) addressed most of my concerns, I also tweaked some things myself, which is why I think it best I do not review the article for this FAC round. My concerns at the previous FAC were that when I looked at the actual sources available online, material was either attributed to a very wide page range (5-10 pages) and/or didn't actually fit the citation. There were also problems with the way primary sources were used and issues of tone. I believe all of those issues have been addressed. I do think that source spotchecks should still be done by independent reviewers, just to be sure we are all good now. Montanabw(talk) 19:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested an independant source review: ([8]). RO(talk) 19:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any concerns I had about the prose, the tone and the sourcing have now been addressed. Support, with the proviso already expressed about COI. --John (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to John, above: I have no quibble with the sourcing, but I repeat that I know practically nothing of the subject and certainly can't pretend to judge one source against another. If RO thinks an independent review is wanted I think it admirable, showing how seriously the nominators treat the matter. Tim riley talk 20:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a couple of suggested tweaks, but nothing to fuss about:

  • In 1871–1872 general General George Crook – the MoS bids us use "1871–72" as the date-range style, and one General is enough for Cook.
  • Kroeber and Fontana: really "american indians" in lower case?
  • I didn't spot a gratuitous "however", but John's wise advice, above, on this is always worth following.

Those small points apart, very happy to support for FA. As a layman I find the content evidently comprehensive, the sourcing and citation are fine and the prose is pleasingly readable. – Tim riley talk 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Tim! I've fixed those points you mentioned ([9]); thanks for the heads up! RO(talk) 20:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My support was based purely on prose, which looks good to me. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I am on a break. Having supported this article before, it does look better now. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm glad to see there has been substantial progress on the points I raised during the last review.--Ipigott (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've reveiwed this four times now, why isn't this FA already!? JAGUAR  16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thought it was one already!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado[edit]

I've made the odd copyedit since the last review, but I think I still count as an independent reviewer. The article is a good read and further improved since last time. Just a few comments and open questions:

  • Lead
    • ...he led several hundred of his supporters to the Colorado River Valley: is this including "Valley" a proper name? Even if so, does the new reservation represent substantially all of it? I suspect not, so a small "v" may be appropriate here.
    • wl Chemehuevi in the lead too?
    • the formulation "xx is mixed: yy but zz" should probably be relegated to film stubs, although it is sometimes difficult to think of an alternative.
    • In 2002, the US Bureau of Land Management designated 32,745 acres (13,251 ha) as Ireteba Peaks Wilderness.: Where? It is mentioned later in the article, but slightly more, brief, detail here would be good. Perhaps: "In 2002, the US Bureau of Land Management designated 32,745 acres (13,251 ha) in the Eldorado Mountains as Ireteba Peaks Wilderness."
  • Background
    • repetition of "present-day": can we find language that makes this clear enough the first time?
    • Irataba was a hereditary leader of the Huttoh Pah group, ...: Was he "a leader" or "the leader" of that group at the time he was leading? The is probably only unclear in this rather specific context of a particular group at a particular time.
  • Ives Expedition
    • is the plural of Paiute Paiutes or Paiute? similarly: Hualapais or Hualapai? "Paiute" and "Hualapai" seem more natural as plural forms to me (generally for such names ending in a vowel sound) and I see that Hualapai refers to "the Hualapai" rather than "the Hualapais". Further down, in the Later years section, we refer to "ongoing conflicts with Paiutes and Chemehuevi" which seems particularly inconsistent.

* Conflict with the US army

    • In spite of Irataba visiting the garrison several times arguing for their release, ...: "...visiting...arguing..." limps a bit. Perhaps "Although Irataba visited the garrison several times and argued for their release, ..."
  • Later years
    • Picture caption – who was Ah-oochy Kah-ma?
  • References / Sources
    • "Parker Troth". The Yuma Daily Sun has both the open access icon and (subscription required). Reading open access this looks incorrect and the icon should be removed. (Some pages via that provider are open, others not).

I can't see anything here which will prevent my support. Well done to everyone who has worked so hard on this article. --Mirokado (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirokado, I've addressed most of your above comments here: ([10]), and I'll respond to the ones I didn't resolve. Paiutes is proper for plural, but one could also say "the Paiute", and refer to them as a whole. I'm actually not sure who Ah-oochy Kah-ma is. We hope found that image, and maybe they can shed some light on that person's identity. RO(talk) 20:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, another quick response! Supporting now, we can sort out Ah-oochy Kah-ma as convenient. As far as "Paiutes" are concerned, I will defer to you unless anyone else joins the conversation. Striking addressed comments. --Mirokado (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the LOC link and he's only identified as a friend of Irataba. The photo was taken by Carlos Gentile (who has no WP article, BTW). While traveling the West and photographing, Gentile adopted a small boy he named Carlos Montezuma.
I did some research on that Smithsonian portrait of Irataba and found it was part of Montezuma's collection and was donated to the Smithsonian by his widow. Montezuma did a lot of lecturing about the tribes of the West; the Irataba portrait was one of the slides he used for his talks. My belief is that the Smithsonian Irataba photo was also taken by Gentile, as Montezuma was only 8 years of age when Irataba died. We hope (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A couple of very minor MoS tweaks made to the citations, but all good throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've been involved in the peer review of this article, and all my concerns were addressed there; the article has had plenty of experienced input, and the article is certainly in much better shape than when I first saw it; the referencing concerns raised at peer review appear to have been dealt with. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: did you want another spot check? I thought somebody already did one at the last FAC?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks DrB, unless I missed it, doesn't look to me that an independent spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing has been done on this article yet, and I think we should see that, as well as the usual source review for formatting and reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria (spotchecks not done)[edit]

  • FN20, 76, 112: page?
Maunus, do you have these page numbers? RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What is source is FN?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you mean Foot Note twenty? That is a reference to the entire work. The Shumway et al is p. 89, Braatz is page 136 (supports the gunshot wounds, the additional bayonet wound is mentioned in the Wilson source and in the primary sources used by both Braatz and Wilson).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done ([11]). Thanks for the assist, Maunus! RO(talk) 18:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
Fixed. RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Webb in Bibliography
Fixed. RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher/location
I think the only ones with location now are newspapers, and I thought they need to have it even if others do not. Is that right, or can I remove them? RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No source type requires the inclusion of locations. You may choose to include them for newspapers, but you would need to be doing so consistently (either for all newspapers, or for all those that don't include location in their titles) - currently that is not being done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I removed the remaining locations ([12]) from the bibliography. RO(talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shumway or all seems to have an identified publisher
Ssven2 fixed it; thanks Sven! RO(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rationalobserver: No problem. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN for Wilson?
Ssven2 fixed it; thanks Sven! RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rationalobserver: No problem. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further reading should be its own level-2 section. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RO(talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Although I'm crossing heavily-trod ground, I've looked over the article and I see no reason not to throw in my support before promotion. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. This article has now endured a combined 7 weeks or so of FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check (recusing coordinator duties):

  • Fn 19, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 34, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 43(b), OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 67, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 102, image caption might be WP:OR. All the source supports is that it's Irataba with "Ah-oochy kah-mah". What is the source for "possibly identical with Ohatchecama"? Also, the source appears to capitalize "Kah-mah".
  • Fn 108, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing.
  • Fn 111, OK. Page given supports article text, no close paraphrasing. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN102, it is a mild degree of OR, which I think should be permissible. We know from Braatz that there are many spelling variants of Ohatchecama, we have another picture clearly of the same person labeled "Ohatchecama", and we know from the source of the photo that it was taken at Date Creek where we know Irataba and Ohatchecama were both present in 1871. So while the identification of the Ahoochy Kahmah with Ohactchecama is not directly supported by any source, it is a very mild degree of synthesis, similar to the kind of permissible deduction, I think, and the article would be poorer for excluding it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. I didn't read the entire article thoroughly so I hadn't encountered the similarity. I wouldn't say any action is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- looks ready to promote but a couple of things:

  • I don't know that the word "important" helps in the first sentence, partly as it's a value judgement but also because it's about as redundant in a WP article as "notable".
  • What was the reason for the small text in the caption for File:Ah-oochy Kah-ma and Ireteba.jpg?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2015 [13].

Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990[edit]

Nominator(s): Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Earth-grazing meteoroid that flew over Czechoslovakia and Poland on 13 October 1990 and left into space again. It was the first event of this type, when the meteor was captured from two sites, which enabled geometrical calculations of its orbit. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

Really just a few comments, I'm afraid. I'm still recovering from my broken ankle and don't have the time to conduct a thorough review.

  • Lead image caption:
    • "the light track across the picture going from the south to the north" could perhaps be improved since the track is not very visible and there is no indication of north, south or direction travelled on the image. Since south-to-north is clear in the body of the article, perhaps something like "the faint near-vertical track just to the right of the pole star" would be a better indication.
  • Similar events
    • What does "eccentric trajectories" mean in this context? Needs clarification I think. Perhaps "...a method for computing the grazing trajectories of such bodies, ..." may be clearer.
  • References
    • It looks as if Spurný 1994 requires payment for the full contents. Probably need to add the |subscription=yes parameter to this and any similar citations.

--Mirokado (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado: Thanks for the suggestions, I made the changes. I did not know about the the subscription parameter before. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Striking. --Mirokado (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:EN131090_with_text.png: what is the source of the data used for this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For the orbits of the meteoroid before and after, the data are simply those in the table in same section and the data for the orbits of the planets are those in the infoboxes on their articles or any other place where they can be found. Is it really necessary to mention this in the caption? --JorisvS (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the caption, but it should be added to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Right, interesting topic. Reading now....

  • .. left into space again - this sounds odd - maybe "returned to space again"?
  • I'd put its mass in the lead, as otherwise I have no idea what "small" is at this point.
  • If possible, avoid isolated single-sentence paragraphs.
  • The encounter was observed both visually and photographically. - I think I'd remove this sentence and let following sentences speak for themselves.
  • It became visible at a height of 103.7 km south of Zlín, Czechoslovakia, approaching Earth's surface to only 98.67 km northeast of Wrocław, Poland and disappeared from the sight of the cameras at the height of 100.4 km north of Poznań, Poland, although it was probably still visible until the height of 110 km above the south Baltic Sea. - this sentence is really long - I'd split it.
Ok, I've done it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more elaboration on fusion crust would be helpful.

Looks ok (I think), though is pretty short. Will think about what else it might need. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I have copyedited it using your comments and have also found a few things myself that I've changed.[14] I'm currently not sure how to split up that sentence without breaking the flow of the content, do you have any suggestions? As for "fusion crust", would linking it (albeit to a glossary)[15] help? --JorisvS (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Linking it to the glossary is better than nothing. Doesn't need much really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose as I can't see any other improvements. FAs needn't be long if the topic matter is well-defined. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments:
  • the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions: was it the first captured from two different positions, or the first captured, and that happened to be from two different positions?
  • Both were equipped with all-sky fisheye objectives.: where's the citation for this?
  • who concluded that the body was practically not decelerated along the track: what does "practivally no decelerated" mean?
  • observed on 29 March 2006 above Japan: is this worth a redlink?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: I agree with your copyedits and all your comments. I've redlinked the meteoroid above Japan and cited the piece about the all-sky fisheye objective (it was simply in the same reference as the sentence before it). The 1972 Great Daylight Fireball was also recorded on camera, so it's the former. How do you suggest we rephrase it? As for the deceleration, the source lists all 0 m/s2, except for one data point at the meteoroid's perigee, where it lists 1 m/s2. I find it hard to believe that it would be actually zero all that time and so suddenly jump to 1 and back again, so it must have something to do with the numerical accuracy of the calculation (but there is no comment on this in the source). So, "practically not decelerated" would mean "no deceleration to within the accuracy of the calculation". --JorisvS (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "detected no deceleration"? For the two cameras bit, I can't think of an elegant way to handle it at the moment—ideally, it should be reworded, but I don't think it's a parituclarly important ambiguity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is about a computer simulation, so I don't know how appropriate 'detected' really would be. What about using basically what I already said above, i.e. "who found no deceleration along the meteoroid's track to within the accuracy of the calculation, except for a very short time near perigee, when it was approximately 1 m/s2."? --JorisvS (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for that bit of ambiguity, what about just removing "by cameras", because "recorded" already more or less implies as much, so "first recorded by cameras from two distant positions"? --JorisvS (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the version without "by cameras" is good. Another possibility might be "...first recorded by cameras that were located at two distant positions" (as opposite to "...first recorded by cameras, which were located at two distant positions"), but it is longer. Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity doesn't come from the cameras, it's about what was first: "being recorded" or "being recorded from two locations". The wording could be parsed as the former. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that "first recorded from two distant positions" has no ambiguity. I think it cannot be understood as "first recorded", but I am not a native speaker. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to withhold support over it, but it is indeed ambiguous as I've explained, which is why I had to ask for an explanation—because it wasn't clear to me which reading was correct. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that technically, "first recorded from two distant positions" can only mean the being the first from two different locations, whereas being the first recorded and incidentally also from two different locations would best have to be rephrased someway, but at least should have an additional comma, "first recorded, from two distant positions". However, because such commas are not sufficiently consistently used, I understand why it got you wondering (and, by extension, other readers). It currently reads "[it] was the second one scientifically observed, after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, and the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions"; couldn't we, because the 1972 GDF was also recorded, rephrase this to "[it] was the second one recorded, after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, and the first one from two distant positions"? It would eliminate all potential ambiguity/confusion. Or is something more meant by "scientifically observed"? --JorisvS (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that wording would be fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've changed it, though I still would like to hear @Jan.Kamenicek:'s input. --JorisvS (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is good to replace "second scientifically observed" for "second recorded", because there are some records about Earth-grazing meteoroids preceding the 1972 and 1990 events, such as the 1860 Great Meteor. That is probably why the sources such as Borovička & Ceplecha talk about "scientifically observed" events. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek: I would rather think it the other way around, then. In the 19th century there were no cameras, so an event like this back then could not have been recorded, at least in its intended meaning, i.e. #2 and the closely related meanings. However, there were already astronomers who could make scientific observations. I'm open to finding a more precise synonym. --JorisvS (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find a synonym that would express the same as "scientifically observed", which is in my opinion most precise, but I feel that the word "recorded" (whose first meaning is "To make a record of information") brings more disambiguity than there was before, if it is is used also for the first part of the sentence. Therefore I suggest to keep the original version "this was the second one scientifically observed, ..., and the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions". The words "by cameras" can be omitted (though not necessarily) because here it is clear that meaning number two is used ("To make an audio or video recording of"), because meaning number one would not make sense (it cannot be second scientifically observed and first with recorded information at the same time). I agree with the opinion of JorisvS that the meaning "first recorded and incidentally also from two different locations" cannot be assumed from the original wording. Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can assert it all you want—I did, in fact, read it both ways. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: I take your point seriously. I understand that you saw the ambiguity in the original version but I believe that can be solved by omitting the words "by cameras", i. e. "this was the second one scientifically observed, ..., and the first recorded from two distant positions". I really cannot find a better wording, but I am not a native speaker. I am open to other suggestions, but the current wording is really bad because it brings more ambiguity than there was before. Therefore I suggest to put it back until better solution is found (if there is any, because I am afraid that every attempt to avoid all possible ambiguities would result in very complicated sentences). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Omitting "by cameras" brings the words "recorded" and "from to distant positions" close to each other and then they seem more to belong together inseparably. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically it can only be read one way, but many readers may not read it quite that technically, which is why I prefer to address it anyway. As far as I can tell, both the 1972 and 1990 meteoroids have been recorded on camera and the only significant difference in this respect is that the 1990 meteoroid has been recorded on cameras from two quite distinct positions. Now, "scientifically observed" is less precise than "recorded", but even "recorded" is ambiguous without a qualifier. What about using "recorded on camera" instead? --JorisvS (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. And what about writing both, i. e. "...the second one scientifically observed and recorded on camera (after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball) and the first one recorded from two distant positions". I think it is quite important to point out that it was observed by scientific equipment, unlike many other notable meteors that were only incidentaly recorded e. g. on a tourist camera and then these amateur pictures were given to scientists (such as the Morávka meteorite, though it was not an Earth-grazer). Here the wording "first one recorded from 2 positions" should not be ambiguous thanks to the previous part of the sentence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case we could rather specify the kind of camera being meant, instead of writing the vague phrase "scientifically observed". --JorisvS (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can add the type of objective that all the cameras of the European Fireball Network use, but this can probably come later in the text. I am not sure how this fact could be used instead of pointing out that the 1972 and 1990 Earth-grazers were the only two that received direct attention of scientists until that time. But if you still do not agree with writing that, I will not insist on it anymore. It is not so important to spend so much time discussing it. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean type of camera like that. Just as in "camera used for professional astronomy" or something as opposed to one used by the general populace. It would make it something like "this was the second one recorded by astronomical cameras, after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, and the first one from two distant positions". --JorisvS (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see... The 1972 fireball was not observed by a typical camera, it was done using infrared radiometer tracking onboard a satellite. So maybe we could formulate it like this: "...the second one recorded using scientific astronomical instruments (after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball) and the first one from two distant positions,...". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that! Thank you for finding that! Yes, that works. --JorisvS (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—my comments were all pretty hairsplitting, and they've all been dealt with. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I've read through twice and made a couple of very minor copyedits. Just one minor issue that doesn't affect my support.

  • "It took 78 seconds": I think this means that Kristensen was able to detect the meteor for 78 seconds. If so I'd suggested "It lasted 78 seconds".

A concise and well-written article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Leaning support: This looks good, with one qualification. Long scientific articles tend to baffle the general reader and cannot be simplified without compromising their brevity and comprehensiveness. Here, we have an opportunity to take something which is intrinsically interesting and make it accessible for the general reader and not have to worry about it being too long. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to see if we can improve it on this score first. Additionally, an article as short as this should be almost perfect as an FA as there is greater opportunity for readers to focus on any issues! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The calculations were published by Czech astromers Pavel Spurný, Zdeněk Ceplecha, and Jiří Borovička from Ondřejov Observatory,[5][1][3]..." These refs should be in numerical order.
    I am not sure. I put them in this order on purpuse: it is the order in which they were published. Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure this is in the MoS somewhere, but of course I can't find it at the moment. In any case, it's standard practice at FA level. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me for jumping in with a digression, but I think (I could be wrong) that this is not in the MoS because there are situations where some editors prefer not to do it. I don't have strong feelings about this myself, but the argument is that a main reference should go first in the footnote list, regardless of numerical sequence, and footnotes that only support minor parts of the text should follow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see the merits of that. My main issues would be that a) it looks like an error and b) someone will eventually "fix" it anyway. I wonder if there is a compromise? I don't think I've ever seen a FA that doesn't follow the numerical order. That said, although my preference is for numerical order, I don't care so much that it would affect my support! Sarastro1 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What about not defining the references inline, but in the reference list, and then order them so that they appear in numerical order? --JorisvS (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fine to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is quite a short article, I wonder if we could provide some slight context for the non-specialist. For example, the mass was 44kg; is this big? How does it compare to other meteoroids? (Someone clicking on this article might wonder if it was potentially one that could wipe out humanity, and if they don't know how this compares, they might still think it could have done after reading it!) How do the magnitudes compare with, for example, stars or meteors? Can we give context to the heights? Most readers will probably not know the height of the atmosphere off hand.
These are good points we'll have to look into. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, good points. I added some apparent magnitude comparison and a note about the Kármán line. As for the mass, it had already been compared to the mass of the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, described as "a thousand times more massive", see the section Similar events. Is it OK like this? Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something about what would have happened if it had hit the surface. Maybe a comparison with the Chelyabinsk meteor. --JorisvS (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. We can assume that the body would not survive the flight through the atmosphere, but there is no source that would say it directly. We can also look for a source saying which bodies survive and which not, but all sources I saw mentioned only the size and not the mass (in fact none of these two is sufficient, because too many things play a role: mass, size, porosity, shape, speed, angle...). The only thing to be done is to calculate the diameter, knowing the mass 44 kg and assuming the average density of type I fireballs to be 3.7 g/cm3. This gives the diameter of about 28 cm (if it was a ball and if I calculated it correctly), and thus we may come to the conclusion that it was too small and had no chance to survive and hit the surface of the Earth. But it is a sort of original research. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about it again and finally I wrote something based on the website of the Australian Museum, which speculates about sizes of meteoroids that have a chance to reach the surface. Although they do not write about the mass (only about the sizes), it is quite clear from the text that "our" meteoroid would mean no danger. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wonder, given the short length, if we could be kinder to the reader, and maybe explain terms like "a typical meteoritic fusion crust" and "perigee" (such as we have done for aphelion) without needing to follow links?
Done Explained "perigee". --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is more that would stand explanation, but this is not essential. But it would help the general reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say only that I have done it for "perigee", not that I disagree with the other. That one simply needs a little more work on my part (or from someone else) to get right. --JorisvS (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I explained it in the text. Is it OK now? Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that that is a rather an approach to making it understandable to absolute laymen, but physically inaccurate. Despite that the point of it is to explain it to laymen, it should still be physically accurate. For one, I think the crust forms because it melts and solidifies again, not because it "burns" (i.e. a reaction with oxygen). I've given it a try. --JorisvS (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there had already been written that the crust was formed by melting and solidifying before I added the lay explanation. That is why I thought that it is demanded to simplify it even more. Now, after JorisvS rewrote the text, there is twice the same thing in one sentence. So, if you think that the melting-solidifying explanation is OK and does not need more simplification, I suggest that we return the original version (i. e. the version before this edit). Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. What about now, after my two edit to it? Also, we should now check the two sources at the end to see if they're in the correct place. --JorisvS (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good, thanks. I removed one of the sources, because it was a source that I had added together with the oversimplified explanation, which is now removed again. Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example: "It recorded the bolide's trajectory over approximately 110°, starting 51° above the southern horizon": These numbers would be meaningless to the general reader; they probably just want to know how much of the sky it crossed, so can we explain that in words?
Not sure Do you have a suggestion how we could do that? --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Supposing that the full arc from the southern horizon to the northern horizon is 180° and the body crossed 110°, we can say that it was visible through 60 % of the sky. Is this what you mean? Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that would work for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to their report, the event started at 3h 27m 16s ± 3s": Similarly, this will baffle the general reader. Why not give it as a simple time?
    I am not sure if I understand. What do you mean by "simple time"? Something like "half past three"? Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he means as "3:27:16±3"—"3h 27m 16s ± 3s" is an unusual way to give a clock time in English. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't have put it better myself! Sarastro1 (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Though using 03:27:16±3, because that looks even better. I am wondering about the "16±3", because it is typical to have spaces before and after a ±, but the space may make it unclear what exactly the uncertainty refers to. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also detected a radio reflection": Another one that we could explain better?
Done It should, I thought it meant that the bolide was detected using radar, but the source talks about a "radio receiver" and a "pen recorder". I have rephrased it to use these terms to clarify it, though unfortunately there is no article for pen recorder (yet). --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is at chart recorder. I have created a redirect for pen recorder. --Mirokado (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --JorisvS (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of sentences begin with "The" or "It". Could we introduce a little more variety?
Not sure I may have fixed some of it, but if you like more, I'd like to hear a suggestion. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at this when everything else is done. Ping me if I don't get back to you. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its angular velocity was so low that it got below the resolution of the instrument": I would recommend a more elegant word than "got"; maybe "fell"?
Done Rephrased to avoid a verb altogether. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we spell out grams, when all other units are abbreviations? (Maybe I'm missing something)
Done --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The program gave an apparent magnitude of −5.7 at the moment when it was seen by one of the cameras and −6.3 at perigee. It did not differ significantly from its absolute magnitude at this point. Then, [The]the bolide [subsequentl] got dimmer [dimmed], with an apparent magnitude of −5.4 at the moment when it was last seen by the cameras and a final calculated value of +6.0 at a height of 257 km." Could be improved to remove redundancy and repetition? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Certainly. I have kept the phrasing of the two original items of "at the moment when" consistent, using simply "when". The best professional style is to use the same phrasing consistently if that phrasing is correct. --JorisvS (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thank you very much for the points. I do apologize for being very busy this week, but I will try to address them as soon as possible. Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm more or less happy with this, but I would still suggest looking for ways to simplify for non-specialists where possible. Let me know when everything is done and I'll take another look. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I tried to address the last remaining points, so I think you may have a look if it is OK now. And many thanks to JorisvS, who addressed the previous points! Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Should we consider your comments addressed at this point or are you wanting to run through it again? --Laser brain (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a last look, and I'm more than happy. Thanks to the nominator for their patience. Nice work, and I've switched to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please don't use {{Done}} and similar graphical templates (see FAC-instructions), they can cause problems with FAC-page processing (I took the liberty and changed them to bold text). Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "1972 Great Daylight Fireball" is linked twice but not at the first instance. Also, how bright was at its blightest compared to a more common object say Venus or Jupiter? Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a comparison to the planet Uranus. As for the 1972 Fireball, it is mentioned 3 time in the text and linked at the first instance (in the lead) and then at the third instance (in the last section). Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already fixed that. Sorry for not noting it here. --JorisvS (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should also have a comparison for its brightest (lowest app. mag.). I've added a rough comparison with Venus. --JorisvS (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have "The Červená hora image was especially valuable.", but wasn't this a series of images or something? After all, it recorded a trajectory and had a rotating shutter. --JorisvS (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber[edit]

Source #1 checked (10 items) - text faithful to source and not paraphrased.
Source #7 checked - text faithful to source (item/word only)
Source #8 checked - text faithful to source (item/word only)
Source #6 checked (5 items) - I can't see where it says in the source it is a type I bolide. Other 4 sentences ok.

@Casliber: Source corrected. Thanks for heads up! Do I understand it correctly that the other sources mentioned above are OK? Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - all good then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2015 [16].

Falstaff (opera)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 14:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is a valediction to the late John Webber, who edited WP as Viva-Verdi. He and I worked separately and then together on upgrading the article, and I assumed he and I would co-nominate it for FAC. But I am sad to say that John died in March. He knew a hundred times more about Verdi than I ever shall, but I take it on myself to nominate the article in both our names. It had a very thorough and helpful peer review, and I hope it will be judged worthy of promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 14:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

I share the sentiments expressed above, grateful for the immense contribution of Viva-Verdi towards our love of Verdi's music. For the moment a first comment: The lead deals in some detail with the neglect, without first positively saying something about the characteristics of the work, such as ensembles vs. arias. More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A thought: Otello is mentioned and linked before the list of Shakespeare's plays touched by Verdi, - I would still like a link to the opera rather than the play Othello in that list, because in the opera's article, the play appears soon, in the play's article, you need another click. Same for Macbeth (opera) vs. Macbeth.
    • A good point. I'll ponder this. If others have views they will be gratefully received. Tim riley talk 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a subsection "Libretto" (under "Composition") might be an idea, and in the same perhaps first the necessity to shorten, then modifications between the (missing) first version and the final.
    • That could work, but I'm not certain it would clarify matters. Shall ponder. Tim riley talk 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize in reading that we have lovely details about the collaboration of librettist and composer but I would enjoy more details on the music itself and how it compares to earlier works by Verdi.
    • I think this is covered as much as a mere encyclopaedia article can cover it. It is indeed tempting to go into more detail, but I really think we should forbear, to keep the article reasonably concise. Tim riley talk 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will not (for lack of intimate knowledge) write four supplementing articles, as He was despised for Messiah, but think the music deserves at least as much coverage as the performance history ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I'll try sketching something out, though I shall sorely feel the absence of Viva-Verdi. If I can work up something useful I'll put it in. Tim riley talk 10:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to more time with the music and the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Some very minor tweaks here, prior to the review. A few other minor points:
  • A couple of the FNs (1 & 9, for example) have the opening part of the quote mark as part of the link, and the closing part outside the link. Others have them both as part of the link, so that's the best way to go.
  • FN13 Location needed
    • FN13, being a book ref, is now just the author and page number with full details (including location) in the Sources section. Tim riley talk 10:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN21 I think the formatting needs a tweak here: it looks like Shakespeare's first name is ed...
  • FN51 (Civetta). Are there any other divisions that could be used, such as chapter?
    • Done. Is there any MoS guidance on how to deal with such pageless online books? Tim riley talk 10:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, WP:Page numbers says "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title." So, as long as there is some indication as far as you can possibly and sensibly provide it, then that is all OK. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good. Thanks a lot for that, which I'll bookmark. Tim riley talk 10:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN65 Do you have the page number?

- SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for these points, SchroCat. I ought to have taken a little more time to check that John's and my referencing styles were consistent. I shall go away and refine with a most critical eye and report back. Tim riley talk 20:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All good for me, in terms of the source review. I will return for a prose review shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Some hairsplits and miscellaneous comments:
  • Are you aware of {{efn}} and {{Notelist}}? "#tag:ref" is pretty ugly.
    • I've used the "efn" when working with other editors who prefer it. But it results in "a", "b" etc for footnotes, which no other work of reference known to me ever does. But now you've pointed me in that general direction, I am interested in the "notelist-lr" option for future articles: that would produce a professional-looking format, and would distinguish more obviously between footnotes and citations. Thank you. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • many studio recordings and live tapings: or "many studio and live recordings"? By 2015 I'm sure there've been digital live recordings?
  • He wrote of "the large number of years in my age": one of my pet peeves—read aloud, the quote is not introduced as a quote, and thus the switch from third person to first referring to the same person is jarring.
  • Yet, as his biographer Mary Jane Phillips-Matz notes, "Verdi could not hide his delight at the idea of writing another opera".; "Yes, Sir! A fugue ... and a buffa fugue", which "could probably be fitted in".; "I will leave the theatre, and [Ricordi] will have to take the score away".: are these quotations punctuated here in the sources? I get the feeling they are, in which case the punctuation shuld go inside the quotemarks.
    • I'm afraid I really don't know. This is how Viva-Verdi transcribed it, and I have no reason to think it inaccurate. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • an English critic, R A Streatfeild,: MOS:SPACEINITS says: "An initial is followed by a full stop (period) and a space". There's nothing on the talkpage, whic makes me suspect the page should be moved.
    • This is one of those cases where the MoS bears no relation to reality, as in its universally-ignored rule that we don't link from within quotations, or that we have to change an author's title if it doesn't fit the MoS (we had to change Wodehouse's chosen title Leave it to Psmith to Leave It to Psmith). In British usage, full stops after people's initials have been old hat for decades, long dropped by HM Government, the BBC etc. I know US (perhaps I should say U. S.) usage is keen on "periods", but for present purposes local usage might be left undisturbed. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • official ticket prices were thirty times greater than usual: do we know what those prices were? It might be worth throwing them in an endnote.
    • It isn't in my sources. I think it was I and not Viva-Verdi who added this, so I think I must conclude that we don't know. I'll add this to my list of things to research when next at the British Library, and will footnote it if I find the facts. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • In fact it was in my sources after all, and I have just added a note as suggested. Tim riley talk 13:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the applause for Verdi and the cast lasted an hour: did it really? That sounds almost beyond plausibility.
    • It's widely attested in contemporary press reports and in the book sources. In our (or at least my) own time, Kenneth MacMillan's Romeo and Juliet was applauded for forty minutes or so at its Covent Garden premiere in 1965. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renascence: you wouldn't prefer a term more familiar to more readers?
    • I doubt if any reader interested in this opera is likely to struggle with the word, and it didn't cause comment at peer review, but I'd be happy to consider any suggested alternative that conveys the same import.
      • Well, I wouldn't suggest anything that wasn't obvious, and I only bring it up in the spirit that Wikipedia is aimed at a broad general audience. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Boito-1893.jpg: in what country was this published?
    • Britain. I'll add it to the details on the image page. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Verdi_aux_répétitions_de_Falstaff_1894.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Verdi-La_Scala_premiere_of_Falstaff_1893.jpg: where was this first published?
    • I'm afraid I don't know, and for sadly obvious reasons can't ask. I've removed it. Luckily, we are still well provided for with images at this part of the narrative. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Boito-Verdi_-_Falstaff_libretto.jpg needs a US PD tag, but it's not clear that the existing tag applies - who is the author? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with the second image, above, I've replaced it with an EnWP "PD-US-1923-abroad" version. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, as ever, Nikkimaria, for your customary care in reviewing. Tim riley talk 09:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Smerus[edit]

Support, definitely. Alas I don't have much time at present for profound comments (or perhaps that's just as well) but this seems to me a magnificent article and a memorable tribute to User:Viva-Verdi. Here are some notes so jejune that they scarcely even amount to nit-picks: -

  • Shouldn't the first mention of Falstaff in the lead (end of para 1) be linked to Falstaff?
    • Some kind colleague is ahead of me here, and has done the deed. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very trivial point but I don't think Verdi considered 'La Tempesta' for a moment before rejecting it - the offer came from Benjamin Lumley who was a poor prospect for actually paying - maybe "he was offered 'The Tempest' " is a bit more like it. (Halevy took up the offer and it was a flop).
  • In 'composition' - link to Brentford?
  • In 'premieres' - you don't need to repeat 'his publisher' before Ricordi.
  • Just to be boring - isn't 'Renascence' a bit affected? - I feel 'Re-assessment' or 'Renaissance' would be better - but that's only me. De gustibus and all that.
    • You're the second reviewer to think this. I'll try to find a plainer word. I don't quite go for 'Re-assessment' or 'Renaissance', but will have a good rummage in the thesaurus. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very far from nit-picks, and I shall look forward to working through them. Thank you very much indeed, Smerus. Tim riley talk 15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS Actually I see that Halevy's La Tempesta (libretto Scribe and Petro Giannone) was premiered in 1850, (8th June) so Verdi must have been offered the libretto (if at all) before that year, and the source cited is incorrect. Lumley brought Verdi to London for I Masnadieri in 1847 and it was a complete flop. Until that year, Lumley had pretended that Mendelssohn had agreed to set La Tempesta (he hadn't). The death of Mendelssohn in 1847 gave Lumley a lucky escape. I am unaware of any evidence that Lumley offered the libretto to Verdi, and personally (for what it is worth) I strongly doubt it. This source (p. 61) says "Exactly what happened between approximately 4 November 1847, the date of Mendelssohn’s death, and January 1850, when Halévy was contracted as composer, is unclear." So if it were up to me, I would omit any mention of La tempesta in the article.--Smerus (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript duly noted, and acted on, along with excellent earlier points. Thank you so much! Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cliftonian thoughts[edit]

Support from Cliftonian: I'm sure John Webber would have been extremely disappointed by my ignorance of Verdi and Sir John Falstaff, but I look forward to learning about them by reviewing this article. I did not know John but I'm sure he would have been very touched by this tribute from you, Tim.

  • I have copyedited in bits and pieces throughout; feel free to put back anything you don't like
  • A nitpick, but in the lead we refer to "Henry IV, parts 1 and 2" and in the body we refer to "Henry IV, Part 1 and Part 2". Either is fine in my view but we should be consistent
  • "moved from act 2 scene 2 to scene 1" we mean to act 2 scene 1, or scene 1 of the entire opera?
  • Santa'Agata or Sant'Agata?
  • We say that Maurel wouldn't perform in Germany, then that the production was "taken by the original company, led by Maurel, to Genoa, Rome, Venice, Trieste, Vienna and Berlin". Had Maurel dropped his reservations about performing in Germany, or should we mention who sang in Berlin in his place?
    • It's foonoted, but I could put in the main text if wanted. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first performances abroad" For most readers Italy itself will be "abroad". Perhaps "outside Italy"?
    • Hmm. In context I think "abroad" is OK, but I've changed as you suggest. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fenton, a young gentleman—but did he mess in the wardroom or the cockpit with the midshipmen?
    • Ambiguous. In the play he's a young, broke member of minor nobility on the make. Here's he's an all purpose handsome hero, but now I look at the original score there are few descriptions of the characters, and "gentleman" comes from the published Shakespeare dramatis personae. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the "Music and drama" section needs a citation inline.

I'm sorry not to have more to add, but the article is really that good. Thorough and engaging even to one such as me with next-to-no background knowledge. Thank you for yet another enlightening and enjoyable read. My comments above do not detract from the support I am happy to give above. —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Cliftonian, for these comments. Some good catches in there, for which I'm grateful. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cg2p0B0u8m (talk)[edit]

  • The Italians have reciprocated with their lead photo of Fugère as Sir John Falstaff....
    • Excellent! I laughed aloud. I'll just satisfy myself that it complies with WP's stringent copyright rules - which at first sight I think it does - and then I'll add it somewhere in the article. Delectable! Tim riley talk 18:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now posted into the info-box. Superb! Thank you, mon général! Tim riley talk 19:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the link to Victor Maurel's 1907 recording of "Quand'ero paggio", at archive.org at the bottom of the page working? If not (it didn't appear to me), you could use the Gallica link (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k128770f.r=Maurel+falstaff.langEN)
  • and perhaps the 'List of performances of Falstaff by Verdi on Operabase' link should say "List of recent and future performances.."
    • Definitely. I shall add accordingly. Tim riley talk 18:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah! I can't: this is a WP template, which one can't tamper with. Tim riley talk 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conception : Could we have a date for Rossini's comment about Verdi's lack of comedy?
  • Composition : is reiterated (He reiterated this idea ...) the right word?
    • I think so. Happy to entertain alternatives, though. Tim riley talk 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cast table needs a chorus : the IMSLP score says Borghesi e Poplani - Servi di Ford - Mascherata di folleti, di fate, di strehge, ecc
    • It does indeed, and so does my facsimile score of the 1893 original. I'll translate and add. A good catch – thank you! Tim riley talk 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Act 2 : when I read 'hamper' I thought of picnics. Shakespeare simply says basket, Kobbe (H) says a 'big washbasket'Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A very fair point. I'll tweak the prose. Mind you, Kobbe's "washbasket" isn't a word I have ever heard, and the OED mentions it only in passing. Laundry basket is the phrase we need. Tim riley talk 18:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thank you for these points, which I shall enjoy working through. Tim riley talk 18:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to you, and to Viva Verdi, for this fine article! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wehwalt[edit]

Support Bravo! Very well done indeed. Just a few comments:

Lede
  • Consider splitting the first paragraph after "Milan" as there seems a change of theme.
  • The approximate date of Toscanini's efforts to revive it would be good to include, I think.
Conception
  • "In his tragic operas Verdi introduced moments of comedy in, for instance, Un ballo in maschera and La forza del destino" this feels a bit awkward. Perhaps "He had included moments of comedy even in his tragic operas; for example in ..."
Composition
  • When did the public learn of Falstaff? Can anything be said about the public reaction then?
Premieres
  • "After Verdi and Strepponi left Milan on 2 March, Casa Ricordi, encouraged the composer to go to the planned Rome performance of 14 April, to maintain the momentum and excitement that the opera had generated." The comma after "Ricordi" should probably go. This sentence is a bit awkward.
  • "The first performances outside Italy" perhaps add "Kingdom of" before Italy to cover yourself on Trieste.
  • I would mention Verdi's death at some point; if it can be tied in to the relative lull in performances of Falstaff, all the better.
Act 3
  • "and together they and their allies have been watching secretly. " I would strike "together". I'm not sure what it adds.
Music
  • Through-composed should probably be linked in the main text, not in a footnote.
  • Shouldn't "A. Herring"be italicised?
Not my favourite opera, but I enjoyed the article very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this. I've acted on all your suggestions. (I must confess I had to look up the import of your comments about Trieste.) Your input and support are greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 08:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Support An excellent article and a worthy FA in its own right. That this is in tribute to John Webber only adds to the experience of those here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes as Schro says, this really is a top notch article on a core article in this field. A great read and a fine tribute too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to SchroCat and Dr B for the support and kind comments. At Gerda's suggestion I've tacked on 500 more words on the music, which I hope will also command your approval if you happen to revisit the page. Tim riley talk 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I copy-edited this article and made various comments there that were resolved by Tim riley. This is an excellent treatment of the history, text, music and criticism of this opera. I believe it is some of the best work on Wikipedia, and I congratulate Tim riley on another excellent piece of work. I heartily support this for promotion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments, the support and the copy-editing. In the circumstances I am anxious to do justice not only to the subject but to my late collaborator. Your input, Ssilvers, is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 16:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod comment Great stuff! The only thing I can think is that it would be nice to have a sort of canon tables relating the opera's scenes to the Shakespeare plays, mainly MWoW, at least as far as the action goes, not odd passages. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a most attractive idea. We could make it collapsible so that them as wanted to see it could and them as didn't wouldn't have to. I'll make a start on that, but I think perhaps the present review can go ahead regardless. Tim riley talk 18:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! I’ve made a start (on paper at this stage), but it’s going to take a long time. But I think it will be worth the work. Just don’t expect to see it any time soon! Tim riley talk 12:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry! Perhaps foolishly, I thought it would be fairly straightforward, with the opera not having very many scenes. It certainly isn't necessary for FA status. I'd help, but I don't have time at the moment. Do take your time. On a quick consult with Prof. Google, this had more detail than the average comparison. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No apology required, Johnbod! It's an excellent idea, and I shall enjoy working on it at leisure. I have one major crib to hand already. Tim riley talk 15:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have been watching this article from afar (long ago it was on my "possibly to do" list}. I think that in short order Tim has converted a promising article into a gem, and have no hesitation in supporting its elevation. Great work. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Brian, for your input at peer review, your help with sources, and your support and kind words here. Tim riley talk 07:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I missed this owing to real life, but I took the time to read this today at the BFI museum during a rare day off. I wasn't disappointed and you have done Verdi proud I'm sure. CassiantoTalk 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cassianto! Carry on Up the Merry Wives, you know! Tim riley talk 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2015 [18].

A Quiet Night In[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A Quiet Night In", the second episode of dark comedy anthology series Inside No. 9, was half an hour of (almost) dialogue-free comedy. The Times TV critic David Chater called it "the funniest, cleverest, most imaginative and original television I have seen for as long as I can remember - one of those fabulous programmes where time stands still and the world around you disappears", but someone subsequently wrote in to the publication to say they "were horrified" with the episode. That might give you an idea of what to expect. I've plundered a variety of sources, rewatched the episode several times and massaged the prose repeatedly. I would like to thank Grapple X (talk · contribs) for a GA review and Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) for a peer review. I look forward to your comments. This may be a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

  • Joyce Veheary and Kayvan Novak also star. - I'd put this somewhere else, as it's in between two sentences related to the plot
  • I generally prefer "Plot" being before "Production", but I guess the MOS doesn't require it.
    • I prefer it my way around as it offers a rough chronology- it was made, it was broadcast, there was a response. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film says "There is no defined order of the sections." I do have sympathy for your way around- I think a certain degree of author's choice is appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, agree (hence "I guess the MOS doesn't require it".) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • He looks to the fake painting, - Don't recall a fake painting being mentioned before this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ray cuts away the canvas and replaces it with kitchen roll." Does this need to be stressed a bit more? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake. If others miss this, it might be worth emphasis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics generally responded positively to "A Quiet Night In". David Chater, writing for The Times, gave an extremely positive review, - positive/positive — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Thanks, Chris, for the review. It's appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, however I have one small concern regarding the use of "darker elements" in the lede paragraph. I am sure that those of us raised as native Anglophones will understand this, but will others from other socio-cultural backgrounds necessarily understand it ? Could we use a less ambiguous term perhaps ? If people disagree with me on this, that is fine, but just thought that I'd raise the point as it was popping up in my mind. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and I would really recommend that the weblinks here are archived, as for instance I did for the Uncle David article. Otherwise there may be a situation in the future where those links have died, and thus text will have to be removed from the article itself, which might potentially threaten its GA/FA rating. I always think that it's better to stay on the safe side in a scenario such as this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing ! In the reception section, there is a caption stating "Gerald eats his soup Eddie and Ray attempt to enter the house"; this doesn't make much sense as it currently stands so a small revision is probably required. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Midnightblueowl, it's thoroughly appreciated. I've fixed the caption, and will hopefully get to your other comments tomorrow (or, if not, at the weekend- a lot going on). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched "darker" to "more sinister". I think that perhaps loses some of the subtly of the original wording, but I recognise that "dark" is a little euphemistic. I've also archived the majority of URLs. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ruby2010

This is a great article and I only really have small nitpicks. Please feel free to disagree with any of them!

  • "Written by Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton, it stars the writers as a pair of hapless burglars attempting to break into the large, modernist house of a couple, played by Denis Lawson and Oona Chaplin, to steal a painting." I feel like this could be rewritten to make it flow better. It seems a tad choppy how it is now (I think it's all the commas). Perhaps input an em dash? "...a couple—played by Denis Lawson and Oona Chaplin—to steal a painting".
  • Did Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith write the episode "David and Maureen"? It's not clear.
    • I've clarified that they co-wrote and starred in both League of Gentlemen (they co-wrote with others, but "co-wrote" does not imply that they were the only writers) and Psychoville. This logically implies that they co-wrote "David and Maureen". Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2015, Shearsmith said that the pair had no intention to do any further silent episodes, as they would not want viewers to think they had run out of ideas". Is this sentence missing a word or did you mean to write it like that? (I could fix it myself but wanted to check first).
  • You include "Both writers agreed it was "great to perform" before establishing that they acted in the episode. Perhaps this belongs in the following paragraph?
  • It doesn't sound like Chaplin's casting was "coincidental", since one of the writers said it was "almost an accident but maybe a little nod". "Coincidental" seems too strong a word to describe this but I'm not sure what else to use. Hmmm...
    • I've changed it to "her casting was not a deliberate homage", which I think is a little weaker than calling it "coincidental". Do you think this is better? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnote on the characters' names is awkwardly placed. I almost feel that it would be better to include at the end of production section (as prose, not a footnote). Ruby 2010/2013 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No third-party source thought the point significant enough to mention, so I don't really want it outside of the plot section or in the main body. I have moved it to a less intrusive place; hopefully this is a bit better? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I like that you at least moved the note to the end of the sentence, so it doesn't break up the text as much. Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments! I'll get to these soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks again for the review- it's very much appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My quibbles have been mostly dealt with, so I'm happy to support this article for promotion. Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

  • J. asked me to have a look, so here's a source review.
    • Beyondthejoke.co.uk - Assuming is, indeed, run by Bruce Dessau, this strikes me as meeting SPS (commenting on this explicitly in case anyone takes issue later)
    • Is Broadcast italicized or not? You've got it both ways.
    • What does "TVP" stand for in The Herald reference? Is it necessary?
      • I'm guessing it stands for something like television page(s). I wasn't sure if it was a supplement rather than the main paper, but, given that it's a Wednesday paper reviewing Wednesday television, I assume not. I'll remove it. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Star: page number, if this is an offline reference? URL if it's online?
      • I've added a Highbeam link. It's not how I accessed it, but it's the same article. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd standardize whether or not you archive web references. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Times and Broadcast are subscription only, but if the URLs go down, the print sources will remain (they're archived in Nexis, for instance). The Internet Archive won't archive the video on the BBC source, which is what I'm really citing, so an archive wouldn't be helpful. Nonetheless, the BBC, The Times and Broadcast should be pretty secure. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2015 [19].

Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Bollyjeff (talk), User:Dr. Blofeld (talk)

This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the world. During its first FAC, some reviewers cited excessive length. We have now moved non-essential elements into sub-articles, making it very manageable. I believe it is FA quality. Khan is turning fifty this year, and I would like to see this have a shot at TFA. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

Support — I supported in the previous FAC. With a lot of copyediting and a second PR done, the article looks even better. Just a couple of comments though

  • A line or two on Paheli can be included as it was well received by critics. Just a suggestion though. Your call, Bollyjeff.
  • Personally, I wouldn't want to see any possible deadlinks in this article. Archiving of all the references (excluding those from books) would be great.

Comments from Kailash[edit]

Though I supported this during the previous FAC, the article has undergone substantial changes since, and some points I'd like to list:

Lede
  • "villainous roles" - I don't know how much of a POV statement it can sound like, but "negative roles" may do if needed.
I like it this way for the majority of English-language readers. I have already changed it from "negative" to "dark" to "villainous" based on other reviewers comments. BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DDLJ, DTPH, KKHH and K3G are all romantic films with varying subgenres. So I think they can simply referred to as romantic films. And fix the link to K3G.
  • "reportedly one of the richest actors in the world in 2014" - Sounds vague. According to who?
Acting career
  • "made-for-television English-language film" - I'd prefer "English-language television film", wikilink included.
  • "changed his mind" - I earlier said to change this to the more formal "changed his decision". Why is it back again?
  • Please update info on DDLJ's run; I guess it was never removed, only they announced that they would close it, though they did not.
  • Fix the link to Asoka.
  • "penned" is jargon. Say "written".
  • Veer Zara can simply be described as a romantic film, as "saga" usually means something longer, like a series.
  • Don can be simply described as an action film, because that it is what is, not entirely a thriller.
  • "portraying a 1970s junior artiste who is reborn in the 2000s as a superstar" - the reincarnation (Om Kapoor) was not born in the 2000s. he was born just after Om Prakash died in the 1970s.
  • "turning down" - refusing?
  • "11 September attacks" - must match the article name (September 11 attacks).
That would violate the date style, no? BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a sequel to Don of 2006" - a sequel to Don (2006). I also think it is SRK's first sequel in his career.
In the media
  • "ad" - You mean advertisement.
Do you mean in "television ads, print ads"? It wont sound right using that big word twice in a row. I believe it is as shown in the source. BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already know who Anupama Chopra is, so need to define her by occupation.
  • The quote box seems misplaced.
Awards
  • Single digit numbers must not be represented through numerals, but through letters... unless required.
Footnotes
  • "Chopra's book gives the date as 19 September 1980, making Khan 14 years old" - mention the book name, and I think you mean that SRK was 14 years old at that time.
Additionally, it would be great if all the links were archived, as once there were "I-don't-remember-how-many" dead links, possibly over 100. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kailash29792: Is that a support now then or not?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Other reviewers plainly know much more about the subject than I do, but from the layman's point of view I find the article comprehensive and evidently well balanced, the prose is easy to read, and the word-count has wisely been brought down to about three-quarters of the previous length. It is not obvious to me how any reader wanting information about this performer could be disappointed by this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 08:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support; nicely put together and appears well-balanced. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Tim riley and SchroCat for taking the time to read and review this. Glad Tim that your earlier concerns with it have now been met.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Early life and family
  • "...served as chief engineer of the port in the 1960s." -- Looking at the date in the opening of the first section, I assume we will be completing the article in BrEng? If so, the definate article is much more preferable.
  • "As of 2010, Khan's paternal family was still living in Shah..."were" living?
  • "According to Khan, while he strongly believes in Islam, he also values his wife's religion" -- Which is?
  • "At home, his children follow both religions" -- So when not at home do they follow others? "At home" is a little redundent I fear.
Acting career
  • "Two weeks after his mother's death in April 1991, Khan changed his decision regarding acting in films,[41] citing it as a way to escape the pain of losing her." -- This sounds a little repetetive seeing as we only mentioned her death in the previous section. Might I suggest instead: "Khan changed his decision to act in films in 1991, citing it as a way to escape the grief of his mother's death." This will also get rid of the WP:EUPHEMISM with the"losing her" term.
  • "...and by June 1991" -- No need for the year again.
  • "... he had started his first shooting" -- " he had started his first shoot"?
  • "Another of his early signings, Deewana, was released in June 1992, becoming his film debut." -- Why not cut straight to it and say "His film debut was in Deewana..."?
  • "with actress Juhi Chawla." -- Def article?
  • "Darr marked the first of Khan's many collaborations with filmmaker Yash Chopra and his company Yash Raj Films. His stammering..." Khan or Chopra?
  • "...film of the year in India. His most significant release that year was Aditya Chopra's directorial debut" -- year/year in close proximity.
  • "The performance itself is, like the best in the business, played well enough to come across as effortless, as non-acting." -- Odd comma use. "The performance itself is like the best in the business, played well enough to come across as effortless, as non-acting." Check the sources to see if this correct.
  • "Later in 1997, he starred in Subhash Ghai's diasporic-themed social drama Pardes, where he portrayed Arjun" -- Laterin 1997, he starred in Subhash Ghai's diasporic-themed social drama Pardes, in which he portrayed Arjun..."?
  • "but India Today lauded Khan's energetic performance" -- They would've lauded Khan for his performance not his actual performance?
  • "Writer Anjana Motihar Chandra" -- Def article?
  • "He continued to have frequent associations with directors Yash Chopra, Aditya Chopra, and Karan Johar" -- We know they're directors so it sounds a little repetitive. Suggest: "He continued to have frequent professional associations with Yash Chopra, Aditya Chopra, and Karan Johar..."?
  • "Khan became a producer..." -- We can get away with a pronoun here.
  • "In 2002, Khan played..." -- For an article in BrEng such as this, I'm not sure of the American comma used in openers such as this. Having said that, consistency is present throughout regarding this and if others don't object then neither will I.
  • "Fuad Omar, author of Bollywood: An Insider's Guide..." -- Def article?
  • "WP:OVERLINK of New York City. I think we're safe in the expectation that most people would've heard of this.
  • "...with his wife Gauri serving as a producer." -- Copy edit "serving" out of this; it would work just as well without IMO.
  • Likewise with "new" immediately after it.
  • "...grossing film of 2004 in India, earning a worldwide gross..." -- grossing/gross
Other work
  • "...he and wife Gauri" -- Do we need a further introduction to Gaurj?
  • "He also sang in his own voice..." - Always much easier singing in your own voice rather than someone else's I suppose.
  • "I would link Manchester as there is no suggestion that we are in the U.K at this point. We mention the U.K with a load of other places and those not geographically minded my struggle to place it within the U.K in light of the other countries mentioned.

Support -- That's my lot, none of it essential of course so please adopt or disregard at your discretion. A much improved article on an important figure within the Bollywood industry. CassiantoTalk 04:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have adopted most of these. BollyJeff | talk 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones did you skip? CassiantoTalk 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His wife's religion was already mentioned twice in the paragraph, so I did not add it a third time. The odd comma that you mentioned was indeed that way in the source. I left all of the "In YYYY," commas. That's it I think. BollyJeff | talk 00:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. CassiantoTalk 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cass, some good points too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, although changes based on Cassianto's comments above (taken as a whole) would be an improvement over my work. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Dank.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- plenty of support, don't forget to seek image/source reviews at some stage. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: or Nikkimaria?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for periodicals (they're not required)
Fixed.
  • Check use of hyphens vs dashes
I used the titles just as they appeared on the web site or in google books. Didn't know they had to be formatted better than the original.
  • Be consistent in whether you use sentence or title case for Bibliography
Ditto as above. What if the real book titles use different cases? Change some of them anyway?
Sorry about that; removed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nikkimaria:, but I have some questions above. BollyJeff | talk 23:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, MOS allows us to make silent typographical changes, so long as we aren't changing the meaning. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Must I go through all 242 sources and attempt to correct the grammar of the titles? BollyJeff | talk 01:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not necessary, as they're already mostly correct - there's just a few minor tweaks needed that shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps User:SandyGeorgia could help address that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria is on top of those issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: What are the "few minor tweaks needed"? BollyJeff | talk 13:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Fix dashes (try this script)
  2. Ensure that all publication titles (in italics) use title case and article/page titles (in quotation marks) use sentence case (but don't change proper nouns)
  3. Other miscellaneous formatting fixes (eg. missing italics in title of FN81). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Article/page titles use sentence case' tells me that I do have to check/change them all. For FN81, NDTV is a television network with a website, not a publication. The wiki article does not use italics for them. I use italics where the wikipedia articles use them, generally for print publications, not for websites. I believe this is in agreement with the MOS. BollyJeff | talk 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jab Tak Hai Jaan is a work and is italicized in the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but what if they are not correct in the source? There are about 45 more such as this. I checked several film and actor articles from the FA list, and they usually do not change the formatting of the source titles to italicize works. Also, what if it's a partial name like Slumdog without the Millionaire? BollyJeff | talk 15:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, we just need to preserve the italics which are present in the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished fixing all the ones that do use italics in the source. BollyJeff | talk 18:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now used the dash script as well. BollyJeff | talk 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - all images are from Bollywoodhungama.com (apart from the signature), which appears to have given permission to use images found on the site through OTRS. This is all fine, but I have one concern. Can we be sure that the photos were taken by people that work for Bollywoodhungama.com, and that the website has not reused images from elsewhere? Or that they have bought rights to use the photos, but not necessarily own their copyright? It is hard to determine, as none of the images have actual photographer credit. Perhaps the operators of the website should be asked. We need a statement like "all images found on Bollywoodhungama.com have been created by employees of the website" or some such. If someone could check if it is already stated in the OTRS permission, that would also be great. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have access to the OTRS statement, but I was told in the past that anything in the PARTIES AND EVENTS section of the Bollywood Hungama images site is safe for use on Wikipedia with the OTRS statement attached. Here are some links to disclaimer pages from hungama.com for what that's worth: [20], [21]. I am not a lawyer to be able to understand all of this stuff, but I know that other images from this site are already used in numerous Wikipedia articles, including FAs. There have been discussions about this in the past, and the images are still here. BollyJeff | talk 12:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been accepted in other FAs, it should probably be alright. FunkMonk (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the formal licensing agreement with them has been accepted in at least half a dozen FAs, probably more.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2015 [22].

Persuasion (1995 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I present to you the 1995 film Persuasion, an adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. This is easily one of my favorite films, and it consistently scores high on lists of the best Austen adaptations. The article attained GA status in 2011, and since then I've largely rewritten it, modeling its structure after two other FAs I've written (Sense and Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice). Unlike those films, sourcing was difficult to find, especially on its production. A recently closed PR review was very helpful, thanks to J Milburn. I hope the article is near the level of FA status, and leave it to you fine reviewers to decide if I am correct. So that said, thank you all in advance for reviewing! I plan to help with reviews on this page as well. Disclosure: this is a Wikicup nomination. Ruby 2010/2013 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive by comments As a war nerd, the details on HMS Victory are a bit inaccurate. The ship technically isn't "retired": she's still (incredibly enough) a commissioned Royal Navy warship. Saying that her role is "entertaining tourists" is a bit awkward as she's the centrepiece of a large maritime museum and an important historic artefact - this is a bit like saying that the role of the Elgin Marbles is to entertain tourists. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment and correction, Nick-D. I have now addressed this, by removing "retired" and clarifying that the vessel was just busy entertaining tourists at the time the filmmakers wished to use it. This was definitely an oversight, something I must have introduced when first writing the article in 2011 (the HMS Victory was one of the few pieces of information that I had not rewritten recently). Let me know if you notice anything else, naval or otherwise. Ruby 2010/2013 02:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't think that "then busy entertaining tourists" is accurate: 'then' is wrong as the ship is permanently on display, and 'entertaining' makes it sound like its a fun-ride rather than a museum (I've toured the ship, which I highly recommend, and it wasn't really a lot of laughs). I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "It was dry docked as part of a museum in Portsmouth, and filming was only possible during short periods when the vessel was closed to the public" Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:NorthangerPersuasionTitlePage.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only have a couple of minutes, so two initial quick comments- I'll be back for a full review later. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "of other 19th-century depictions" It's not a 19th century depictions. How about something like "most other costume dramas set in the 19th century" or "most other Austen adaptations"?
  • The source says "Most of all, Michell wanted to create a film without the glossy, artificial feel of most portrayals of 19th-century life." Could you clarify why you don't feel the film is a 19th-century depiction? Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This film is a 20th century depiction of the 19th century. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, thanks for clarifying what you meant! I have rewritten this to "...artificial feel of other period dramas set in the 19th-century." Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "debts owed by the" Ambiguous- are the debts owed by, or are they accosted by?
  • I'm not sure I understand your query? The debts are owed by Sir Walter, and his lawyer is accosted by others as he travels to Kellynch Hall. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts owed by the residence's owner" It is unclear from this whether "the residence's owner" is accosting "Shepard and Clay" for "debts owed", or whether "debts owed by the residence's owner" lead to "Shepherd and Clay" being accosted. Is my concern clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, thanks for clarifying (it always helps to have another pair of eyes!). I kept rereading it and couldn't figure out what was wrong with it. I have rephrased this to "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts that are owed by the residence's owner..." Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still ambiguous! "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts that are owed by the residence's owner"- this could mean 1) that debts are owed by Shepherd and Clay, and are therefore accosted by the residence's owner, or 2) that debts are owed by the residence's owner and thus a nameless someone accosts Shepherd and Clay. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn, you're right. Is this clearer? "Shepherd and Clay are accosted by creditors due to the debts owed by the residence's owner..."? Ruby 2010/2013 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dear first suggested they try two of Austen's other works—Sense and Sensibility or Pride and Prejudice—but agreed to adapt Persuasion after reading it." There's some ambiguity here- both, or either but not both?
  • "I just had to keep looking at the book and then somehow radiate the feelings" What book is she talking about, here?
  • I assume she means the novel here. I have added [novel] to help clarify. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other 19th-century depictions" As above!
  • " Louise Watson, writing for Screenonline," Two things- firstly, why the italics? Second, is Watson a scholar? The previous line implies that she is, but Screenonline isn't a particularly scholarly source. Do you even need the opening line?
  • I thought websites were italicized? Or maybe not? I assumed that Screenonline was reliable because it was established by the British Film Institute, but I had difficulty discovering much on Watson. Surely if she was included on this list (page 2), that must mean she has appropriate credentials, right? She has written many articles on other adaptations as well on the website. I am fine removing the opening line to avoid any implication of her being a scholar, however. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't doubt that the source is reliable, I just wonder whether it could be considered "scholarly". (I recall, actually, that I've argued with others about italicising websites. Personally, I really dislike it- we don't italicise "Wikipedia", for example. However, the MOS is ambiguous.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have un-italicized the website and removed the mention of scholarly sources. Let me know if anything else is needed here! Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "naval ship HMS Victory" Given that HMS stands for His/Her Majesty's Ship, you effectively say "naval ship His Majesty's Ship". This may or may not be standard- you'll have to ask a ship person.
    • As a war nerd, I agree: I'd suggest tweaking this to "The film's final scene was shot on HMS Victory". Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed as well, I have removed "naval ship". Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This decision further increased funding to £1,000,000, and Persuasion was shot on 35 mm film." This is still jarring to me- it's simply not clear what the relationship between these two claims are.
  • I've decided to just removed "35 mm film" from the statement, as the source isn't clear on this either. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mobil Oil Corporation, as a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre, also contributed to the film." As a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre? Do you mean to say that in their capacity as a sponsor to the other work, they contributed to the funding of this project? How does that work?
  • The source notes they are a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre and specifically says they co-produced the film. I've had difficulty finding more details on the company's particular role with Persuasion apart from being a funding source. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine that they contributed to the film- this should be included. I'm just not clear on what it means that they contributed "as" a sponsor of MT. Perhaps you could just say something like "Mobil Oil Corporation, who had sponsored [or "who also sponsored"] Masterpiece Theatre, further contributed to the film." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Lyme" really a common abbreviation for "Lyme Regis"? I've never heard it, but I am from the other end of the country...
  • In the film, they all say they're going to "Lyme". Being an American, I'm not positive on the correct usage (you or another Brit would know better than I!) Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual; she is slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved". Conversely, Dear's screenplay has Wentworth quickly giving up his seat to Anne and then dancing with the Musgrove sisters, furthering the contrast between the two groups.[41]" I struggle to follow this.
  • Yeah, this was a difficult one to write. I've rewritten parts, so let me know if this helps: "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual; while doing so, she is slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved". Conversely, Dear's screenplay has Wentworth quickly giving up his seat to Anne and then immediately dancing with the Musgrove sisters, furthering the contrast between Anne and the others."
  • "to film at many on-site locations" Why not "to frequently film on-location"?
  • "the camera focuses on their faces and expressions, personifying them" It's not clear who the "they" is, here.
  • Changed to "...focuses on the faces and expressions of servants and working people." Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Root described Anne as a "feminist in a prefeminist period" and a "strong, independent character", to whom modern viewers can relate despite the story's period setting.[15]" Could this line perhaps replace "The film's theme of gender has also attracted scholarly attention."?

This is a great article, and I'd really like to see it get to FA status, but the writing's still a little short of stellar in a couple of places. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time to review, Josh! I have addressed or responded to your concerns above. Incidentally, I've been meaning to review your FAC nom of "A Quiet Night In" for a while, and hope to get to it very soon. Kind regards, Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've fiddled long enough- great work! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help getting the article (nearly) there! Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco
  • Dear and Root were forced to translate the character's emotions using comparatively little dialogue. - They weren't forced; they could have added other dialogue, for instance. "Felt compelled" or something similar would work better.
  • Originally just a BBC production - Just strikes me as non-formal in this situation. I'd refactor the sentence to use another wording. Also, this sentence feels like it could be trimmed a bit (a BBC production ... British broadcaster is rather redundant)
  • Anne visits her other sister, the hypochondriac Mary (Sophie Thompson), who has married into a local farming family, the Musgroves. - any way to avoid so many commas?
  • Mary later tells Anne that Wentworth thought Anne so altered he "would not have known [her] again". - any way to avoid two "Anne"s? Also, direct quotes need citations.
  • By her own admission, "every actress in England" read for the part. - "Her own admission" doesn't strike me as encyclopedic.
  • WGBH Boston, the American company co-producing the film, had wanted a better known actress for the part but agreed to Root's casting after seeing Root's screen test - wouldn't it be better to mention how they joined on earlier, so that this doesn't come out of nowhere?
  • Ref nytimesbuddha; I believe they reuse information from Allmovie; there's no actual editorial control there.
  • The American ending is reflected on the international poster, which shows the two protagonists embracing. - if we don't actually have the poster for comparison, rather hard to see for ourselves; isn't there a digital version online, instead of the DVD cover? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492, thank you so much for reviewing! I believe I have finished addressing your concerns about the article's prose and use of the NYT source (you can view my changes here – let me know if anything still needs work). The only thing I did not implement was the suggestion about the poster – are you suggesting I add both posters and include them in that section, side by side? Ruby 2010/2013 02:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be possible, though not side by side. Ultimately it's up to you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... I guess I'm just not sure the British poster would be necessary or add much to the article. Plus I'm having trouble finding a decent version of it online, since I do not own a copy. (There's this but it's not great). Let me know if you feel strongly about it. Ruby 2010/2013 02:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you state that the air dates were Easter and Christmas, respectively?
  • That is how the source characterizes them. I thought it was relevant to provide context for the reader, but I'm fine removing them if you feel strongly. Ruby 2010/2013 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid repeating "format" when talking about home releases
  • Isn't the British style to use Mr and not Mr. (with a full stop)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The article is very interesting and was a pleasure to read. Good work. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Page for FN12, 22, 33?
  • Per MOS:FOOTERS, don't use semicolons to create pseudoheadings - use regular bold or regular heading markup. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the newspaper citations for those three citations back in 2011 and can no longer find them online in any archives I currently have access to. As a result, I couldn't find page numbers for the first two footnotes so I just replaced them with accessible citations (the content being sourced wasn't difficult to find elsewhere). For FN 33 (The Guardian), someone at the Resource Request forum helpfully tracked down a copy for me. Based on the copy, I believe the article is found on page 8 of the newspaper and have edited accordingly. I've also corrected the footer issue. Let me know if there is anything else! Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 00:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks by Cas Liber

Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows some false positives triggered by cast list etc. I didn't see any copied chunks of text.

  • Brownstein p.18 faithful and not paraphrased closely.
  • Dole 2001 and 2007, both faithful and not paraphrased closely.
  • Morrison checked, faithful and not paraphrased closely.

i.e. what I seen is all good. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 15:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2015 [23].

Ancestry of the Godwins[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ancestry of Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. He is not known to have had any hereditary claim to the throne, but some genealogists have claimed that he was descended from Alfred the Great's elder brother. The genealogy expert Agricolae (who is sadly no longer editing) contributed, and Ealdgyth and Tim riley made very helpful comments at peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Very pleased to support. I'm wholly a layman in history of this vintage, but the article seems to me comprehensive, and is widely and thoroughly cited. It is a pleasure to read, guiding the reader smoothly through a maze of Æth***s that in less skilful hands could have been frightfully confusing. The nominator's articles on early English topics have a wonderful way of transporting one back from the clamour of the 21st century to the quite different clamour of a millennium or so ago. This one meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment, and I much enjoyed rereading it for present purposes. – Tim riley talk 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments form Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I know almost nothing about this sort of subject. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments.
  • Thanks for your edits Curly. The only one I have reverted is "he descended from". The Cambridge online dictionary says "he was descended from" is correct.
  • When King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 the legitimate heir was his great-nephew, Edgar Ætheling, but he was passed over, and Harold, the head of the most powerful family in England and Edward's brother-in-law, became king.: which so many commas, this is a bit of a bumpy ride, especially at the beginning of the article. Maybe something like: "When King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 the crown passed over his legitimate heir and great-nephew Edgar Ætheling and instead went to Harold, the head of the most powerful family in England and Edward's brother-in-law."?
  • "the crown passed over" does not sound quite right to me. Are you happy with my alternative?
  • sometimes you set of names with commas ("his great-nephew, Edgar Ætheling") and sometimes not ("their father Godwin"). Best to settle on one style.
  • Done.
  • was left land at Compton: I can see from later in the article that it's not clear if these are the same Comptons, but at this point the reader would assume it is.
  • Clarified.
  • Williams in her ODNB article on Godwin, and Robin Fleming in her ODNB article on Harold, do not mention the theory when discussing Godwin's ancestry.: this could be Original Research if the lack of mentioning the theory is not mentioned in a RS.
  • Thanks for much for your helpful comments Curly. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine whatever comes of the last point will conform to whatever the consensus is, and as it's the only outstanding point I see no reason not to give this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there is a consensus but a balance in favour of keeping the ODNB comment so I will leave it in unless anyone objects. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done. Thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Just a couple of comments.

  • The first footnote is rather lengthy, and seems quite relevant enough to be promoted into the main text; it makes more than one point, and I think would be useful to the reader inline.
  • "commissioned by his widow Edith": suggest "by Godwin's widow" since several other names have been mentioned since the last time Godwin was referred to by name.
  • It is "The Life of Edward the Confessor, commissioned by his widow Edith". She was Edward's widow (and Godwin's daughter). Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how I misread that; it seems clear enough looking at it now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give a good account of the Æthelred I theory, but given that it doesn't have broad support I think it might be appropriate to cap that section with something more definite than just saying Stenton, Williams and Fleming don't mention the theory; for example, quoting Stenton: "Of his origin nothing can be said with any assurance". That's the majority view, after all.
  • Do you know if Frank and Lundie Barlow are related?
  • I don't think so. Frank Barlow wrote that he only knew about Lundie's article because Hubert Grills sent him a photocopy. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support; all looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod[edit]

  • The "significant generational displacement" bit is never going to be easy to explain, but the current sentence "If the relationship were true, the pedigree would result in a significant generational displacement, with two children of Ethelred the Unready marrying the son and great-great-granddaughter of Æthelric: Æthelred's daughter Eadgyth married Æthelric's son Eadric Streona, while Æthelred's son Edward the Confessor married Godwin's daughter, who on this theory was Æthelric's great-great-granddaughter." certainly blew some mental fuses for me. A slower approach might make it more digestible.
Done. Is it clearer?
Yes, sorted as well as it can be I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the options for "land at Hambledon" be expanded on, if only in a note?
I have deleted it as irrelevant. OK?
I suppose so. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... in Wessex after 900 only the son or paternal grandson of a king could be an ætheling, that is a throneworthy member of the royal dynasty". This seems a very bald statement, partly contradicted by what immediately follows, and I think more than we know. If we lacked documentation, & only followed what happened, one might say the same (allowing daughters too) for "the UK after 1850", because that is what will happen so so long as the supply of children or grandchildren lasts, as it has during that period. The interesting bit is what happens when they run out. One might also add that within the throneworthy group, succession did not automatically follow seniority, which was the case, I think. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not follow you here. How is it "partly contradicted by what immediately follows"? Historians believe that ætheling meant a throneworthy member of the royal dynasty, and between 800 and 1050 only the sons of monarchs were given the title. When the sons ran out, a grandson was given the title. It is true that succession did not automatically follow seniority, although in practice the exceptions were when a king died when his sons were still children and he was then succeeded by a brother, who as the son of a previous king was an ætheling.
Note that this disagrees with ætheling, which says sons and brothers only, and of the reigning king according to one historian quoted. How the title or rank was used in normal circumstances is rather different from what might happen when the supply of sons and grand-sons ran out. All sorts of people are in the British Line of Succession without any form of title. So the statement "Even if Harold was descended from Æthelred I, it would not have given him a hereditary claim to the throne." without putting in the mouth of anyone, seems a bit over-emphatic to me. It might not have been a great claim, but it might have been a claim - as it certainly could have been a century or two later, when very remote connections could gain credibility. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to tighten it by specifying "according to the rules of royal succession in later Anglo-Saxon England", and added a quote from the leading authority on the subject, David Dumville. Of course it is true that if the supply of æthelings had run out, the rules would no longer have applied (or they would have changed, as some historians believe did happen when Edward the Confessor had no heir who was the son of a king). Abels' wording 'the sons and brothers of the reigning king' is not quite accurate as it would have ruled out Eadwig, who succeeded his uncle Eadred. How does it look now? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's better. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments John. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments above now dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much John. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

Right then....

  • Sources all look like reliable ones
  • Earwig's copyvio well and truly negative
  • Spot check of Anscombe shows article is faithful to source.
  • Williams 2006 checked -wording is close for p. 231 but words used in exact meanings and stumped if I can think of variant ways to say them....
  • Hunt 1890 checked - fine.

Offline sources accepted in good faith (I have no subscription to UK library). cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cas. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2015 [24].

Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a commemorative coin that didn't commemorate anything, and was conceived, by all accounts, as a way of extracting money from collector's pockets. Which it quite successfully did. These things happened in other issues, but this may be the extreme example.Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to support this based on a overall prose quality, but I am wondering about the citation to a letter which can be found in a box at a certain library. This is harmless original research, but it still is literally original research. Is a copy of this letter available? Shii (tock) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is illustrated in the article. It was part of the research for my journal article, "The Birth of the Oregon Trail Half Dollar" (The Numismatist, October 2013, pp. 42–49) but I did not wind up using it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt Sorry for not replying. I was on the fence, but I will support because the citation remains verifiable. Shii (tock) 14:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Theodore_thomas.jpg needs US PD tag and author's date of death
Switched tag to PD-US. The book it's taken from was published in Camden, NJ in 1919.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Melish_OTMA_letter.jpg: when/where was this first published?
I doubt it's been, so I've switched to PD-ineligible. A simple rejection letter surely doesn't have copyright protection.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:1936_Cincinnati_PDS_(SET).jpg: USGov tag should be removed - covered more specifically by currency tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has a currency tag already.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

A few minor points.

  • "but quickly recovered and they are valuable today": perhaps "the coins are valuable today", since the antecedent for "they" is really the value, not the coins.
  • "Among the pieces, which had recently been struck, and which had appreciated in value, was the 1935 Old Spanish Trail half dollar": I'd eliminate the first comma, and in fact all three could go.
  • "This piece was issued at the behest of L. W. Hoffecker": I think "had been issued" would fit better.
  • "as Melish related Lawrie put it": a little awkward; how about "as (in Melish's account) Lawrie put it"?
  • Melish was defiant, so presumably the CFA's approval was only advisory, and Melish could do as he wished? It doesn't appear that Moore changed his mind. Can you clarify?
The first paragraph of the section says that the CFA advised the government on coinage design. I've tossed a little more in.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Where I haven't replied specifically I've followed your advice, or made a similar edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Everything looks good to me! I corrected a few small MOS issues, but it seems fine otherwise. This is a fine article on the subject of one of the most infamous, but interesting, early U.S. commemorative coins.-RHM22 (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review The sources used are all appropriate, as is the level of citation in the article. The only tiny inconsistency I can see is that, in the bibliography, you abbreviate states with postal abbreviations, but use the traditional "D.C." for Washington. Otherwise, all good. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2015 [25].

Corona Borealis[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article recently had a nomination that stalled with two supports followed by no activity for a month. This sometimes happens if the prose is on the unengaging side. To that end I asked some editors to take a look at the prosee, and Dr. Blofeld, hamiltonstone and Eric Corbett (thankfully) obliged...so here we are. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks in great condition, can't imagine it being a better article on the subject. A worthy candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There were a few things I didn't understand in the previous version, but that's all been sorted now. Eric Corbett 12:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx both/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed. Thank you Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks good. Here are a few concerns that you might want to address:
  • 'HD 144579' in the infobox is in need of a reference.
I've addressed this. Praemonitus (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "little smaller (0.9) times the diameter of the Sun": the times should be inside the parentheses.
oops, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is actually a complex multiple star system": this is redundant since the article already said it is a multiple star system.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "T Coronae Borealis is a binary star with a red-hued giant primary and a small blue secondary"; the secondary is necessarily a white dwarf, not a small blue star.
yup, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oops, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Omicron Coronae Borealis is another K-type clump giant": 'clump giant' needs to be linked to Red clump. Where was the previous clump giant?
no idea now, linked and "another" removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "XO-1 is a magnitude 11 yellow dwarf star": this is switching terminology. Is there a reason for changing from the previous mode of listing the classification? Likewise with "a Solar twin, yellow dwarf around".
a lazy cut and paste - aligned them now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the cluster's center is a large elliptical galaxy containing a supermassive black hole." Almost every galaxy contains a SMBH; how is this one different? If not, then perhaps list the estimated mass as well.
"most powerful" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of sources say that the Arabic name means "The Broken Dish".
sources aren't great for this, but added anyway, also found another Amerind story Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The constellation appeared several times in the 1997 film Contact. It was apparently a favorite constellation of astronomer Carl Sagan, on whose book the film was based.
I can't find a Reliable Source for this, would love to add it though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, unfortunately. Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references section appears to be in good shape. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This does not appear semi-circular to me
.
  • "Its Latin name, inspired by its shape, means "northern crown", as its brightest stars form a semicircular arc" - ummm, some expansion here would be appreciated. Crowns are not semi-circular, and although I can kind of guess what he was going for, it's not entirely obvious. Perhaps these and the other descriptions should be collected in that opening para?
I've not seen a source comment on the problem of it being an incomplete circle. I guess I think of it like that too, i.e. you'd only see part of it if it was on a person's head. Juggling sections can be tricky in these articles as the mythology is often a bit disparate WRT the astronomy. Nothing much in the heavens really looks much like what the constellations are supposed to depict..I guess we're all used to that... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a significant number of duplicate links in the article. This is very useful.
I left some of the star names as it seemed odd not to link them where they are being talked about. Have removed others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of redundant cites, where the same cite appears several times in a row in the same para. EG 32. This produces visual clutter for no benefit. A tool for this would be useful...
If I see some in a row I will combine and add a commented out note, like <!-- cites three previous sentences --> so that I can trim refs. Annoyingly those '32's have another ref in between.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps sections the extrasolar planets? It would break up the page a bit and I don't see any downsides.
yeah, the stars isa big section...done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not terribly happy with the lede, which jumps around a lot, and still fails to explain the name. How about something along the lines of"

Corona Borealis /kɵˈroʊnə bɒriˈælɨs/ is a small constellation in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. It is one of the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy, and remains as one of the 88 modern constellations. Its brightest stars form a semicircular arc in the lower right of the modern constellation boundary.
Its Latin name, inspired by its shape, means "northern crown". In classical mythology Corona Borealis generally represented the crown given by the god Dionysus to the Cretan princess Ariadne and set by him in the heavens. Other cultures likened the pattern to a circle of elders, an eagle's nest, a bear's den, or even a smokehole. Ptolemy also listed a southern partner, Corona Australis, which has a similar pattern.

I believe that is much more clear than the current lede, and easier to read as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yup, I'll pay that and thus adopted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hamiltonstone. I made some comments after the unsuccessful FAC, in response to a request from Cas, and he has followed up all of those. Pick-ups and suggestions from Praemonitus and Maury all useful, and I'm supportive of the revised article. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - great stuff. The content is all there and the prose manages to be direct and informative without monotony. It'd be nice to have a higher resolution wide-field photo of the constellation, but that's just a passing thought. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This looks very thorough to me, and nothing stands out. Very nicely done, and I suspect as comprehensive as there is freely available. (I'm pleased to say I actually understood most of this!) Just a few minor points which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prose is necessarily dry in places, and probably little can be done. Maybe we could avoid a few of the "X is a YY star" structures, and starting three consecutive sentences in the lead with "It... Its... Its..." makes for uninspiring reading! But this is not a big issue as such.
just looking at that again. Know what you mean but extremely hard to rejig any other way.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Corona Australis" is mentioned in the lead, but not in the main body.
added to body now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five star systems have been found to have Jupiter-sized exoplanets.": Rather than say "found", is there a better word to use, such as "calculated" or something suitably scientific?
I liked "found" as it was a one-syllable alternative to "discovered", which I think is slightly unwieldy. I feel a bit cautious just saying "Five star systems have Jupiter-sized exoplanets." as it strikes me as a little too certain/dogmatic.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chinese astronomers considered nine stars to make up the asterism": Considered seems an odd word choice here.
changed to "deemed" (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a minor point, should the structure of the lead follow that of the article? We begin the lead with the mythology, but that is the last section of the main body. Feel free to ignore this one, though.
I know what you mean - lead has been difficult to flow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason why the Polynesian names are the only ones not translated into English? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keilana added them - I suspect the translations were not in the source... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Makemson doesn't give the translations a lot of the time, unfortunately. These were some where she just gave names without translations. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate and/or wikilink states
hmm, unless i am missing something they should all be unlinked and unabbreviated... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FN6. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
aah, fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't create pseudoheadings using semicolons - use regular bolding or regular heading markup instead
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date for FN21?
Kaler is inconsistent with including his dates on some of his webpages. He also does not have a star of the week archive that would help me pinpoint dates either... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to be a formatting problem in FN31
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN33: work is the index, not AAVSO - that's the publisher. Same with all other VSX refs
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you spell out or abbreviate AAVSO (could do so on first occurrence only)
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • GBooks links can be truncated to page number. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
all duly trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- will promote, pls just check for duplinks and lose what mightn't be necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2015 [26].

Tales of Wonder (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Wonder was the first British science fiction magazine aimed at the adult market. It was successful and encouraged at least one other publisher to launch a science fiction magazine in the UK, but World War II brought paper shortages and mobilization for the editor, Walter Gillings, and the magazine was forced to close. The magazine is now a collector's item; it includes early work by John Wyndham, and the first professional sales by Arthur C. Clarke. The article is short, but I believe I've exhausted the available sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, I would agree that you've exhausted sources, and that the article is as long as it needs to be to sufficiently inform readers. As with all your articles, the prose itself is very readable. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! And thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well done, the article meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Overall it looks good. I have just a couple of concerns:
    • two of the paragraphs are overly long; one in each of the primary sections. Please consider splitting them appropriately for less tedious reading.
      Done; I had a bit of trouble deciding where to split the first one, but I think the result is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first footnote (Ashley, Time Machines) is missing a year. Two of the subsequent entries are missing 'pp.' for the page range. Please make them consistent.
      Oops; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Talesofwonder.jpg: FUR is very minimal - should do a better job of explaining the rationale for inclusion and how it meets NFCC. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, I just assumed it was public domain. The UK rule is 70 years from the artist's death, but is it actually the corporation that would own the rights to this image, in which case, does the 70 years start immediately, as is practice in some countries? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nikkimaria: I've expanded the FUR as much as I think I can; it's my understanding that a low-resolution image of a magazine is accepted as a fair use image if all magazine covers are copyrighted, so that the reader can see what the magazine looked like. @Zanimum: that would be great, but I'm not sufficiently expert on copyright to know. If it turns out to be true, please let me know -- in that case I could add a couple more magazine covers to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way, the image would still have been copyrighted in the UK on 1 Jan 1996 and so is still copyrighted in the US - see WP:NUSC. Mike, can you please include on the image description page the date of the cover, copyright holder if known, and something other than "no" for "portion used"? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Seems comprehensive and well-written. A few comments:
Lede
  • "Payment rates were low" I would make this clearer that this was rates for stories and whatnot. Perhaps if the bit about the material came first and then the phrase quoted above, this would be clearer.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of issues seems like a useful addition late in the first paragraph.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the U.K. market." I would cut both because it is implied and because it repeats the word "market".
    I cut "market" but left "U.K." since the U.S. market was already established; the question was whether a native British magazine could survive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history
  • "also available in the U.K." I would cut "in the U.K." as surplusage and a repetition.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the publisher of The Strand magazine" italicisation?
    Oops. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the group" cut for similar reasons as "in the U.K."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a single issue" Is issue the proper U.K. term, or "number"?
    One sees both, but to my ear "number" is a little more formal, and "issue" sounds more natural. I'd be OK with changing it if needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10/6" "10s 6d (ten shillings sixpence" might make it clearer to the reader without needing to click the link and puzzle out from the article what 10/6 was.
    Done. 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • " but newer writers were glad of the chance to develop a British market for their work, though most American writers were unimpressed." I'm not sure you should have both "but" and "though" leading phrases in the same sentence, especially back to back.
    I hesitated over this and finally came up with a rewording; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A space is needed prior to the third sentence in the third paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Can you verify the publisher for Tuck? That punctuation seems odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book's in a box in the basement now, but I have other books from the same publisher, and they do use that colon in the middle of the name. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2015 [27].

1880 Greenback National Convention[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the political convention of a minor political party in 1880. The eventual nominee, James B. Weaver, collected only three percent of the presidential vote that year, but the issues debated in the convention's platform fights—women's suffrage, child labor, immigration, and the eight-hour-day—would become nationwide discussions for later generations. Enjoy! Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nineteenth-century monetary politics is a subject that I always enjoy reading and learning about. You've done a great job with this article, and I can safely support. That said, I have a couple of minor comments about things that caught my attention.

  • Origins: "...had reason to hope to improve on the results of 1876." Does this mean that some promising results meant that the Greenbackers believed they could do better in 1880? If so, I'd suggest rewording to "...had reason to believe that they could improve on the results of 1876."
  • Preliminaries: "After the Exposition, it hosted festivals and concerts for several years until it was demolished in 1892." I would probably relegate all of this to a footnote.

Other than that, everything looks good and proper to me. Nicely done!-RHM22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made both of those changes. Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:AlexanderCampbell.png: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOC just says "between 1865 and 1880", like most of the Brady-Handy collection. I updated the file. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well done. Just a few quibbles.
Lede
  • "to select a presidential nominee" well, true, but also a vice presidential, and also a party platform, which could be as important as the candidate. Can a phrasing be found that implies that there are other things a convention does?
  • Fixed? I doubt think there's a concise way to say it, so I just said it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Butler
  • "In the 1860 presidential campaign, Butler sought compromise with the slave power and endorsed Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi for president." Was Jeff Davis running for president? US president that is? If it was pre-conventions, possibly mention that and who Butler supported in the general election.
  • I didn't think Davis was running, but you know how it was in those days. Nobody ran, they just stood around and waited to be nominated (of course, we both know that's not the whole truth). The source on Butler didn't say, and it didn't say who he ended up voting for, though it mentions he became a Republican within a year. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in 1878 he ran for Governor of Massachusetts as an independent Greenbacker with Democratic support" Did he win?
Wright
  • Did Wright not seek re-election in 1862 or was he defeated?
  • The sources aren't completely clear, but I think he didn't run. A Democrat replaced him, so if he lost, it was at the party nomination stage. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other contenders
  • "Several other favorite son candidates" question need for word "other".
Reunification
  • "The Committee on Permanent Organization voted to make Richard F. Trevellick, a Michigan trade union organizer, the permanent chairman of the convention." presumably the vote of the entire convention was needed to make him permanent chairman? In which case the "ask" should be "recommend" with an "as" before "the permanent"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Fixed. That should be all of them. Thanks, Wehwalt, for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. A well-written and interesting article. I can find almost nothing to comment on, but here are a couple of minor points that don't affect my support.

  • "In 1878, the situation was reversed: Wright ran as a Greenbacker, but was also supported by Democrats": was he elected this time? It appears from the following sentences that he was, but I think you might make it definite.
  • Any explanation for the half-vote for Wright in the first formal ballot?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your support. I fixed the first point, but the second is a mystery. I've seen half-votes in other conventions where two rival delegations from the same state are both admitted but have to split their state's apportionment of votes (Massachusetts had this in the 1880 Democratic National Convention, for example). I don't know if that's what happened here, but it's possible. I don't have enough evidence to add that explanation, though, it's just a guess. The sources I've read ignore it. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a poke through newspapers.com, and found two accounts of the convention; interestingly, the story they tell doesn't quite match your source. The Indiana Democrat for 6/17/1880, page 2, and the La Plata Home Press for 6/19/1880, page 2, give accounts you might like to look at; I can clip them if you don't have access. Does your source cite the underlying source? That was probably a newspaper too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be glad to take a look (I don't have access to newspapers.com). The source I used, Lause, doesn't have a footnote for that paragraph, oddly enough, so I'd be curious what the newspapers say. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the links: [28] and [29]. The counts seemed to be slightly different, and one account mentions that the formal vote didn't finish but ended in acclamation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm remembering now that I had trouble nailing down the exact numbers when I wrote it. I think I'll just work it up as prose and eliminate the chart altogether. Thanks for finding those sources! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check for MOS:LQ issues throughout
  • FN47: page formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you use "New York, New York" or just "New York". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 [30].

2003 Sri Lanka cyclone[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a damaging and deadly flood in Sri Lanka, a small island southeast of India. That is the main focus, but the storm also had larger reaching effects, such as potentially contributing to a deadly heat wave that killed 1,900 people. It serves as a great source for flooding damage in a tropical island country, and I am sure it meets all of the FA criteria. It had a previous FAC, where an editor did a useful copyedit (as well as provide some comments that I addressed). This is also an article for a basin that only has two other featured articles, so it would be useful as far as diversity goes to have another FA there, especially in such a deadly basin. Hope you enjoy! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata comments[edit]

The "Aftermath" section bothers me a bit in the way in which it pieces together news sources rather than from sources that are reliable after-the-fact overviews. This could be causing accuracy problems. The article says: "Collectively, the governments of Norway, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia pledged or donated $1.46 million to Sri Lanka." You've arrived at that figure by adding up four different figures in this source. Is the figure in US dollars? And surely it wasn't done collectively; the article makes it quite clear the four governments operated separately. Later, we are told that "Both Canada and Australia sent about $100,000 to the local Red Cross in their respective currencies". The Australian aspect of the sentence is sourced to here. Are we sure this is not the same $100,000 (AUS) as the $65,000 (US?) mentioned earlier? If so, why the repetition? The press release says that the $100,000 was "immediate flood relief" so I suspect it is the same money. But I don't know. The problem is piecing sources together; we need an overview source. Then, in the following phrase, "and the latter country [Australia] worked to rebuild the damaged schools". That's an understatement. The country didn't "work"; according to the source, it gave A$400,000. Without mentioning that figure, the earlier figures of $100,000/$65,000 look stingy. the source also says the money was for "rebuilding of basic social services, including schools", so it was not at all limited to schools. Anyway, this is all to illustrate a broader point: that I'm not sure the use of sources is appropriate and it is liable to lead to inaccuracies. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. Regarding the adding them together, is "cumulatively" better? Regarding the dual usages of Australia, I apologize, I mistakenly included them twice, thanks. I found a better source that had all of the donations in the end, so I used that instead. Good call forcing me to get that :) I clarified that Australia sent money to UNICEF to service. Hopefully you think the aftermath is in better shape now. I don't believe there are any more inaccuracies in the aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the sporadic way in which I'm making mycomments. The overall view to which I'm inclined at the moment is as follows: that the section on the cyclone is quite strong, but the sections on its impacts are less so. As the following comments suggest, which concern only the section on the flooding in Sri Lanka, I think there are problems with accurate representation of sources as well as some prose glitches. Prose we can fix in a week or so across the article; the sourcing I'm less confident about, especially given that I'm just sampling sections at this stage:

The problem with the sourcing is that the storm wasn't named. It is very easy to look up information on Hurricane Sandy and find exactly what you're looking for. Not only was the storm not named, it was also a flood event in a non-western country, which makes sourcing even more difficult. I did the best I could to include as much as possible on the storm, but since the primary effects were flooding (which can theoretically happen at any time worldwide with enough rainfall, especially in the tropics), there isn't necessarily a definitive endpoint for the aftermath. It's not an article on Flooding in Sri Lanka, it's about one particular storm. Given that ReliefWeb collected all of these stories related to this event, I rely heavily on them. Hope that makes a little more sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the floods largely subsided, the World Socialist Web Site criticized the Sri Lankan government for not having better disaster management in place, as well as noting that deforestation and gem mining contributed to the landslides." - what makes the World Socialist Web Site a source worthy of inclusion in this article? I would have thought the views of the Red Cross, which are already there, are reliable and sufficient.
  • Per World Socialist Web Site, it is "the most widely accessed international socialist news site in the world", and they came third in the nearest elections to the elections. I wanted to include view points outside of the Red Cross and news organizations, and I happened to come across the source. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting anticipated the flood event three days in advance, and the first flood warnings were issued on May 17." This sentence, with its second clause in the passive voice, implies that the NCMRWF issued the flood warnings, which is surely not true. It might also help to note in the sentence that the NCMRWF is an Indian organisation; if the reader doesn't follow the wikilink they will assume it is Sri Lankan.
  • "Schools and public buildings were used as emergency shelters, and about 8,000 people evacuated on May 18." - the and just doesn't work here.
  • I rejiggered the sentence to - About 8,000 people evacuated on May 18, utilizing schools and public buildings as emergency shelters. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for the death figures in Ratnapura is contemporaneous and very much subject-to-change ("The death toll so far is 256," said Karu Jayasuriya, head the government's disaster management team). I don't think we can rely on it to give solid and unqualified figures ("125 people died in Ratnapura.")
  • That source also had the final death toll, so the 125 in Ratnapura sounds legit. I'll add "at least" before "125" if you want, though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it, I changed it to "at least" to be on the safe side. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "representing an estimated 20–30% loss for the year." - The source says that the loss is in low-grown tea crops. Dilmah tells us that low-grown tea is only one of Sri Lanka's three types of tea crop. So I don't think we can say there was a 20-30% loss of tea crop generally.
  • "Farmers in the region also lost some of their rice paddies to the high waters, although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged" - what is "the region"? The 3% figure is fairly meaningless without knowing.
  • The source said it referred to the areas affected by the floods. I said "farmers in the affected region" - that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overall, the floods destroyed 24,750 homes and damaged 32,426 others" - see above for comment on using a contemporaneous and contingent source ([31])
  • Good call. The overall isn't perhaps the best word, and the source was only shortly after the floods ended. We know that the floods destroyed at least that many buildings, and the source is accurate, so I put "at least" in. Sadly, unlike the United States, Sri Lanka doesn't have the best disaster infrastructure (as the aftermath stated), so I couldn't find anything substantial after the fact for exactly how many houses were damaged/destroyed. I think the wording change works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The World Meteorological Organization later described the flooding as proof of an increase in more violent weather events" - the source says symptom, not proof (or similar). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misread. The source said The World Meteorological Organization cited it as evidence for the increase of anomalous climatic extremes in recent years. I think proof and evidence are fairly synonymous. If you still disagree, I'll happily change it. Thanks again for the thorough review. I welcome all comments, and it means a lot to me that someone was willing to read what I said and critique it :) Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – looks great from writing and presentation standpoints (I've done some minor copyediting, during both this and the previous FAC). My only concern is whether the bit about the storm potentially/maybe/possibly having added in some small way to a heat wave really contributes anything of value. The source is extremely vague, and the attempts to paraphrase it are even more weaselly. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot for the copyediting! As for the heat wave, I agree it might not be the most typical thing to include in an article, but there is very little related to the storm outside of Sri Lanka. I think it's interesting how a storm can affect regions. The IMD specifically mentioned the heat wave as one of the effects, so hopefully the new wording works better, attributing the source to them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. There's a minor point about currency notation that I'll ask about at WT:FAC, but I'm not going to withhold a support over that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The infobox gives a three minute sustained wind speed that's higher than the one minute speed; surely that's an error?
  • Weirdly, it's not. The 3-minute winds are the official winds in the basin, while 1-minute winds are unofficial and provided by the JTWC. I've never really thought about how it's formatted, whether the readers might not understand what it means. The article explains who the estimates are from, but perhaps the infobox should as well. I made a post on the talk page for the project, asking others whether we should implement this change. Thanks especially for this feedback here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's weird. Struck, since it's correct, but I think a footnote might be handy, if a better way to present the data can't be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the southwesterly fetch": I'm not familiar with this usage of "fetch"; could we get a link or note, or even a parenthetical explanation?
  • I didn't have that wording there, I changed it back to "flow", which I think most people would understand. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article would benefit from a map of Sri Lanka showing some of the locations mentioned in the article. I don't think I'd oppose for the lack of this, but I think it would be very helpful to the reader.
  • Love that idea! I get to add an image, and it's useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Along the Gin River, flood waters inundated the surrounding terrain up to 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, which covered roadways and complicated evacuations": it's not clear what "which" refers to -- the flood waters, or the inundation -- so how about "Along the Gin River, flood waters inundated the surrounding terrain up to 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, covered roadways, and complicated evacuations".
  • "After previously wet conditions saturated soils": suggest "Since the previously wet conditions had saturated soils".
  • Thanks, I was never a fan of the previous wording there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many roads were damaged, including that which links Ratnapura to Colombo": suggest "Many roads were damaged, including the one [or "the road"] which links Ratnapura to Colombo". I think you could re-use "road" here; it's a low-visibility word and the repetition would not be jarring.
  • I used your wording, but used "that" instead of "which". I think that's the correct usage here. My preference is avoiding using it twice, if that's ok. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. Re that vs. which, our article suggests both are correct. From my own observation it seems to be a personal preference, but I think either is fine in most non-restrictive clauses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged; this was not expected to affect the harvest": suggest "although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged, so no impact on the rice harvest was expected".
  • Another sentence that had caused slight troubles before, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two different fatality figures are given: 254 and 260.
  • Ack, fixed. There was never a good, solid final damage total. That can sometimes happen for storms in Asia, and especially for the time period. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Across the island, floods related to the cyclone killed 260 people, becoming the worst floods in Sri Lanka in 56 years, when torrential rainfall struck the island in 1947": This wording doesn't quite work for me; and it's not clear if worst means most fatalities, which is what I would guess. How about "Across the island, floods related to the cyclone killed 260 people, the highest number of flood-related fatalities in Sri Lanka since torrential rainfall struck the island in 1947"?
  • After rechecking the source, I reorganized it, putting the 1947 bit earlier in the impact section. This gives it a better flow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "evidence of an increase in more violent weather events": the point in the sources is that this is thought to be due to global climate change, and I think this should be mentioned in the article if you're going to use this comment.
  • I just decided to remove that comment. I don't think it's worth the drama involved with climate change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest combining the first and third paragraphs of the "Elsewhere" section, to avoid a single-sentence paragraph.
  • I assume the "රු" symbol is the Sri Lankan rupee symbol. MOS:CURRENCY says to use the ISO 4217 standard when there is no widely known symbol; in this case that would be LKR, as far as I can tell.
  • A separate point is that I don't think you need to say "rupees" as well as using a symbol (though you might do something like that the first time the symbol is used, in order to give the reader the name of the currency); it would be like saying "$50 dollars". There are several examples of this and I don't think the article is consistent internally or with the MoS.
  • Now that I removed that sign, I think it should use "rupees". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think another tweak is needed. The first mention is "6 million rupees (LKR, $62,500 USD)"; if we're going to use "rupees" as the name for the currency then this looks good, giving the ISO abbreviation for definiteness, plus a link. But then I think subsequent mentions don't need to repeat LKR -- it can just be "15,000 rupees ($156 USD). Alternatively you could follow the MoS to the letter and make it "LKR 6 million (rupees, $62,500 USD)" and drop "rupees" thereafter. What you have now repeats both "LKR" and "rupees", which seems unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I changed it again. RS is another way of designating the currency, just as $ is for dollars. So now it's RS6 million (LKR, $62,500 USD), which is the same format for the rupees as it is for the dollars. Indicate what type of currency (rupees = RS, dollar = $) and the code. That is also in line with how we handle other currencies. Does that work? Your suggestion would make it be like USD 5 million, which just seems a bit odd IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't run into this before so I'm going to go ahead and support, and will post a note at WT:FAC asking for opinions from others who've used lesser-known currencies in their articles. I'm really not sure what the best format is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the World Socialist Website's opinion worth mentioning? I accept that the site is a reliable source for the Fourth International's opinions, but is their opinion something a reader should be told about?
  • It provides criticism that I think is useful, in case readers were curious why it was as bad as it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the value of that, but I'm not sure their opinion is particularly notable. A matter of opinion, though, so not a problem if you want to leave it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while also commenting how": suggest either "while also pointing out how" or "while also commenting that".

Generally the article is in good shape; I expect to support once these points are taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the thorough review! Hope you like it more now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yellow Evan[edit]

I support, a few quick things

  • "Early on May 11, the deep depression strengthened into a cyclonic storm – marked by maximum sustained winds of at least 65 km/h" mph? YE Pacific Hurricane
  • I added a notes section in general. See if it works now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 2003, the highest monthly rainfall in the country was 899 mm (35.4 in) at Gonapenigala Iranganie Estate." no need for "monthly" if you already mention the month (May). YE Pacific Hurricane
  • Alright. I changed the "in" to "Throughout" to make it clear that it's a monthly total without having to say the word. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " of which 366.1 millimetres (14.41 in) fell over an 18‑hour period on May 17; at the same station, there was a peak hourly rainfall total of 99.8 mm (3.93 in).[9]" why are mm not abbreviated in one instance and are abbreviated elsewhere? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

  • I see some discussion of references above, is anyone prepared to sign off on the article re. source formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK[edit]

  • ref #28 (Myanmar Times) shows a proxy error (502), but that may be a temporary problem. Suggest to re-check later.
  • Just in case, I added an archived version of the link, so it's good now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead link check: aside from the minor glitch above all online sources are accessible - OK.
  • Thorough referencing in all sections - OK.
  • Consistent formatting, reliable sources (journals, news, meteorological and emergency organizations) - OK.

A minor technical problem is not worth fussing about - all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2015 [32].

SMS Königsberg (1905)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another German commerce raider from World War I, though one less famous (and less successful) than Emden - this ship was eventually bottled up in the Rufiji River in German East Africa and sunk by British warships, though Königsberg's war was not yet over, her crew (and her guns) having gone to join von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerrilla campaign. I'd like to run this article on the main page on 11 July 2015, to mark the centenary of the ship's sinking. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Königsberg_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cut the link and updated the dead-tree source citation. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The German cruiser then radioed the German steamer Zieten from heading to the Suez Canal where she would have been confiscated. seems clunky. Perhaps "Looff radioed the German steamer Zieten to warn her against using the Suez Canal, where she would have been confiscated."?
    • Yeah, that is a little rough - I like your wording.
  • whose officers also, why "also"? Had another ship mistaken her for a British cruiser?
    • Don't know ;)
  • When a British cruiser is mentioned, patrolling along the coast, Pegasus is then identified when the German ship attacks her. Could she not be identified as Pegasus in the preceding para? It just jars a bit.
    • See what I've added - what I was trying to get at was that the Germans didn't know which ship it was
  • what type of ship was Weymouth? A cruiser, but perhaps it could be rendered as "The cruisers Chatham, Dartmouth and Weymouth"?
    • A good point.

more to follow. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sopwiths"? Do we know what type?
    • Unfortunately not.
  • suggest Hyacinth intercepted Kronborg as she approached, and chased her to Manza Bay
    • A good idea.
  • through the Brandenburg Gate to celebrate them and their ship perhaps "through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to celebrate their service and that of their ship."?
    • Sounds good to me.
  • no alt text for images (not an ACR requirement).
  • reflinks and dab checks ok
  • That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • The line drawing says it's of the Stettin class, not the Königsberg class, and doesn't include this ship. Presumably the naming convention has changed since then, but perhaps this should be mentioned, in the text or caption?
    • They don't call it "Jane's Frightening Slips" for nothing ;) I've added a note to the effect that it's a mistake.
  • "At the same time, Königsberg was again used": surely "at about this time" or something like that?
    • How about just "At this time"?
  • "two trips escorting the Kaiser to Helgoland on 9–13 March and to Britain from 8 to 27 May": since this is over a period of two years it's not clear if this is in 1910 or 1911.
    • Good catch - clarified now.
  • Any reason why you translate Korvettenkapitän but not Fregattenkapitän?
    • Nope - probably just forgot. Fixed now.
  • "the ship would likely have to coal at Zanzibar on Sundays": why Sundays?
    • The source doesn't go into his reasoning, but I'd assume based on the days the ship was present and the distance from Zanzibar to the delta.
  • "Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck requested as many crew members from the ship as possible for his guerrilla campaign": since you give the English name for his rank, and since the most recently mentioned ship is British, it's not immediately obvious that this is a German officer requesting men from the Königsberg.
    • A good point - added the German name for his rank and that the campaign was directed against the British.
  • Is there a link that could be put in for von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerilla campaign? Even a redlink would be helpful if it's notable enough to warrant an article.
    • It's linked in the following paragraph, but I suppose I can shift it up.
  • "Instead, Königsberg was trapped in the river by two cruisers and several smaller vessels": this is much less specific than the earlier mentions of the Chatham, Dartmouth, and Weymouth; is it in fact these same ships?
    • Farwell doesn't specify which ships, but Dartmouth had already left to reinforce Cape of Good Hope Station, so it'd just be Chatham and Weymouth, plus the miscellaneous smaller vessels in the area.
      Interesting. This is one of those "logical deduction" things, I'd say, that in theory can be added without direct citations, if any reasonable editor would conclude the information is correct. It sounds like it's really pretty definite that it's Chatham and Weymouth; can we say so in the article? We could add a footnote mentioning Dartmouth's departure to explain the different list of ships. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I had forgotten that Hyacinth had returned to East Africa by this time, and Astraea would have been in the area as well, as she didn't leave until May. It's probable that the four cruisers rotated to allow for coaling, rest for the crews, etc. I think given the uncertainty, it's probably best to leave it as is. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a very minor point, so I'm supporting, but you might consider putting in a footnote letting the reader know why it's uncertain, in case they wonder, as I did. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking breech block.
    • A good idea.

Overall the article looks very sound; I expect to support once these minor issues are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike! Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in excellent shape, and does a great job of balancing the various elements of this ship's career. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "Königsberg served with the High Seas Fleet in the reconnaissance force" could this be tweaked to "Königsberg served with the High Seas Fleet's reconnaissance force"
    • Sounds good to me.
  • Was Königsberg a standard type of light cruiser, or was she customised for colonial/tropical service? - information on why the ship was ordered would be useful here as well (eg, did she form an unremarkable part of the buildup/renewal of the German fleet, or was she intended to serve well away from Germany?)
    • The Germans built only one type of light cruiser, which was intended for service with the fleet and in the colonies - really, only the RN could afford to build separate types. But I feel like the minutae of warship design might be getting on too much of a tangent.
      • Can this be briefly stated? It's an interesting point given the ship's career (eg, it helps to explain her limited success as a raider in a remote area, and illustrates why her survival was such an impressive feat) Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two trips escorting the Kaiser to Helgoland in 1910, on 9–13 March and to Britain from 8 to 27 May" - this is a bit confusing: could it be tweaked to something like "two trips escorting the Kaiser in 1910; the first to Helgoland on 9–13 March and the second to Britain from 8 to 27 May"?
    • Works for me.
  • "In early 1914, the high command decided to send Königsberg to German East Africa, where she would replace the current station ship, the old unprotected cruiser Geier" - did she receive any modifications for this service? (eg, improved ventilation, shade cloths, extra supply storage, etc)
    • Presumably so, but HRS doesn't mention anything about it.
  • "Max Looff took command of the ship. The ship left Kiel" - the wording here is repetitive
    • Fixed.
  • "including landing soldiers and field guns along with the network of coast watchers and telegraph lines, were erected" - this wording is a bit awkward
    • See how it's worded now.
      • I've tweaked slightly, but it looks good Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 30 October, the cruiser Dartmouth located Königsberg and Somali in the Delta" - do we know how the Dartmouth achieved this? (could the German ships' superstructure be spotted from the sea?)
    • The line about Präsident should have been clearer - the documents the British captured made clear that the ship was in the Rufiji (or at least was the previous month). I'd assume they saw the masts, but Halpern isn't clear.
  • You could note that the ancient Australian light cruiser HMAS Pioneer also formed part of the "British" force which blockaded and attempted to attack Königsberg (see chapter IX of [33]) Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a line on Pioneer (and another cruiser that joined the blockade, Pyramus). Thanks Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now all addressed - nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference comments by Bollyjeff[edit]

  • You have different formats for the id numbers: most ISBN, but some ASIN, OCLC, or nothing. Make them as consistent as possible.
    • For whatever reason, Patience's book does not have an ISBN in Worldcat, and the 5th volume of Hildebrand et. al. does not appear in Worldcat either.
  • Please provide url links to the books in google books where possible. This will make it easier for someone to verify the sources.
    • I don't like to do this because Google Books entries come and go - just because they're viewable now does not mean that they will be in the future, and anyone who wants to check information can easily find them with the ISBN/OCLC numbers.
  • Why only the one author link?
    • Bennett's the only who who has an article, though Herwig probably ought to have one.
  • Why a separate further reading section?
    • Because those two books aren't used in the article, though they might be of interest to readers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as the design displacement, do not appear to be sourced
    • Fixed
  • Per MOS:FOOTERS, don't use semicolons to create pseudoheadings - use regular bold or regular heading markup
    • Fixed
  • What is the source for explanatory note 3?
  • Wilmott or Willmott?
    • Fixed.
  • Burt: "Annapolis,:"?
    • Cut the comma
  • Herwig: which Amherst?
    • New York, but does it matter? For the purposes of finding the source, the publication city is not useful, and I'd rather not mess with linking some locations and not others (for instance, would a link to London be particularly useful?).
  • Hildebrand et al should identify language
    • Added
  • Further reading should be alphabetized and should include OCLC numbers if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good catch, added OCLCs to both. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:23, 16 May 2015 [34].

British contribution to the Manhattan Project[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British contribution to the Manhattan Project. It is part of a new series of topic articles, and was only created in December of last year. It has already passed GA and A-Class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an image review was conducted as part of the A-class review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN36 is displaying wikicode, check formatting
  • FN53 should include publisher
  • FN80: I know this is what NLA produces, but the title should really only be The Canberra Times
  • Use a consistent formatting for USGPO - compare FN36 and 136
  • Books in Notes have no locations while books in References (mostly) include them - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments

  • General
    • MOS:SURNAME – Sir John Anderson, Sir John Dill have their full names and titles repeated after first mention. These later mentions should be surname only. Similarly, Klaus Fuchs's full name is repeated.
    • Not clear of your rationale for capitalising: "permanent secretary" and "laboratory director" but "Technical Subcommittee", "head of the British Mission"; we have "Prime Minister" and "prime minister", too.
  • Lead
    • As the article is in BrEng, "program" in the last para of the lead (and the image caption for Oliphant and four later occurrences in the text) should be "programme". In BrEng "program" is for computers; all other uses take the traditional spelling.
  • Origins
  • Early Anglo-American cooperation
    • "He met with the Uranium Committee" – in British usage one meets with inanimate things – disaster, success – but just meets people.
    • "Ironically, it would be revealed" – WP:EDITORIAL.
  • Cooperation resumes
  • "However heavy" – if you must use "however", it needs a comma after it in such a construction.
  • Los Alamos Laboratory
    • "Chadwick arrived 12 January" – missing "on".

I hope these few points are helpful. Tim riley talk 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for that, especially the comments on British English. I was aware that the Americans use "met" to mean "first met", but had not seen a rule about it until now. Also for the note about "program" (which actually is the older form, the French spelling came in later). I was aware of the use of "program" in the computer sense (which comes from Turing & co. in Britain, not from America), but had mistakenly thought that British English had reverted back to the old form. I have corrected this, and all the other points mentioned, except for "ironically", as I meant this literally, and not as WP:EDITORIAL. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pleased to add support. A fascinating article that meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really nothing to add. Superbly written and engaging. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2015 [35].

Space Seed[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Miyagawa (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of Star Trek: The Original Series most influential episodes, and the origin of Khan Noonien Singh, one of Star Trek's most well-known villains. Article has been through a GA and had a copyedit by Laser Brain. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not familiar to movie articles, but could the "Legacy" section be expanded? It seems rather bare to me compared to the coverage of earlier sections. Gug01 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Miya and I have looked, and I don't believe there's much missing from that section. The episode had a big impact on subsequent Star Trek episodes, but the enduring legacy of the Khan character and to the franchise mostly comes from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support On prose. Easy to read, engaging, just the right number of pictures. Really great article, Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The images... some are not PD/et al, so is this an issue? If it is not, perhaps we could include a shot from the episode as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the images currently in the article are either freely licensed or PD, although a case could be made for a fair-use image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look here. The image is clearly commercially made. The uploader put a no-copyright claim due to a missing copyright notice. Many of the others in the article appear to be similar. Now if the claim is correct, and images before 1989 do require a copyright notice, then practically every image I've ever used falls into that category (yay!). But I don't think it's right. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the tag indicates, images before 1977 first published in the US required a copyright notice in order to still be copyrighted in the US now. Other countries/circumstances have other requirements, but that's correct for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating! Ok, well I need to go re-label about 100 images... Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments More specific image review:

  • I alwayss have my eyes open for PD Star Trek related photos-maybe now that you mention it, one will turn up ;-) We hope (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Ricardo Montalbán-Fay Spain.jpg - Unless the reverse is also available, we cannot confirm that this is, indeed, PD. Although generally such stills were released without copyright notices, there still were many with such notices. Unless the lack of a notice can be confirmed, this image shouldn't be used.
User:Crisco 1492, I see the photo came from a blog that attributes it to The Greatest Show on Earth (TV series). It aired from 1963-1964 on ABC (US) and the production company was Desilu, who was also the original production company for Star Trek. When I went through original registrations for Star Trek, I found that Desilu had registered nothing but the film Yours, Mine, and Ours from 1966-1969; no registrations but this one in film-nothing in artwork. If this would fix things, I can look through original registrations in film and artwork for 1963 and 1964 for both Desilu and ABC (US). It's doubtful that there are any, but can look. We hope (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, if there was no registration, that would be enough confirmation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news-I got as far as original film registrations for 1963-Here's the registration for the program. This is said to have come from The Hanging Man with an airdate in November 1963. We do have at least one PD photo from the program File:Lucille Ball Jack Palance Greatest Show on Earth 1964.JPG, but it has an uncropped front and back with an ABC release. Guess this needs to go for PD. We hope (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed that image from the article. We hope, can I leave it to you to flag this up at Commons? I just realised I don't have a clue how to flag PD issues there! Miyagawa (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't need to list the broadcast date twice in the lead
  • Reworked to remove the second appearance. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • references to it appear in episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise - I'd expect that this is a reference to the background (Eugenics Wars, which was also referenced in DS9 with Bashir, BTW; I recall something about how genetic engineering had been outlawed following the Eugenics wars, when Bashir is first found to be genetically enhanced; also, TAS "The Infinite Vulcan" references the Wars) and not "Space Seed" itself, as the episode is set after Enterprise.
  • I've added references to the DS9 episode - I've split the Legacy section into two subsections, one dealing with Khan specifically and so contains TWOK and Into Darkness related material, and the other dealing specifically with the Eugenics Wars. I still need to add "The Infinite Vulcan" related material. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added "The Infinite Vulcan" - admittedly not much, as the source I have which mentions it only has a plot description for that episode of TAS and no background information. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kirk selects McGivers because she specializes in late 20th-century history and culture. - Feels kinda out of sync with the flow of the paragraph. Might want to rework
  • I've reworked the 20th century mention into the following paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specialism or specialty? Or field of interest (minus historical, of course)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed it to field of interest - I think that sounds best. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • rest of his supermen - superpeople?
  • One element introduced in the second draft that remained in the final version was Kirk marooning Khan and his crew on a new planet. - The character wasn't Khan yet
  • You use "writer" a bit too much in the last paragraph of Writing
  • I've removed a couple, and also trimmed a bit of "credit/credited" out as well. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • has never seen "Space Seed" - as of?
  • Added "as of 1993" as that was the date for the source material. Miyagawa (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contemporary reviews? 70s? The reception section is way too FUTON biased.
  • I've made a request for newspapers.com access, which might turn up something. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well good news, I'm just waiting for my new account to be upgraded to full access. I took a preliminary search and I've already found The Indiana Gazette calling "Space Seed" "a solid piece of science fiction" on February 16, 1967. So this looks like that issue should get solved in the next couple of days. Miyagawa (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now have access - in fact it wasn't solid, it was good according to the review. I've managed to add two reviews. There were others, but they were identical to the two I've added word for word, or only gave a plot overview. Miyagawa (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • her review for Trek Nation. - or her review for TrekNation? One's a documentary, one's a website
    • Fixed - is now linked to TrekNation. Also, I thought I should explain why this particular fansite has been included. Currently it is one of only four fan sites to be linked to from the main Star Trek website, but in fact in the past it had much closer ties. From going back to previous versions of the ST website, they used to use TrekNation as one of their main news pages. So much so that when you clicked on "More News" on a couple of previous designs, it actually took you straight to TrekNation. Miyagawa (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the exception of the DVD containing "Turnabout Intruder". This featured two versions of the original Star Trek pilot, "The Cage". - that second sentence is probably better as a footnote
  • Changed to a footnote as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of the Blish text adaptation? Airing of the remastered version (i.e. non-DVD)?
  • I've added the Blish adaptation under Home Media Release (technically it was the first version of the episode available for home use). Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did enjoy reading it. (Any thoughts on the broadcast version of the remastered edition? Might be hard to get a secondary source on that) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. I'll keep looking though. Miyagawa (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found it! I hit across the idea of checking for zap2it on archive.org, but when that didn't pan out, I checked the archived official Star Trek website from 2007 and found both the air dates for the remastered versions but also a description about the station releases. I'd figured that UPN had shown it, but apparently they went straight into syndication with the new versions. Miyagawa (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole Chekov thing is not included (don't have to include the joke about Khan remembering Chekov in II because he held up the bathroom, but still... it's been discussed quite a bit)
    • The Pavel Chekov article has some references, though I can't vouch for the quality of all of them. I only mention this because it's been termed "the apparent gaffe notorious throughout Star Trek fandom" (i.e. probably worth a sentence, or at least a footnote). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we found the same source! I've added a couple of lines to the legacy section. Miyagawa (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you checked the Memory Alpha article (link) for referenced information that is both useful and verifiable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examples of unused possible sources include Star Trek: The Magazine issue 120 ("Space Seed" flashback), The Star Trek Compendium, Star Trek Concordance, and Star Trek Chronology. Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology may possibly have near-contemporary reviews etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Magazine flashback doesn't have anything usable in terms of contemporary reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Checked the Spaceflight Chronology, doesn't have anything of use other than some non-canon information about the DY-100 ship class. Miyagawa (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Checked the compendium (openlibrary had a borrowable copy) and found a couple of snippets about things being reused later, but otherwise everything else is covered. I was hoping to find something about the Chekov thing in there but it had relatively little to say about TWOK at all. Miyagawa (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Openlibrary also had a copy of the Chronology, so I've used that as a source towards the start of the Eugenics Wars section but otherwise there's nothing extra to add. Miyagawa (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note: from the 20th to 25th I'll be in Purwokerto and may not have access to the internet. I'll continue reviewing when I return. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: great work putting together this article, but I would definitely recommend that the nominator look into archiving the web links that we have here (as I have done, for instance, for Uncle David). Otherwise we may find ourselves in a situation three years down the line where the original link has died, and thus chunks of information will actually have to be removed from this article, and its GA/FA status might be threatened as a result. Better safe than sorry! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very good point - I will endeavour to archive all the non-paywall web sources. Miyagawa (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They've all been archived now. I also discovered that there were a pair of duplicated cites - which I've also fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I found no significant issues. The article satisfies the requirements for a featured article and should be promoted. Praemonitus (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "as of 1993": Do you have information more recent than 1993?
  • "Cox found that as he wrote it after the events were meant to have taken place as predicted by the television series that he had an issue, but instead of describing the Eugenics Wars as a massive World War-style scenario, he described it as going "the X-Files route" by having the Wars being a massive conspiracy that was not discovered until generations had passed.": Give that one another shot.
  • "subsequently": I've generally found the word to be ambiguous in history articles; try substituting "soon", "later", "later on", "consequently", or something more specific.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support - those three points have been corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Marvelous article on a significant television episode. The only change I would like to see concerns the critical reception section – can you add dates or indicate when the reviews were written? It provides context and makes it easier to follow chronologically. Not a big enough concern to avoid supporting though. Ruby 2010/2013 22:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a couple of lines to explain that the second 1960s source was also around the same time as the first, and another line to indicate that the remaining reviewers were several decades after the broadcast. Thanks for the review. Miyagawa (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning opposeComments: A few prose issues here and there, and a couple of other things that might need a last little polish. Nothing major, but I don't think we are quite there yet. There seems to be some redundancy. Some of this may be my own personal preference (and feel free to disagree), but I'm not sure the prose is quite tight enough. I think it's easily fixed, but it should at least be considered. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "attempts to take control of Enterprise to begin a new conquest": The lead does not mention an old conquest, so it is jarring to learn of a new one. Also, would "attempts to seize the Enterprise" be more crisp?
  • "During the writing of the episode numerous changes were made": As written this could mean the changes were made for the Captain Video series.
  • "Changes" used three times in second paragraph of lead.
  • "During the writing of the episode numerous changes were made as producer Bob Justman felt that it would be too expensive to film": A bit clunky, and quite a bit feels redundant. What about "Producer Bob Justman, feeling the episode would be too expensive, made numerous changes to the script."
  • "a request that was turned down by the Writers Guild of America.": Redundancy?
  • "Montalbán was the first choice for Khan": Whose first choice?
  • "Despite being planned as a bottle episode": I wonder should we have a term like this which forces most readers to click a link, rather than just add a word or two more.
  • "On the first broadcast, the episode held second place in the ratings for the first half-hour with 13.12 million viewers. During the second half-hour it was pushed into third place after the Thursday Night Movie began on CBS.": I think I understand why this is here, but it seems to take up a huge chunk of the lead! Can it be simplified? Also, "On the first broadcast" sounds wrong to me ("When first broadcast", or "On its first transmission" sound better to me) but this may be ENGVAR.
  • ""Space Seed" is commonly considered one of the best episodes of the series, having been included in several top ten lists.": Considered by who? Fans and critics and the general public often have different views. Also, "top ten lists" is vague. Top ten what? There are top ten worst episode lists!! Can we be more precise, and whose lists?

Plot:

  • Seems a bit top-heavy to me. Two paragraphs seem to be about the set-up, and I wonder if the balance is correct. But I may very well be wrong, and don't know this episode well enough to be sure. (I think I saw it years ago, but it is vague!)
  • "Its hull identifies it as the SS Botany Bay,": Seems redundant, and may be better merged with the first sentence.
  • "The landing party finds a cargo of 84 humans, 72 of whom are alive in suspended animation after nearly 200 years.": Are the other 12 dead? I wonder if we could somehow reword as "have been in suspended animation for nearly 200 years"?
  • "McGivers identifies the stasis tube containing the body of the group's leader [who]. The male occupant begins to revive, but his life is threatened when his stasis cell begins to fail. Kirk frees him from the cell, and he is taken back to Enterprise for a medical examination.": More redundancy?
  • "In sickbay, the group's leader awakens and attacks McCoy, holding a scalpel to his throat and demanding to know where he is. McCoy responds by suggesting the optimal way to kill him if he wishes to do so. [but is] Impressed by McCoy's [his] bravery, the man puts the scalpel down and introduces himself as "Khan" (Ricardo Montalbán).": I think we are over detailing here, and could cut quite a lot of this.
  • "Khan is given quarters, although his door is locked and an armed guard is posted outside.": What about simply "Khan is placed under guard in quarters"?

There is more to come, but I'll give people a chance to reply and/or violently disagree before I continue! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sarastro, thanks for the comments thus far. I've made changes to address most of the above (though in places I used alternate verbiage than what you suggested here.) Only thing I left unchanged I believe is the rating stuff—I understand where you think it seems to take up too much room, but given the half-hour ratings I'm not entirely sure how to simplify it and keep it clear how the ratings were derived. Miya might have an idea. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the ratings line in the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changes looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "Carey Wilber was hired to write a script for an episode of Star Trek": Who hired him?
  • "His work on that show had included the concept of transporting people in suspended animation through space, the episode featuring Greek-era humans being resurrected and the people of the future finding that they have mythological powers. ": Is all this from the same episode? If so, it could probably be combined more economically (e.g. "the episode included the concept of the transportation of Ancient Greek-era [or Ancient humans?] in suspended animation... "etc
  • "and was also involved in writing scripts for Lost in Space and The Time Tunnel around the same time as his work on Star Trek.": Why is this paired with information on his work with Roddenberry? Did they work together on these series? If not, it is odd to combine the information in one sentence.
  • I've split this away into a separate sentence and restructured it. Miyagawa (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wilber's first proposal for the story that became "Space Seed" was dated August 29, 1966, shortly before the first episode of the television series was aired.": Vaguely awkward and possibly unclear; also, we have referred to two television series here, so maybe clarify. Possibly combine with the next sentence?: "In Wilber's first proposal for the story that became "Space Seed", dated August 29, 1966 (shortly before the first episode of Star Trek aired),[5] the villain was Harold Erickson, an ordinary criminal exiled into space."
  • "and the characterization was based on the descriptions from the writer's bible": Unclear. Characterization of who? (Maybe the "characterization of the leads"?) And I assume there was a "writer's bible" specifically for Star Trek, but this should be spelled out for the unaware. I also wonder if it is worth adding quotation marks to make it clear we are not talking about a religious experience!
  • "NBC executives supported the plot for "Space Seed" and Justman made a reassessment, saying that the outline needed to be heavily revised": Supported how? What did Justman reassess? And if he just decided that it needed to be revised, that sounds more like he didn't really change his mind, but just tolerated a decision from his bosses.
  • The NBC point not really cleared up, and this edit introduced an error ("made reassessed") Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed that to "NBC executives reviewed the plot for "Space Seed" and approved it, but Justman reassessed the outline, saying that it needed to be heavily revised." The Star Trek executives at that point were sending the potential plots to NBC to review. Of course as the season went on they started pre-empting the responses and putting those episodes into production before permission was received. But that level of detail is more suited to the season articles themselves. Miyagawa (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September, Wilber was given a list of suggested changes asking him to remove any mention of the setting, as the producers did not want to say how far in the future Star Trek was set, and to remove the chess scene.": Presumably these were not the only two changes, so perhaps add "including".
  • "Ricardo Montalbán was cast as the genetic superman Khan Noonian Singh, having been the first choice for the role": Cast by who, and whose first choice?
  • "who was not looking to cast an actor of a particular ethnic background due to Roddenberry's vision for the series": This might make a little more sense if the note which follows it is incorporated into the main text; at the moment it is a bit of a non sequitur; should we say something about Montalbán's ethnicity?
  • "Roddenberry, Coon and Wilber's efforts resulted in nearly 60 pages of script across 120 scenes.": Not sure what is being said here. Was this unusual? "Efforts" suggests that this was a deliberate attempt to produce this amount. Correct? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copy-editing myself to save time; feel free to revert anything I've messed up, or that you don't like. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed most of the above notes: regarding the "who hired" and "whose first choice" questions, I think it's just "the production" and not specified in the sources themselves (I will not have access to double-check until tomorrow.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just one point about the above changes: we still have "featured Greek-era humans"; Greek-era does not really make sense as Greece is a location. You either need an awkward double hyphen Ancient-Greek-Era (it might be Ancient Greek-era, but I'm not sure. I suspect not) or perhaps Hellenic-era/Hellenistic-era. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the Greek bit as recommended. Miyagawa (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception:

  • I'm struggling to see the need to include the first HD broadcast of the episode, especially that is was available to 200 stations. Maybe I'm missing something.
  • It was something requested by a prior reviewer. Miyagawa (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I requested the remastering be included. The remastered Star Trek episodes were not just a transfer from film to HD digital, but also included new/reworked special effects (more detail). The amount of changes, I believe, gives it enough significance to be included in the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not convinced, but this certainly isn't a big problem for me and doesn't affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the original broadcast in 1967": Maybe "In a preview of the original broadcast"? (It still described the episode as such after the broadcast, so "prior to" does not really work) Or even cut this phrase altogether and just have "In 1967"?
  • "Also reviewing the episode at the same time": A very odd phrasing here. Maybe alter this and simply start this section with "Reviewers in 1967..." or similar.
  • "Other viewers re-watched and reviewed the episodes several decades after broadcast": Also a little clumsy. Is there a better phrase, such as "More recent reviewers", or "Later reviewers"?Could we also place these reviewers: are they science fiction reviewers, Star Trek reviewers, DVD reviewers...?
  • "ten most under-appreciated elements of Star Trek": Seems a little odd. Given that the reviewers seem to have had nothing but praise and it spawned a film, why is the episode "under-appreciated"?
  • No idea, but the reviewers claimed it was. I certainly wouldn't call Khan under-appreciated. Miyagawa (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with that! Still, not way to change it without making a bit of a mess, so I suppose it will have to stay. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sociology professors John and Maria Jose Tenuto from the College of Lake County described "Space Seed" as the most important episode of the original series, because it resulted in a film which ultimately saved the franchise": This seems rather a stretch, to be honest, and reading far too much into the episode. I'm not sure it has a place here, and the episode can't be considered important just because of its effect on a film series over ten years later.

Home media release:

  • "The first adaptation of "Space Seed" was as a re-working into a short story": This seems an odd start to a section about home media, which most readers will assume is DVD/video. Maybe "Home media and other adaptations" for the title?
  • Can we have a date for the Star Trek 2 book? Also, to be pedantic. should it be a novelization rather than a novel?
  • I've changed it to novelization, and added the year of publishing (already covered in the existing cite). Miyagawa (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were no other VHS releases made? I only ask as I remember double episode VHS Star Trek releases in the UK in the late 1980s/early 1990s.
  • The existing cites for VHS cover the releases in the United States. There were also UK VHS releases with multiple episodes on each releases. I know in the early 90s there was a release with two episodes to each tape, but then in the late 90s there was a further release with three to each tape. I have some Star Trek Monthlys (gotta love eBay) from the same time as the three episode releases but sadly not quite early enough. It seems unlikely that I'll get a citation from the British media mentioning these releases, so would it be acceptable to have a direct citation at the release itself? It just seems more likely that I'll be able to dig up that information. Miyagawa (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your call really. Not a huge issue for me in either case, so feel free to leave it as it is. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

  • "the ages of Khan's followers": Can we specify how these are continuity errors? Too old? Too young? Why?
  • "This was Cox's final Khan-based book, following on from his earlier work about the Eugenics Wars.": We haven't mentioned these other books, why do so here? Probably meaningless to the general reader.
  • The whole Eugenics War section seems to be over-detailed, and belong in a different article rather than one on this episode. In my opinion, this whole section could be cut with little loss to the article.
  • This was added as a result of earlier discussion in the FA review. Miyagawa (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I don't really think it is necessary, but its inclusion does not prevent my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The events of The Wrath of Khan caused an error in the episode's script": The events of the film cannot cause an error in a script written years later.
They did - the point that part is trying to make is that the writer of the later episode effectively quoted the same line from the film but failed to take into account the difference in the timeline between the film and the episode taking place. So when he said it took place 200 years prior, it actually added an additional hundred years to the setting because the film and the episode were a 100 years apart. Miyagawa (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kinda agree with Sarastro here. "Introduced a continuity error"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed it to "introduced a continuity error" as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had one more go at tweaking this. Feel free to revert. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. I think it's almost there, and did a touch more copy-editing. I'll be happy to switch to support once my final concerns are addressed (or disagreed with) and thank you to the nominators for their patience with my nit-picking. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There is one main point unaddressed above (the NBC one) and a few minor ones that haven't had a response yet. I'd like to see these at least looked at, but assuming that they are, I am happy to support this now. A nice piece of work, finding so much information and analysis on one television episode. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken another look at that NBC point. Miyagawa (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Notes look good. References look good, but ISBNs are inconsistently formatted. That's all I have. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All the ISBN-13s have been formatted the same now. Miyagawa (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Note - I am confident that any remaining issues will be addressed post-FAC. Graham Beards (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2015 [36].

HMS Nairana (1917)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 & Ian Rose

This vessel was designed as a passenger ship but was commandeered in mid-construction by the Royal Navy for service in World War I as an aircraft carrier. It subsequently saw action during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. After that it reverted to its originally intended role and served for three decades as a Bass Strait ferry in Australia. Its civil career included its fair share of excitement, when it came closer to sinking than at any time during its military service. There was also an amusing incident with a Tasmanian devil, which evoked visions of the classic Looney Tunes character for us. This article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and should meet all of the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article has been improved further since its ACR, and I've made some small tweaks which I hope are OK. I also have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "Nairana was returned to her former owners in 1921 to be refitted in her original planned configuration" - this is a little bit awkward - "Nairana was returned to her former owners in 1921, and was refitted to her original planned configuration" or similar perhaps?
  • "Nairana was not requisitioned for military service in the Second World War" - given that this is in the lead, perhaps note that she was the only Bass Strait ferry not to be requisitioned
  • "The launch had been delayed nine months, after the British Government ordered that all construction workers be pulled from non-military vessels" - perhaps note why here? (eg, the outbreak of war)
  • "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed, and only limited internal modifications, notably the addition of three large workshops, could be made" - I suspect that this would work better as two sentences (eg, "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed. As a result, only limited internal modifications - notably the addition of three large workshops - could be made")
  • "They were powered" - what the "they" refers to here isn't clear as the previous sentence mentions both the turbines and propellers
  • "A Tasmanian devil being transported to Melbourne Zoo in a wooden crate placed in one of the ship's four horse stalls escaped by chewing a hole through its box, and was never seen again" - do we know when this was?
  • "The ship underwent repairs at Williamstown, Victoria, after running aground in the Tamar River in 1943" - did another ship replace her on the Bass Strait run during this period? Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nick, tks for stopping by. Don't have time to action tonight but the first four suggestions sound okay to me, the "They were powered" bit I might leave to Sturm, and the last two I'll double-check next time I'm in the Mitchell. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've incorporated your suggestions, Nick, although I'm honestly not sure that readers need to be told exactly why workers were pulled off civilian construction given that the lede mentions that construction was suspended after the start of WWI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's obvious to you and I, but not necessarily to people who don't know the dates World War I took place between or what this involved for the shipbuilding industry ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi again Nick, no date with (I mean for!) the devil, and nothing about another boat taking over while Nairana was repaired in 1943 but it wasn't for very long so I've clarified that at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Ian. I also had a look in Trove for stories about the Tasmanian devil, with no luck (though I did find an entertaining range of stories about other Tasmanian devils breaking free from cages over the years!). I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Damn, sorry, I should've mentioned I also looked in Trove before going to the Mitchell to check the book -- at least the search was entertaining, and tks for the support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support just a few comments.
Lede
  • "and floatplanes" unless the wheeled aircraft were deployed from the floatplanes, I think this should be "as well as floatplanes"
  • But doesn't the "mix of" earlier in the sentence negate the need for this?
  • OK, but I've deleted the "mix of" since that's now redundant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Career
  • "Northern Dvina River in Russia" the "in Russia" hangs off the back of this sentence unnecessarily. I think it should be deleted.
  • " Kem, Russia. "similarly I see no need for the Russia. The reader was told where she was going, to North Russia, and there are references to her leaving Russia.
  • "after the war to be rebuilt ..." We're 2 1/2 years on from that. Perhaps say after her service in Russia.
Interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good ideas, and we should have caught the redundant "in Russia" bits earlier. Not that I'm beating myself up about it or anything, but they just seem so obvious in retrospect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seattle[edit]

  • File:HMS Nairana (1917).jpg needs a copyright file to explain why it's public domain in the United States as well
    • I don't think that it does given "HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide"; I also note that image licensing was given a clean bill of health by Nikki above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even without that provision this would be public domain in the US because of its age, but we generally have accepted the HMSO declaration as sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • HMS Nairana was a passenger ferry that was requisitioned by the Royal Navy (RN) as an aircraft carrier/seaplane carrier MOS:SLASH recommends to avoid use of the slash
    • Conway's calls her a seaplane carrier while Layman uses "mixed" carrier. I've adopted the former for the sake of simplicity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consequently only limited internal modifications, notably the addition of three large workshops what makes this notable?
    • Notable because otherwise a lack of facilities cripples her ability to maintain her aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • designed to produce a total of 6,700 shaft horsepower (5,000 kW) can you abbreviate shaft horsepower to shp here, as you use its abbreviation in "7,003 shp (5,222 kW)" below
    • Nope; no abbreviations on first use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, you abbreviate deadweight as (DWT) on first use and proceed to use its abbreviation. You do the same for Royal Navy. Why should this differ? Seattle (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look again, both are spelled out in full earlier in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, and shaft horsepower isn't abbreviated on first use, like deadweight and Royal Navy are. The article reads: The ship was powered by two sets of Parsons geared steam turbines designed to produce a total of 6,700 shaft horsepower (5,000 kW), each driving one three-bladed propeller. The turbines were powered by steam provided by six Babcock & Wilcox water-tube boilers at a working pressure of 202 psi (1,393 kPa; 14 kgf/cm2). On her sea trials, Nairana made 7,003 shp (5,222 kW) and reached 20.32 knots (37.63 km/h; 23.38 mph). Why don't you abbreviate shaft horsepower "shp" immediately after its first use? Seattle (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There the ship was inspected by Rear-Admiral John Green, Rear-Admiral Commanding in the White Sea, the first "Rear-Admiral" seems superfluous. Seattle (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It reads oddly, but that's exactly how it should read. The first use is his rank, the second is part of his job title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed the article at the MILHIST A-class review and my concerns were addressed there. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Minor inconsistency between infobox and text - was ship sold to Huddart Parker in 1921, or returned?
  • Source for depth?
  • Be consistent in your edition formatting - "Revised" vs "Rev." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2015 [37].

Jacobus Anthonie Meessen[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about something different for me. Instead of being about the cinema of the Indies, it's about a little known photographer from the 19th century Dutch East Indies, active in both Padang and Batavia. I think you will find it an interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • At the FAC level, {{ill}} templates should be replaced by a link to a stub.
    • That wasn't an issue with Departures nor many of Curly Turkey's articles, nor have I ever read a policy/MOS page regarding that. That being said, there's only one, and it's an inhabited place, so a stub is on its way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm, I'm disappointed I didn't catch it in Departures when I reviewed it. I'll go talk with Curly, if he's using it ... I've rarely seen it at FAC. The two issues are Humpty-Dumptyism (no one uses (nl) to mean "you'll find a Dutch version of this article over here" in print, that I'm aware), and the general idea at FAC that articles should be approaching their finished state ... that is, if we've got something in article space intended to serve as a red flag that there's work to be done, then the work should be done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moot in this case, as we now have a stub. I must say though that I disagree with the statement "if we've got something in article space intended to serve as a red flag that there's work to be done, then the work should be done"; the same could be said of red links, and a lack of red links is not a FA criteria on the English Wikipedia (now, the Indonesian Wikipedia...).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no problem with a reasonable number of red links at FAC. The red flag (for me, because it sticks out like a sore thumb) is the (nl). - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to disagree quite strongly. I've turned quite of few of those bracketed links into articles—I translated at least three that I saw at Charlie Hebdo shooting (Coco (cartoonist), Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011, and Mustapha Ourrad) that I wouldn't have even thought of writing if the interwiki link weren't there. Crisco work in this area probably outstrips mine severalfold. Wikipedia's a perpetual work-in-progress, and we should be encouraging people to get involved by providing plausible redlinks wherever we can. {{ill}}s are enriched redlinks in that they provide at least some info to people who can either read those other languages or make good use of Google Translate, and give editors something to work with that a plain redlink does not. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • All reasonable points. What about the two points I made? - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • The first point should be dealt with at the template talk page—I don't know what a better solution might be that doesn't overly clutter the page. The other has no bearing on an FAC: we don't evaluate an article on the quality of its sub- or linked articles, and removing a legitimate redlink doesn't improve the yet-uncreated article—it hides the "problem" rather than improving it, and discourages editors from creating it. Since ukiyo-e's promotion I've been going slowly through the redlinks and {{ill}}s. There are now only a handful left, and some (Kanae Yamamoto) have become quite substantial. Without that {{ill}} I likely wouldn't have created it at all. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And in Departures we ended up filling in five or six of the redlinks, with a little help from the Japanese articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He worked mostly in the capital of Batavia (now Jakarta), Java, and Padang, Sumatra, with additional work in Bangka, Belitung, Borneo, and Nias.": I changed "lived" to "worked", on the theory that for the lead paragraph, readers will be more interested in where he made photographs than where he lived ... but if he didn't do photography in all these places, then this will be wrong. Also: pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard that Dutch East Indies was meant to include Sumutra ... was it? I'm confused why you say in the lead that all his images came from the Dutch East Indies, and then say later in the paragraph that one of the main places he lived was Sumatra.
    • The Indies included Sumatra, and (after Java) it was their main focus for development ... and Padang was a major culture and trade city. Dutch_East_Indies#Administrative_divisions has some administrative divisions (cited), and this map shows Sumatra as part of the Indies. Our own Milhist articles (I'm citing these as familiar territory) such as Battle of Palembang and Dutch East Indies campaign also show this. I suspect you're thinking of the returning Dutch government between 1945-1949, which was focused on Java and unable to reassert a meaningful presence in Sumatra. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a few edits that are in line with the meme of "classic style" ... there isn't a quick and simple description of that style or why anyone would prefer it, but I'll be happy to discuss if you like.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. FAC is quite fortunate to have your Indonesian articles; I wish we had more articles at FAC relevant to Asia and Africa. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, Dank! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changes look good, as long as we've got a stub. Always a pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Well done. Just a few quibbles:
Lede
  • "Born to a carpenter in Utrecht, Meessen worked in that profession " Isn't it a trade more than a profession? Picky and classist, probably.
  • I was actually thinking that yesterday. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bio
  • "In 1858 he first went " Hermanus was the last male mentioned.
  • "where he registered himself as a special inspector for water management" registered? Wasn't he employed? This sounds like a government sort of thing.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Just some haisplitting to grate on Crisco's nerves—feel free to disagree with anything:
  • IPA for the name might be nice
  • but also photographed Bangka, Belitung, Borneo, and Nias: I don't there's a contrast worthy of a "but" here.
  • published by De Bussy in 1875: Is "De Bussy" worth a redlink? If not, is it worth mentioning in the lead?
    • They lasted for at least 50 years, so probably worth one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • born in Utrecht, the Netherlands: Google tells me this phrasing is perfectly common, but I couldn't bring myself to say "Utrecht, the Netherlands" out loud the way I'd say "Deseronto, Ontario". I might phrase it "Utrecht in the Netherlands".
  • established his own photo studio: "his own" redundant—if he established it, then it was his own, nicht wahr?
  • and the commercial firm of Woodbury and Page (operated by Walter B. Woodbury and James Page): I assume they sold dirigibles?
  • (though it is not known what model(s) he used): might not this go better in an endnote?
    • Since we're talking about his equipment, I think it's worth having here, especially since it's a bit more immediately pertinent than (say) what the school he designed is being used as now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1875 Exposition Géographique: worth a redlink?
  • Ultimately, however, he does not appear: I don't think the "Ultimately, however," adds anything important
    • Simply saying "he does not appear" strikes me as not connecting the two: his continued marketing and the lack of a return. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this Hidde Petrus Nicolaas Halbertsma? Right period, but I can't place him around Gorredijk.: would it be worth asking at WikiProject Netherlands?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of this would have prevented me from giving the article my support, I just don't like to give it too easily. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wolbo[edit]

  • This is my first FAC review, sorry you had to be the victim.
  • Date of death: based on sources (see also Leeuwarder courant, 11–01–1886) should this not be 14 November 1885 instead of 14 October 1885?
    • You're right... fixed. (Thanks for the link to the mention of his death, too — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particular reason for mentioning the province of Utrecht in the infobox instead of just the city?
    • I generally go City, Province, Country in my infoboxes (such as Sudirman). Maybe not 100% necessary for Utrecht, but better to be consistent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your reply puzzles me. You mention that you generally go with City, Province, Country in infoboxes but the article you provide as an example, Sudirman (another excellent article!), shows City, Country (Poerbolinggo, Dutch East Indies) instead of City, Province, Country (Poerbolinggo, Central Java, Dutch East Indies). I don't know what the guidelines on this are, if any exist, but thought we generally go with the custom of the country, i.e. City, State, Country for the US. In the Netherlands it is not customary to include the province in a location (or address), see for instance Mark Rutte or Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands (also born in Utrecht).--Wolbo (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 11 December 1862 he wed Johanna Alida (Jansje) Steenbeek": is it worth mentioning that they married in Utrecht?
  • "where he served as a special inspector for water management" As Wehwalt mentioned this is indeed 'a government sort of thing.' 'Waterstaat' is a government institution and the forerunner of the current Rijkswaterstaat. Adding this wikilink, either in the sentence or as a note, would be useful.
  • The couple had several children according to the Delpher newspaper archive (see e.g. 1 and 2). Should this be mentioned?
    • I'm impressed that you found that. My own searches through Delpher didn't show this. I'll take a look through the links. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather minimal, but definitely worth including. What do you think about "The couple had two daughters, born in 1865 and 1869". I'm hesitant to give the full dates of birth for them, but it's possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally I think mentioning the year of birth is sufficient, I'll leave it up to you on how to phrase it. In addition to the daughters born in 1865 and 1869 they also had a daughter born in 1866 (1), and a stillborn daughter in 1863 (2). The daughter born in 1865 died in October that year (3).--Wolbo (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • K. I'm going through Delpher to see if we're missing any. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article the term "Indies" is used frequently which confuses me. My understanding from reading the article is that Meessen lived in and traveled within the Dutch East Indies. To my mind "Indies" is a much broader area than the Dutch East Indies. The etymology section of the Dutch East Indies article mentions several English terms for this area (Indië, the Dutch East Indies, the Netherlands Indies, and colonial Indonesia) but "Indies" is not one of them.
  • " Minang Highlands": is this the same as Minangkabau Highlands?
  • "At 5 a.m. the following morning I awoke to find some 60 warriors waiting for me on the beach.": the original Dutch text makes no mention of any awakening. A better translation would be "At 5 a.m. sharp (or "At exactly 5 a.m.") the following morning I found some 60 warriors waiting for me on the beach.". Also note that "Upon arrival I took a few shots" refers to gunshots, not camera shots.
  • "At the 1875 Exposition Géographique in Paris, he exhibited 250 of his images – consisting of 175 landscapes and 75 portraits": would a citation of the exposition catalogue (see 1) be useful?
    • I'll take a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd seen this one previously, and decided against using it because the information was already cited in another source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note f ""Een noodzakelijk kwaad voor den militair, bewaren zij in en buiten de kaserne de beste tucht, terwijl op expeditiën of reizen over zee." is an incomplete sentence. It should be ""Een noodzakelijk kwaad voor den militair, bewaren zij in en buiten de kaserne de beste tucht, terwijl op expeditiën of reizen over zee deze vrouwen onschatbare diensten bewijzen.".
    • Added an ellipses, unless you think "these women provide invaluable services" (yes, "bewijzen" I know is closer to "prove", but "prove an invaluable service" doesn't strike me as idiomatic English when the subject is a person) is really needed given the context of the sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The English translation in itself is fine but the Dutch note is not complete. If you mention in the English translation the fragment "and prove invaluable" than the Dutch note should include the fragment "onschatbare diensten bewijzen", otherwise there is a mismatch.--Wolbo (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, guess I was distracted when reading the comment (we've got a digitization project we're launching on Monday, so most of my day was spent handling that). Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Wolbo (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An additional point. In the main source for the article (Boom & Wachlin 2004.) it is mentioned in the introductory section that "Pas sinds kort is het oeuvre van Jacobus Anthonie Meessen bij onderzoekers en verzamelaars bekend. Het werk van deze fotograaf is tijdens zijn leven nauwelijks tot zijn recht gekomen en heeft daarna nog decennia onopgemerkt in depots gelegen." which roughly translates to "Only recently <relating to the article date of 2004> has the work of Jacobus Anthonie Meessen become known with researchers and collectors. The work of this photographer was not really done justice during his life and has remained undiscovered in depots for decades." This is corroborated in the list of exhibitions in the same source which jumps from 1883 to 1998. This seems worth mentioning in the article, probably in the 'legacy' section.--Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree about the "little studied"; have added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it known why Meessen went to the Dutch East Indies in 1864? This book (1) mentions he worked there for Waterstaat, which seems plausible. Would be nice to get a confirmation from a reliable source. The book itself is also interesting, apparently a facsimile of a work by Meessen. Could this be the same book as published in 1875, but with a different title, or is it a separate book? Could not find any more info on it.--Wolbo (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It says that it's from 150 year old manuscript, filled with his findings, but doesn't mention any photographs being included... that suggests to me it's a different book altogether. This is very interesting, though since I can't get immediate access to it (September is probably the earliest I'd be able to get a copy), I'm not sure the article meets the FA criteria of comprehensiveness now. A source by the subject is enough for non-controversial things like where he worked, and this would hopefully have more biographical information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous reviewers (Wehwalt, Dank, Curly Turkey) what do you think of withdrawing this until we can get the book? I missed that a new book was published in January (admittedly by the subject, but still). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either way; I'd be happy to review again in September, if you'd rather pull it now. I don't usually weigh in on comprehensiveness. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've ordered the book, but no guarantees on how soon I'll get it (on a side note: only $7 for shipping to Indonesia from the Netherlands? Wow!). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they have an old copy lying around in Batavia..... --Wolbo (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco, is this a formal request to withdraw? I mean the nom is barely two weeks old so that's not an issue in itself, it's more that further reviews might be academic if this additional source introduces much new material to the article... Anyway, let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not formal yet. I personally think that this is still fine (When I did Departures, the commentary track didn't add much, and we don't have any guarantees either way yet here), but others may disagree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the 'Style and photography' section could include some info on the print technique Meessen used for his photographs. This site mentiones he used albumen print.--Wolbo (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RKD site specifically mentions 'topographical views' as one of Meessen's subjects as do Boom & Wachlin (2004) but it is not mentioned in the article. Perhaps you can include that somewhere.--Wolbo (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My final comment; This book review of Batavia In Nineteenth Century Photographs by Scott Merrillees mentions (p. 929) that both Woodbury and Page and the Meessen studio are known to have produced 'ethnographic types or portraits'. 'Ethnographic' seems an apt description for Meessen's photography of and commentary on indigenous people and could be a useful term to include with a wikilink to ethnography.--Wolbo (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disregarding the issue of the discovery of Meessen's 1858–1862 travel book on this FAC, I leave that up to more experienced FAC reviewers, I can give the article my full support. All my points have been properly addressed. The article is well-written and structured, comprehensive (per available sources) and sufficiently sourced. Well done. --Wolbo (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Wolbo! The article looks considerably better — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Excellent article and very enjoyable to read. A couple of minor points to mull over:

There are a few dates that are followed by a comma (per US practice), and a few that are not (per UK practice). Probably best to select one and stick with it.

Photography

  • What type of English is this in? If it's BrEng, then "From May through August" should be "From May to August". Not a problem in some of the other variants.

Style and legacy

  • ...sea journeys.". No need for the double full stop

References

  • "Jacobus Anthonie Meesen [sic]": Does the title contain [sic]? If not it should be outside the quote marks. It may also be worth using {{sic}} too.
    • I'm using the template. The example used in its documentation ("Concencus [sic] can Change!") suggests that sic in the square brackets is still within the quotes in a title. Admittedly it's a bit different in this case, what with the error being in the last word of the title, but I prefer to follow precedent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Schro. Done all, I believe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schro, do you think you could do a source review for formatting/reliability (unless the References comment indicates you've already done so)? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • The formatting etc is all good, as far as I can see. No spot checks undertaken because of the language barrier. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2015 [38].

Battle of Labuan[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Labuan was among the last engagements of the Second World War, and was fought between Australian and Japanese forces during mid-June 1945. The Australians invaded the island in Brunei Bay as part of a campaign whose value remains controversial, and overcame its considerably outnumbered garrison after 11 days of at times fierce fighting. As such, it provides an interesting example of engagements late in the Pacific War, where the suicidally brave Japanese forces were totally outclassed by the firepower available to Allied units.

I've been working on this article since January, and am hoping that it can reach FA status by the 70th anniversary of the start of the battle. The article passed a GA nomination in January, and recently passed a Military history Wikiproject A-class review. I have since expanded and copy-edited the article, and hope that it meets the FA criteria. As I noted in the A-class review, I have a family connection with this battle, as my grandad was a member of one of the Australian infantry battalions involved.

Thanks in advance for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've checked the diff since my last edit during the A-class review, and I supported on prose there. Very happy with this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support My apologies for not reviewing this article at A-class. The article is very good, but I do have some concerns.

  • It seems odd that the Article makes no mention of the codename of the Operation, Oboe 6.
  • I have some problems with the background. The first two paragraphs are great; the last two may strike the reader as contradictory. To avoid this, I would trim the last sentence of the third paragraph so it reads: "Labuan was to be developed as a base for warships and aircraft, and form part of a string of strategic positions which would allow the Allies to control the seas off the Japanese-occupied coast of Asia between Singapore and Shanghai." It was however developed as a PT boat base. (Is that mentioned?)
    • Done. Do you have a source for the PT boat base on Labuan? The DANFS history of the only PT boat tender involved in this Brunei Bay operation says that the base was constructed on Muara Island [39] (though it's implied that she'd anchored off Labuan initially), and Bulkley's history doesn't give a location for the base [40] Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now for the more last paragraph of the background. Long is working from Ehrman, Grand Strategy (1954), pp. 224-227. Wilson informed the BCOS of Oboe 6 on 17 March, and the detailed plans reached them on 13 April. The response referred to was sent to Wilson on 27 April. The Americans then replied that a British base in the Philippines would not be available, and suggested that they reconsider. The BCOS then sent the 24 May message quoted by Long on p. 51. This brings us to the last sentence. Now Blamey visited MacArthur in Manila on 4 May and then Morshead on Morotai on 9 May. Morshead issued orders that emphasised that Labuan was not to be developed as a major base. Notwithstanding the weasel word "probably" (Coombes says "presumably", which I take to mean that he has no proof), I suggest that this sentence be deleted.
  • I would appreciate a bit more on the command arrangements. That the landing was carried out by Rear Admiral Forrest Royal's Amphibious Group 6 (And that since Royal died on 18 June, he is the most senior officer casualty in the North Borneo campaign). The air arrangements are worth a mention. Because GHQ cut LHQ out of the command arrangements ostensibly because it could deal with only one headquarters, the table were turned, and the 13th Air Force was placed under Bostock's command so there would be only one air commander.
  • I don't think "However, the 9th Division had been out of action since early 1944, and the prolonged period of training it had undertaken in North Queensland had led to poor morale and an erosion of combat skills among its combat units" is a fair summary of the source (Converse, p. 189) All he says is that the unit had become bored, while noting that its level of training was impressive. Tarakan and Labuan tended to indicate that the division that had cut through Rommel's army at El Alamein and stormed Sattelberg had lost
    • That's a fair point; tweaked. Converse does later say that the 9th Division's performance in Borneo was below its standards earlier in the war (pp. 221-223), but focuses on the 26th Brigade's difficult campaign on Tarakan and, to a lesser extent, the 2/28th Battalion on Labuan (which I think is illustrated in the article). Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to expand the last section just a little, if you have no objection. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that, as well as your other changes and your review Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saw the review request and had a quick look, revert any changes as desired. Can do a bit more if wanted.Keith-264 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • I reviewed this article at ACR and have revised the changes since then so am happy that the content is of a very good standard. Only a few minor prose points:
      • I'm not sure if this sentence is as good as it could be: "The 24th Brigade left from it to capture the eastern shore of Brunei Bay...", consider perhaps something like: "The 24th Brigade left the island to capture the eastern shore of Brunei Bay..." or something like that.
      • "In line with standard Japanese doctrine, the Labuan garrison did..." This seems a little tautological ("standard doctrine" - isn't doctrine always standard?). Perhaps just "In line with Japanese doctrine.." (suggestion only).
        • Thanks for catching that - fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A few spot checks of sources (I have Long, Gill, Odgers, Johnston and Coulthard-Clark):
      • #9a - "The main purpose of attacking Brunei Bay was to secure it as a base for the British Pacific Fleet (BPF), and gain control of oil fields and rubber plantations in the area." This isn't quite supported by the source (Coulthard-Clark p. 252 states that the objective was to secure an advance fleet base to be established but doesn't mention BPF, the rest is supported though). This is a bit of a nitpick I agree (and this is implied by the source), although perhaps you may wish to include a ref which specifically mentions the BPF? Perhaps Long The Final Campaigns p. 50 might be an option?
        • Thanks for spotting this: that sentence did change over time, and I should have updated the referencing to fully support the wording. Now done. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • #10 - supported by Odgers 1968, p. 466 with no issues with close paraphrase.
      • #23 - supported by Long 1963, p. 465 with no issues with close paraphrase.
      • #44 - "The main body of the convoy anchored off Labuan, and the remainder proceeded to the Brunei area. A Japanese aircraft dropped a bomb near two of the transport ships off Labuan at 6:51 am, but caused no damage." This doesn't appear on Gill 1968, p. 460. It actually appears on p. 640 (so I'd say this is just a typo).
      • #45 - same issue as #44 I think, fairly sure this appears on Gill page 641 not 461 (citation #46 is correct though and is supported by Odgers 1968, p. 470 with no issues with close paraphrase)
        • Fixed both of the above. I'd spotted and fixed a similar transcription problem with another source: I must be becoming old aged! Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • #57 - supported by Johnston 2002, p. 232 with no issues with close paraphrase.
      • #61 - supported by Long 1963, p. 475 with no issues with close paraphrase.
      • #65 - same issue as citations #44 and #45, this seems to appear on Gill p. 643 not 463.
    • I added a little missing bibliographic information and made a MOS tweak here [41]
    • Otherwise I think the article does a good job of covering the topic and meets the FA criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries, it looks good to me. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cliftonian

Sorry for not getting to this sooner. Will note thoughts as I go through

  • Lead and infobox look good
  • Background:
  • Copyedited a little bit here
  • "Chinese-ethnic civilians" Is "Ruritanian-ethnic"/"Azanian-ethnic" standard Australian usage? Not sure I've seen it before—though the meaning is clear.
  • Preparations:
  • Copyedited a bit here
  • "over 29,000 men" including officers, yes? and were no women there in support roles?
  • Good point: tweaked to "personnel". Some female nurses would have arrived when permanent hospitals were built, but all the units in the assault force were exclusively male per Australian policies at the time (which were generally very conservative about allowing female nurses near combat areas). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "restoring the colonial government" perhaps worth clarifying that we mean the British colonial government as the reader may have missed the reference earlier in the article
  • Hmm, I think that the "British" in the name of the unit should give readers that reminder without repeating the term (or an equivalent). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't Lieutenant-Colonel hyphenated in Australia? Not really a big deal either way, just make sure you're consistent within the article
  • I just checked, and Garth Pratten's excellent recent book on Australian Lieutenant Colonels of World War II doesn't use hyphens. Good point though. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Japanese garrison on Labuan comprised 650 personnel, made up of 400 airfield troops, 100 naval troops and 250 other lines-of-communications personnel" 400 + 100 + 250 = 750, not 650.
  • Whoops! The last number should have been 150: fixed (I remember proofing the article at one point and thinking that something looked wrong with that sentence - see above for other examples of my early onset of old age). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 371st Independent Infantry Battalion ... with a strength of around 350 men" including officers?
  • It's for everyone. The "men" was surplus (I'd used it only to avoid repeating "personnel"), so I've cut it Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle:
  • It is not clear in the first paragraph here who is attacking Labuan? The Australians?
  • maybe put in brackets what prahu are ("... landed near two native prahu (boats) and questioned their crews ...")
  • I think that the Wikilink does this, and the wording of the sentence indicates that they were some kind of water craft Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a prolonged period" how long? A few days? A few weeks?
  • the abbreviated terms "LSI", "LSD", "LST" etc don't seem to me to be terms everyone will understand. Or are these abbreviations more common than the full designations?
  • The abbreviations are the common terms here Dank and I discussed this in the ACR, and he judged that the abbreviations were the better option. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's what I was thinking, but thought I'd mention it anyway. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the party visited a group of front line infantrymen before departing" Were these troops actually in a fire-fight at the time, or were they dug in somewhere?
  • The sources are a bit vague, but my reading of them is that the soldiers were at the front line searching for Japanese positions (Lt Gen Morshead joked to another member of the party that "this is the first time I've ever heard of a commander in chief acting as a point"!) Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does round rather risky. Could have ended badly. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was believed that at least 110 Japanese had been killed" it was believed by the Australians/Allies
  • "An infantry company's signalling position on 26 June" This caption should make clear these are Australians—just saying "an infantry company" seems to me POV
  • Be consistent regarding capitalisation of "The Pocket"/"the Pocket". Either is fine but stick to one or the other
  • Thanks for spotting this - I've standardised on "the Pocket" per the Australian official history's wording Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is likely that around 250 Japanese personnel were initially stationed within The Pocket" according to whom? This statement seems to me to be made from the Allied perspective.
  • That's the figure given in the Australian official history, which drew on Japanese sources as well as Australian. The author doesn't say that it was an Australian estimate. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and killed eight or ten Japanese personnel, but one was damaged by a bomb and another became bogged" recommend rephrasing; when I first read this I thought it was one of the Japanese that had been "damaged by a bomb"
  • Hmm, given that there's a break in the sentence, I think that the current wording is clear: the alternative seems to be to either repeat "tank" or use something clunky like "vehicle" Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Company or "A" Company?
Standardised on just "A Company" Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "150 men sought treatment" military personnel only, or civilians too? Only Australians or also Americans?
  • The wording says that they were "patients" and doesn't provide further details on who they were. The figure is actually the number admitted though, so I've corrected this. Don't ask me why the daily figure was so high: the source doesn't say (reading between the lines, it appears that the 2/28th Battalion's attack was a fiasco which badly damaged the unit's morale, and eventually lead to its commander being sacked, but no source explicitly says this - the official histories are often pretty polite about command failures and no-one else has written about this battle in detail) Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath:
  • copyedited a little here
  • Perhaps give the date of the surrender of Japan for context

Overall the article looks in very good shape and was an interesting read. I hope the above thoughts are helpful. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  19:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your very detailed review - I really appreciate it Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure—thank you for the swift replies. I am supporting above. Thank you again for this excellent article, and have a great rest of the week! :) —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2015 [42].

Florence Nagle[edit]

Nominator(s): Sagaciousphil, Eric Corbett, Richerman, Giano, Dr. Blofeld

Florence Nagle was a trainer of race horses at a time when women were not allowed to hold trainers licences, a breeder of champion dogs when women were not allowed to be members of The Kennel Club. and a feminist described by one commentator as "the Mrs Pankhurst of British horse racing". She must have been a formidable woman, as even in her eighties she was actively campaigning for a change to The Kennel Club's constitution to allow women members.

This article is the result of the labours of many editors since Giano created it in October last year, only some of whom are listed above as nominators. Much of the credit must go to Sagaciousphil though, who was too modest to write up this nomination herself. This is our offering to those who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of significant women ought to be improved. I hope you enjoy reading it, and perhaps even find Florence's robust defence of the rights of women to be a little inspiring. Eric Corbett 19:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "Miss Newton Deakin": some copyeditors ask people not to use Miss unless the lack of a husband is part of the storyline. I don't think it's wrong, just a little off. (Looking again ... if you're saying that's the name of the registration, then a small tweak might help make that clearer: change "registered as being owned by her friend Miss Newton Deakin, with whom she jointly owned some of her dogs" to "registered as being owned by Miss Newton Deakin, a friend with whom ...")
  • "kennel girls": I don't know what that means.
  • "£5", "£48", "£750": Not taking a position, just noting that some want to see conversion figures here.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Engaging, lucid, great choice of subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A kennel girl would be a girl who works in dog kennels, although I think kennel maid would be the correct term. Would that make more sense? Richerman (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's your call. My thinking was ... we're being introduced to a dog breeder in the lead, then we see the term "kennel girl" ... my first reaction was, "Wait, was there a kennel mentioned that I missed?" I read it again and saw that there wasn't, so it must have been the estate kennels. I don't know if other readers will do the same double-take. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Miss Newton Deakin: I think bearing in mind the era and rigid class etiquette of the time, Miss Newton Deakin is probably the correct usage and adds to the favour of the subject, which is all a little eccentric. I suspect Miss N-D was very proud of being a "Miss" and like Florence herself a great feminist. We have to be careful of applying modern ideas to older concepts. Just a though of mine. Giano (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did Stud & Stable Magazine really call her "Racing's Emily Pankhurst"? I assume they meant "Emmeline"; it's not your mistake, but it should be acknowledged by a [sic]. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stud and Stable didn't, but Lambie (2010), p. 480 did. I'm not sure that really needs a "sic", but I'll happily defer to others on that. Eric Corbett 21:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at the article, Brianboulton. I did a brief search using "Emily Pankhurst": Google books; jstor; British Newspaper Archive; and newspapers.com, which seems to indicate she was referred to as Emily fairly frequently? I'll just echo Eric's comment and defer to what others feel is best. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that people have made the same mistake over and over again doesn't exonerate them. Lots of people said/say "Marie Celeste" (for Mary - see excellent WP article). But this is hardly the most important issue here; I thought it worth pointing out, and it's up to you whether you take it up. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible that she was called Emily as a shortened form of her name although I've no evidence to back that up. As it's a direct quote, and most people will recognise the name anyway, it's probably best left as it is unless anyone feels strongly that it needs a sic. Richerman (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by a too-involved editor for a neutral review and not-enough-involved editor to co-nom. I have edited this article early on, and I just wanted to pop by and say that I support the FAC nomination. I can also answer/clarify any horse-related questions if I'm pinged. Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Montanabw. Eric Corbett 21:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support - citation 69, the "online casebook" link gives a 403 error, although the "extract" link works fine. Otherwise, it looks good. GregJackP Boomer! 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the link I've changed it to is OK? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I think the correct tags are on both now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hamiltonstone. Generally fabulous prose and construction.

  • "awarded the Challenge Certificate at three consecutive Crufts". Although Crufts is linked, a lay reader (well, me) will have no idea what a Challenge Certificate is or why it matters - can we give the reader any clue here about this?
  • "Irish Wolfhounds bred by Nagle were also successful in America; the first of her dogs were exported there in 1933". Not sure of this - as currently constructed, the sentence appears to mean that Nagle's first dogs were exported to America in 1933, whereas I think what is meant is that Nagle first exported dogs to America in 1933?
  • Might a link be added to gun dog?
  • Fantastic account of her activism, and a great anecdote at the very end. Nice work. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hamiltonstone. I've added a note hopefully sufficiently explaining what a CC is, re-jigged the sentence about exports and added the link. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- source review from anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Dog World should be italicized
  • Formatting of site/publisher is different between FNs6 and 22 and 58
  • The domain for FN22 is apparently expired as of this morning
  • FN52: page?
  • Be consistent in whether newspapers include publishers
  • Curling: can you verify this citation? I think you might be combining article and publication title. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Nikkimaria. Eric has given some final tweaks and the expired domain has been replaced. I think these points have all been addressed. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I boggled slightly at the idea of a dog as a linchpin in a revival, but apart from that, nothing but praise. Clearly meets all FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support Tim. Florence is now an almost forgotten feminist activist, but at least she now has what is probably the best online account of her life and achievements. Eric Corbett 19:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. When I review for FAC an article on a subject about which I am ignorant (of which there are an astonishing number) I make it my practice to see what's online already. There are so many – and more and more – WP articles such as this that wipe the floor with anything else available on the web. Congratulations to all concerned. Tim riley talk 20:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm glad you're aware of this, most sources you'll find next to nothing in detail on this woman biographically, that's why this is such an impressive article in the circumstances I think!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – There was just one thing I noticed:

  • "The elder sister of art connoisseur Peter Watson, she attended Wycombe Abbey for her initial schooling followed by studying domestic economy at Evendine Court." A little noun-plusing going on here with "followed by studying domestic economy..." Other than that, that's it!

Again, I had no idea who Florence was but thanks to this excellent article, I do now. It is comprehensive, not overly detailed, brilliantly written and interesting. Well worthy of FA. -- CassiantoTalk 09:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few tweaks to the sentence you mention, so see what you think now. Eric Corbett 12:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. CassiantoTalk 12:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2015 [43].

Southern Cross (wordless novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sole wordless novel by Canadian artist Laurence Hyde, who was late to the party—the major practitioners of the form had already moved on to other things, and there have been few such works since (a surprising number of which have been Canadian). This is a work of indignation against the nuclear tests in the Bikini Atoll, though you'll likely read it for the artwork rather than the story. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I don't have a position on whether it's better to give dates or just years for birth and death.
  • "Hyde was familiar with some of the American Lynd Ward's books and German Otto Nückel's Destiny (1926). The only work he knew of Flemish artist Frans Masereel ...": I guess all I can say right now is that I have no confidence that FAC reviewers and writers are on the right track on "false title" issues. There are a variety of opinions among professional writers and copyeditors, and there's no easy fix that I know of ... but, in general terms, what we're doing isn't working.
  • "In talk with the CBC": Not sure what that means.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Concise and cleanly written; I've read it twice and can see nothing to complain about. One question did occur to me: it sounds as though this was about the last of its genre. Was it the very last? Can a short note be added about the subsequent life of the genre, if any? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No—there were very few wordless novels in the following decades, but it wasn't even the last Canadian one: George Kuthan made Aphrodite's Cup (which I haven't read) in 1964, and George Walker has been active in the genre in the last several years.
Thanks for the support! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. nice read so far,

Before beginning Southern Cross, Hyde had made unfinished attempts at two earlier series of prints. - this sentence seems odd here. do you mean 2 attempts at the same story/subject matter? If so are there any notes on whether a different approach was used? was he frustrated? Also, it would read better further up the paragraph I think (which should be in more chronological order).
I'll have to get back to you—the source is at home, and I just got to work. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, I see - much better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They were unrelated—possibly pre-War—and were not wordless novels, but just series of prints. I've tweaked the section and named the abandoned series. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hyde made the book to express his anger at American nuclear tests in the Bikini Atoll in 1946 following the atomic bombings in Japan - this sentence would be better further up too....or altrernately in the beginning of the next section.
Moved it to the next section. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"anti-atomic"? ...anti-nuclear surely....
Reworded. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Otherwise looks fine. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • Everything seems to be formatted properly and consistently, and nothing is uncited that shouldn't be. I don't see any problems here. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2015 [44].

Richie Farmer[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tragic story of a hometown hero turned basketball icon who parlayed his fame into political office (Commissioner of Agriculture, naturally!) but abused the public trust and now sits in federal prison. This article just passed a GA review with few issues, and I hope to take it to FA status and claim a much-delayed WP:FOUR award. (I created the article a few days after joining Wikipedia in 2006!) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on sources:
    • Overall the formatting is good. Things are quite consistently formatted.
    • A concern I do have is the level you've relied on the Lexington Herald-Leader for your sources. The first footnote that isn't an article from that paper is n57. I estimate that you've used that paper for 220 of your sources out of the 262 footnotes, or about 84% of your citations. I'm not saying that the paper isn't a high-quality reliable source, but this level of reliance for a state-wide politician makes me wonder if you've truly surveyed the full literature about the man.
      • I used the NewsBank access I have through my library. It has the Herald-Leader, but unfortunately, not the (Louisville) Courier-Journal. Those are the main papers in the state. It also has the Messenger-Inquirer, which serves Owensboro, the third largest city in the state by population until Bowling Green passed it last Census. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking again of n57, etc, where is The Messenger-Inquirer published? It's fairly standard, in my experience, to list a publication location for newspapers unless the city is part of the newspaper name. For the Lexington Herald-Leader, the location is obvious: Lexington. For The Messenger-Inquirer, we have no clue. You can easily add this with |location= in the citation template. The same applies to The Kentucky Post in n117, etc.
      • Done. I didn't know including location was standard practice. I will do that from now on. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In n89, you missed a "|" character, so the newspaper name and parameter is appearing on the end of the article title.
    • In n96, no newspaper name has been provided.
    • On n182, I think you have a typo. Shouldn't "Couch a True Diaper Dandy in New Role as Father..." be "Coach a True Diaper Dandy in New Role as Father..."?
    • On nn201&204, no location for The Gleaner, and no page number.
      • Location fixed, but NewsBank omits the page number in the Gleaner, for some reason. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For n262, WKYT is listed as the publisher. As with newspapers, a location should really be provided.
    • Several headlines are using dashes to separate the title from the subtitle. Isn't it more common to use a colon for this? Did the Lexington Herald-Leader actually use a dash? (And according to The Chicago Manual of Style, if there is a second subtitle, it would be separated from the first with a semicolon.)
      • I can only say how NewsBank renders the titles, which actually appears to use a hyphen to separate title from subtitle. I figure that's short for a dash, since there is no dash key on the keyboard. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image question: are there really no photographs of the man that can be used? As it is, the article is woefully under-illustrated, with just a photo of his former coach and his retired jersey. Have you tried contacting the university to see if they have a photo they'd be willing to license? The state government? Checked Flickr and similar photo-sharing sites to see if anyone has posted any photos that could be licensed?

    Imzadi 1979 → 17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have not searched Flickr or contacted UK or state government about licensing an image, but I have searched for his federal mugshot, which would be PD, but I couldn't find that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Imzadi1979: Very sorry to have been so long about addressing all of these. I expected to have plenty of time to work on them on vacation, but I got here and discovered the wi-fi is garbage. Got my first truly reliable connection this morning. Will be glad to follow up on items that require it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I did the Good Article review for this one, and all my quibbles were resolved there. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've done review and would love to support it, Since it should must have few more images (original) of different location that will make article bit more interesting to readers. --A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 06:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support. This is FA quality; there's an issue outstanding but it's a matter of editorial judgement and I think it can be left to an RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Currently an inmate": need "as of 2015" for statements like this.
  • You have "See also: 1991–92 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team" for Farmer's senior year; any reason not to do this for the other three years you cover?
    • Only because I didn't realize someone had stubbed them in. 1991-92 was a defining year in UK basketball, so I knew it would have an article. Added the others. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "defending tournament champion Alabama, who was without forward Andre Perry": might be an ENGVAR thing, but shouldn't this be "which was"?
  • I'm no expert on basketball, but with a college career like Farmer's I would have expected some mention of the NBA, either to say that Farmer was not interested or to otherwise explain why he didn't enter the draft. Or was Farmer's performance not at the level of players who end up in the NBA?
    • The only mentions I saw of the possibility of an NBA career for any of The Unforgettables was Sean Woods, who got some interest from the Indiana Pacers. Farmer was beloved and a good shooter, but the truth is he was a bench player until halfway through his senior year. He is also on the small side for an NBA player at 6-feet even, and at that height, you have to be really quick off the bounce or have some other absolutely outstanding quality to make it in the NBA. I don't think he ever seriously got a look. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see you don't name Farmer's girlfriend in the last sections of the article; any reason not to? I see her name in this story, for example. Another story, here, indicates her name has changed since then. That story mentions she also was found guilty of ethic violations; perhaps that should be mentioned?
    • I had all that in at one point in my draft, but I became concerned about possible BLP issues and wanted to keep the article focused on Farmer as much as possible. You're the second one to raise the issue, though, so perhaps it merits another look. Would you consider supporting (or at least not opposing) this nom, and after it closes, we can open an RFC to get some broader input? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, happy to support (and have done so above). I do think this is worth asking others about, but it's peripheral to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason not to include links to online versions of your sources where possible? Not an FA requirement, just a suggestion.
    • I found them all in subscription-based NewsBank. I'm not sure how many are available for free online. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is in excellent shape. I made a couple of minor edits; please revert as needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. It's always good to have your comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2015 [45].

Camas pocket gopher[edit]

Nominator(s): Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the Camas pocket gopher, a rodent, the largest in its genus, endemic to a small valley in the US state of Oregon. The article went through a thorough GA review by FunkMonk, with copy-editing done by Miniapolis. An essential diagram was provided by Philg88. This is the second nomination to FA. The first was archived primarily due to lack of interest. Some helpful comments provided by Ucucha during that review have been addressed. In the interim, the taxonomy section has been expanded to include a cladogram (provided by User:IJReid), based on some recent phylogenetic studies. --Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Mkativerata[edit]

Support as my comments below have been substantially addressed. The only qualification to my support is that I'm no expert in the subject area, so I can't fully gauge comprehensiveness and accuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)][reply]

  • This is not too far off, in my view, subject to the qualification that I'm no expert in the field. The sourcing looks good (I did spot checks), as does the comprehensiveness. Just small issues, which I think will be fixable:
  • "However, contemporary naturalist H. M. Wight disagreed." With which of the two parts of the preceding sentence did he disagree? And why did he disagree with it?
  • fixed: I added a reference to Wight's exact statement in 1918 and why he made it, based on observations that they ate mostly dandelion greens. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is John Richardson? Without a wikilink, we need to know.
  • fixed. This got dropped in copyediting. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can a subgenus be established? (The answer may well be yes; just asking)
  • The source (Verts/Carraway Mammalian Species article, very first part of article in Context section) says it was "erected". Difference? Could also say "created"? I'm not particular. Thoughts? --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No biggie - mainly an existential question about whether subgenuses could be "established" as opposed to "discovered". --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cite primary sources for saying that the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia were "echoing confusion". I'd only make this claim with a secondary source. Or is Allen, 1893 the source?
  • I'll double check Allen. This may just be my observation, that these specific texts "echoed" the confusion. I'm not sure Allen listed specifics. We can change wording.--Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe fixed? So the Allen reference, page 56, second paragraph reads that Richardson's "determination was accepted by Coues and generally adopted by subsequent writers.". This is a confusing piece of history and Allen's account is the most lucid that I have found. It is a short paragraph and having a second set of eyes look at it would be helpful.--Gaff (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just seems to me that linking the "confusion" to the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia might be OR without a source that says that those two publications were victims of the confusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having trouble with this. The sentence currently reads, "This confusion was echoed by subsequent authors;(Allen, 1893) the article on gophers in the 1879 edition of the American Cyclopædia has an illustration captioned "California Gopher (Thomomys bulbivorus)", and the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (published during the late 19th century) mistakenly reports Thomomys bulbivorus as abundant along the central California coast." All 3 of these facts are sourced. Allen wrote that confusion was echoed (or rather the false determination was "adopted"). I agree that we cannot assume that he was referring to these two publications specifically, but both of them published wrong information. If we drop the semicolon in favor of periods, does that break up any implied connection enough? Something like, "Allen said some folks got it wrong.(cite) Publication A said wrong thing X.(cite) Publication B said wring thing Y.(cite)" --Gaff (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon that's good enough. I think we can be afforded latitude to get away with that. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed This 21st century encyclopedia built by a bunch of hacks is getting it right... --Gaff (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2008, multilocus phylogenetic analysis results of the genus were published." By whom? This seems to be a critical moment in the gopher's history. Suggest active voice, as well.
  • fixed I can add more or less detail (names of reseachers, name of journal, UC Berkely, Harvard, etc). Don't want to overdo it since article is long already. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carraway & Kennedy, currently footnote 27, has no page-number cites.
  • fixed
  • Thanks for the review! I can certainly take care of all of these concerns. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very minor suggestion - in "Description" you're plugging a lot of dense information into the first and third paragraphs. I'd suggest breaking it up a bit more -subheadings, even? - but that's just a personal inclination.
  • I'll keep tinkering with this. Agree, some minor tweaks will help it flow better. I did learn how to do this 1.0.1.31.0.1.3 with the teeth, which is kind of cool. --Gaff (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed.
  • The bit of information about the gray-tailed vole squatting in the Camas' tunnel seems a bit out of place - wouldn't it be better in the final para of the section, which deals with other mammals that share range and tunnels?
  • fixed agree. Since that is another of "my" GA articles, maybe I was placing it too much in the foreground. Sadly, most of the images that I had found for that article got deleted. Long story...
  • "reportedly twittering" - any need for reportedly?
  • fixed
  • "Due to the economic impacts of crop damage and destruction of grazing surfaces". Do we need a sentence before this, establishing that the Camas damages crops and grazing surfaces before moving on to what the consequences of that are? As it is, the section on "Human interactions" just seems to jump right in about a sentence ahead of itself. More generally, the first four sentences of the section each involve the passive voice, which makes it quite difficult to follow.
  • I'll work on this. It would be good to quantify the cost of economic damage.
  • fixed I added some economic data as well. --Gaff (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an "overall degree of threat impact"? This seems like a bit of jargon from somewhere else that might need to be put into plain English.
  • fixed
  • The final para shifts from the IUCN to Natureserve and then back to the IUCN. In between there is a sentence about "area of species distribution" directed to an unknown purpose. Maybe think about a restructure? Two paras? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed

Image review

  • "Ten day old" -> "Ten-day-old" in caption; otherwise all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
fixed thank you for the review --Gaff (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* FYI: Additional image added File:Camassia quamash 6374.JPG. Source is good and it is a valued image on commons. --Gaff (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

This looks to be a well-written, reasonably comprehensive article. A few points I noticed:

  • "... smooth-toothed" or "Western pocket" gophers." - Why capitalise the "Western"?
  • fixed Some call T. mazama the western pocket gopher. The source on this is unclear and colloquial names for the entire genus are not essential to this species' article. So...drop the "western". --Gaff (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "Camas" is capitalised throughout the article. Why? It is not capitalised in the Camassia article.
  • Interesting. It is capitalized most everywhere that I have seen it. Richardson's original text (which the article links to) calls it the Camas Rat. I would prefer to call it Thomomys bulbivorus. I'll do some more research. Camas the city is across the Columbia, in Washington, not in the gophers territory. --Gaff (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed The definitive text on this animal in my opinion is Verts & Carraway Land Mammals of Oregon. I own a (signed) copy. On pages 224 and 231 they refer to it as the camas pocket gopher. Other sources are variable and in my opinion less trusted. So, I have changed it in the article.--Gaff (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the mid-1800s James Audubon called to the species the "Camas rat" - The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
  • Fair enough. I need to do a bit to clarify and it will take a day or two. Its all there in The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America. They basically reject Richardson's assessment and reassign what was then a synonymous animal. --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed I rewrote this paragraph. --Gaff (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species' genetic diversity is similar to that other pocket gophers occupying a larger geographic range and diversity of habitat." - Missing word?
  • fixed
  • "The fur is a flat, dull brown with a dark, lead-gray underside." - What precisely does this mean?
  • Fixed It means that the sentence needed help. --Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Description" starts off talking about a single individual but moves into the plural half way through.
  • fixed
  • In some places where there are two citations covering one fact, they are not arranged in numerical order.
  • fixed by a gnome. I wonder if we could have a bot made to do that for us? I'll ask around.--Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... pull the pouches towards the opening" - It is not clear what opening is referred to here. Perhaps you could use "forward".
  • fixed
  • "Although the gopher's front claws are too weak to dig through the clay ... , its large incisors and strongly procumbent orientation are well-adapted for this purpose." - Some clarification needed here as to what is procumbent.
  • Agreed. It is used all over the place in the literature, but seems idiosynratic. Protuberant likely captures the same meaning and that is the word I had used. Procumbent may mean tht they stick out more directly forward. I'm going with protuberant for now. --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • fixed.
  • "Androlaelaps fahrenholzi was reported is some studies" - This sentence needs attention.
  • fixed
  • That's all for now, while I consider whether the article is sufficiently comprehensive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for reviewing this & I'll get to work. The article will benefit from the attention of somebody with so much experience on rodent articles.--Gaff (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alterations made to the article since I first studied it seem satisfactory and I now support this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pete[edit]

Good points.
Capitalization: My understanding of relate MOS principles would say "western" should not be capitalized. "Camas" is the name of a city in the area the gopher inhabits; this suggests to me why it may have been capitalized to begin with. I'm not sure where the name originates, and whether or not it should be capitalized in this context.
I don't think the numerical order of references is something that should impede FA ratification. If this is important to you, I'd suggest you just fix it.
I suspect Gaff will be in a better position than I to address the remaining points. I have not worked on species-related FAs, and have yet to read this article closely, so I don't have a strong opinion about this; but in general, I am impressed with the quality, and am inclined to think it's ready for FA (with a little attention to some of these details). -Pete (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good Thanks for the support & the fixes. --Gaff (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by bluerasberry[edit]

photo donated by an expert

  • As I recall, Gaff wrote to a gopher expert and asked if they would donate images to use in this Wikipedia article. This person was so generous and gave one of the best pictures I have seen anywhere on Wikipedia.

I wonder if we should contact this expert and ask for the further favor that they might read this article and comment on the extent to which it meets their own quality expectations. Gaff, would you feel comfortable doing this? I support the request being made, if it seems right to ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The photographer was more of a botanist working on the restoration site. We corresponded briefly and he was more interested in seeing what I came up with on this animal, so at this point it seems I am more the expert. And me a simple country doctor... ;) --Gaff (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Right then, looking pretty good. Couple of minor flow issues.....

::They are born toothless, blind and hairless; growing rapidly, the young are weaned at about six weeks of age. - might work better as "Born toothless, blind and hairless, the young grow rapidly before being weaned at about six weeks of age." ::: fixed elegant.

Link genera in body of text (I meant think the word "genera" but no biggie)
Already there, first sentence Taxonomy section: "There are six genera of North American pocket gophers: Cratogeomys, Geomys, Orthogeomys, Pappogeomys, Thomomys, and Zygogeomys."

support Otherwise I think we're there on comprehensiveness and prose. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review and support! --Gaff (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Evad37[edit]

Notes: Spotchecks not done; footnote numbers as at this revision - Evad37 [talk] 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • note re: spot checks Review above by Mkativerata included spot checks. --Gaff (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subheadings should use heading code rather than pseudo-headings, per MOS:ACCESS#Headings
  • Please provide examples. A member of the GOC copyedited this and it has been reviewed by a number of other experienced editors. For the sake of expediency, please just fix it if you see some obscure violation. --Gaff (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example: Use === Footnotes === instead of '''Footnotes:''' – as per the "Heading use (and misuse) examples" on that MOS page, and explicitly stated as "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup" just above the examples. Fixed with this edit [46]. - Evad37 [talk] 03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes consistency
    • The footnotes seem to be a mixture of short citations (linked to sources further down the page) and full citations (with external links and wikilinkes to other articles). I would suggest using just short citations (and adjusting FNs 20, 21, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 7 (Integrated Taxonomic Information System), 58 (NatureServe) accordingly)
I am having trouble setting the Template:ITIS to accept a sfnref tag. I asked at help desk. --Gaff (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This reply was given to the query at the Help desk: "This reference has only 3 short bits of information (link, source, date). I don't see, how a harvard anchor would be beneficial here: the reader is forced to click once more to get to the online source, that could be conveniently reached with 1 click now. Harvard anchors are best suited for offline books and some citations with lengthy details. But online-sources with little additional bibliographic information don't need a harv anchor - mixing short sfn references and "direct" online citations to websites is commonly done in FA-articles. Note: if you really, really want to force a harv anchor here, check Template:Wikicite which can provide harvard anchors for "unusual" references (your idea with a cite web would work too). But I'd recommend against it in such cases. GermanJoe (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)" --Gaff (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 1 uses title and year for the short cite, but other footnotes use author and year
    • FNs 48, 50 are both short cites without a defined author, but one uses the publisher while the other uses the title
  • Footnote formatting
    • FNs 2, 55: use endash (–) for page range
      • fixed I think you meant FN3, since FN2 does not need any dash. --Gaff (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FNs 25, 43: use "pp." and an endash (–) for page range (unless these are single pages with a hyphen in the page number)
    • FNs 20, 21: The Wikisource logo is showing as part of the title (both as displayed and in the metadata). Wikisource is also being shown as the publisher; since it is just the content provider, it should be shown as "via Wikisource". I would suggest replacing {{cite wikisource}} with {{cite encyclopedia}}, setting |titlelink=s:Page on wikisource and |via=Wikisource (linked to Wikisource for the first use)
      • I'm sorry, but I don't understand the problem or how to fix it. Please help. --Gaff (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN 58: page number(s)?
      • Page number for a website? --Gaff (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it (Nowak 1999, FN58 from the previous revision linked above) is a book with an ISBN, readers shouldn't have to go to Google books to find the page number
  • @Gaff: I tweaked the URL of Walker's Mammals of the World to point at a different Google Books version of the same book. The prior link does not contain the pages on pocket gopher. With that (assuming the sourced content comes from the pocket gophers section of the book), you should find it much easier to add the relevant page numbers in the two {{sfn}} citations (currently citation 55).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you fixed it. --Gaff (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source errors CS1 errors in sources
    • Carraway... (November 1993) – |accessdate= requires |url= – suggesting removing accessdate, identifies are generally stable and do not need an access date
    • Whitaker... (24 July 2007) – |accessdate= requires |url=
    • Wight, H. M. (October 1922) – |accessdate= requires |url=
  • Disputed: I do not see how it is a "source error" that the citation template was filled out to completion, including the date upon which an editor accessed the cited information. If you object to the template being filled out completely, take it up on the talk page for the template. This is not an acceptable reason to hold up FAC articles. --Gaff (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "Source errors" above to "CS1 errors in sources" for clarity - Evad37 [talk] 04:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Carraway 1993 links to a valid correct URL via the JSTOR feature in the template. Do I need to have two URLs? Seems like a WP:BROKE issue. Not important. In any case, I took your advice and simply removed the accessdates. --Gaff (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source formatting
    • Some titles are in title case, others are in sentence case – suggest using title case for all, per MOS:TITLE#Capitalization
Is that for book titles only or journal articles? Looking at references on another FA (Dodo) for comparison, I'm not sure... --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told at previous FAC that all titles should have a consistent case style, both for individual works like books and for items within other works like newspaper stories. Is there a reason why titles for books and journal articles should be treated differently? - Evad37 [talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that book names should always be title case but articles can (or even "should") be sentence case -- the main thing would be for all article titles to be in a consistent case w/i the WP article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --Gaff (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to this and the remaining housekeeping tasks in the next day or so. Hopefully the FAC doesn't get archived in the meantime. Busy with work right now... --Gaff (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • When an author has two initials, some instances have space between them while others have no space between (example: "Verts, B. J" right above "Verts, B.J.")
Which is correct in MOS? I'll look around, but if you know, it will save some time, so we can work on other things. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure - it may even be the case that either style is acceptable as long as it is consistent within an article. - Evad37 [talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both have been accepted at FAC -- as you say, consistency within the WP article would be the main thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --Gaff (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are sources missing publisher details, and there are others missing the publisher location
Not all sources found via online resources provide these details. I am continuing to review, but several Google books don't have publisher location. --Gaff (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If those details aren't provided, then that's okay. - Evad37 [talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brandt, Johann Friedrich (1855) – language should be indicated
fixed --Gaff (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Elliot, Daniel Giraud (1905). – The |publisher= parameter contains "Series 6:1–761" after the publisher, breaking the CS1 style of separating fields with periods. Suggest separating these into |series= and |pages=
Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nowak, Ronald M. (1999) – " / : Ronald M. Nowak." doesn't appear to be part of the title
Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Patton, J. L. (2005) – page range should use an endash (–)
It looks to me like it does already.  ?? --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its been fixed between when I initially looked and now... - Evad37 [talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verts, B.J.; Carraway, Leslie N (1998) – missing a period after N
Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whitaker, John O; Walters, Brianne L.; Castor, Linda K; Ritzi, Christopher M.; Wilson, Nixon (24 July 2007) – missing periods after O and K
Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And something I noticed in the external links section: the UniProt link shouldn't specify HTML as the format. Per documentation for CS1 templates (eg {{cite web}}), "HTML is implied and should not be specified."
That's a template issue that I don't know how to fix. *{{UniProt Taxonomy | name = ''Thomomys bulbivorus''| id = 113116| accessdate = March 2015}} --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed in the template code - Evad37 [talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source reliability issues:
    • FN57 (Willamette Valley Agriculture) appears to be an open wiki where anyone can create an account and add or change information. I would suggest following up the references provided there, and then citing those directly.
    • FN56 (Dollar times) – is this particularly reliable? I would have suggested using {{Inflation}} and {{Inflation-fn}}, except that template specifies that using CPI data to inflate non-CPI-type values "would constitute original research".
      • fixed Neither of these facts/figures are especially relevant or essential and since the sourcing is weak, I just removed them. There are currently no identified sources for economic impact of Camas pocket gopher damages, but we cankeep the 1918 data. --Gaff (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the resolved issues above - Evad37 [talk] 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Evad37: I think I have gotten to everything but the ITIS footnote issue, which I have asked for help on. Anything else missing? Thank you for reviewing! --Gaff (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was everything I could see, and I'm happy to take GermanJoe's point about the citation already being pretty short. Sources now look good re consistency, formatting, and reliability. - Evad37 [talk] 10:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Children of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Mana was an attempt by Square Enix to revitalize a series of video games that had produced what many felt were some of the best RPGs ever made for the SNES- Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3. Turns out, attaching a weak plot to a complete shift in gameplay style didn't have the effect they'd hoped for, and this first of three successive titles in the Mana series got only middling reviews. As a part of my drive to get all of the Mana articles up to GA+, I've recently gotten this to GA, and a month ago tried to send this through FAC. The general response was... crickets, so two weeks later I'm trying again. Hopefully two times is the charm! Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment originally released in Japan as Seiken Densetsu DS: Children of Mana (Japanese: 聖剣伝説DS CHILDREN of MANA Hepburn: Seiken Densetsu DS: Chirudoren obu Mana?, lit. "Legend of the Sacred Sword DS: Children of Mana") is way too long an interruption to the first sentence. The lay person shouldn't have to read two lines of alternatives, translations and transliterations of the title before he finds out that this article is about a video game. You should either trim it or relegate it to a footnote. I wonder if the DS should be introduced as a handheld console?—indopug (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: That unwieldy template is standard for Japanese video games, even FAs, but I've now moved it to a footnote and I think it does work better that way. I've also added that the DS is a handheld game console. --PresN 19:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; looks to have been maintained fine since the previous FAC and a great article besides. Tezero (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to FAC delegates- Tezero reviewed this at the last FAC, and supported there; this support is just a carry-through of that one. --PresN 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JDC808[edit]

I've gone through the article and made some copy-edits where I saw necessary. Have just a few points before I'm willing to support:

  • In the Gameplay section, it says "The player controls the unnamed main character, chosen from one of four options." However, in the Setting and characters subsection, it says "The four major characters of Children of Mana are Ferrik, Tamber, Poppen, and Wanderer." Are those not their names?
  • Story subsection, "a mysterious man garbed in black appears and attempts to take the Holy Sword, which is still stuck in the ground, but finds that it is protected by a barrier. The man disappears, and the hero takes the Holy Sword,..." How did the hero get through the barrier? Did the barrier disappear when the man did?
  • "When the Mana Lord is about to kill the hero, a group of gems appear around him to prevent his attack." I was going to copy-edit this, but need some clarification. Do the gems appear around the hero or the Mana Lord?
  • "At the end of the Path, the hero finds the Mana Lord waiting. Upon his defeat, the Mana Lord..." I assume the hero and the Mana Lord battled here, but that's completely left out. --JDC808 ♫ 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected (removed unnamed)
  • The barrier only appears to block the man when he grabs for the sword; no such barrier appears to block the hero. Reworded.
  • Changed to "the hero"; it shouldn't have been gender-specific anyways
  • Added that they fought.
@JDC808: Responded below your comments, tried to fix all four issues. --PresN 20:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few more copy-edits. All of my issues have been addressed. I Support this article's promotion. --JDC808 ♫ 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I have found something.

  • In the lead, the coding for the cover art uses of brackets and resolution for the cover art instead of using the image directly doesn't appear to be the current form. I suppose changing it is optional, but it would look both consistent and tidy.
  • I don't think the "Role-playing video games introduced in 2006" and "2006 video games" should be used together.

Those are the only things that jumped out. Sorry it's not any longer, but I seriously can't think of anything else that hasn't been mentioned above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ProtoDrake: Adjusted both (also got rid of the Nintendo DS category in favor of the Nintendo DS RPG category, by the same logic. --PresN 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One last thing I've noticed: The RPGamer reference is lacking its publisher. The publisher is CraveOnline, I think. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN:, in that case, I think I can now Support this with a clearer mind. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from GamerPro64[edit]

Planning on review this article soon. GamerPro64 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry this took so long to actually review this article. Any who, reading through the article, I think the article is sourced well enough and written throughly on the subject to give it that little bronze star. I can give a Support for this article. GamerPro64 04:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from New Age Retro Hippie[edit]

AKA Image/Source review

Placeholder <3 - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@New Age Retro Hippie: Hey, I suspect you forgot about this. Instead of a full review, could you do an image or source review? I think this nom needs that more. --PresN 20:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely did forget, haha. An image/source review would be a lot less time-consuming for me right now.
The cover image lists tru.com as a source, but I can't personally verify that it comes from there.
The second image is a-okay.
As for sources, I did some quick checks on sources used for gameplay to make sure that they match up, and that seems to be the case.
Of all the sources, I did find one archive that was broken - the 1UP.com link. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@New Age Retro Hippie: Swapped out the image source with the Amazon.com listing for the game by Nintendo, which uses an identical image; made a new webcitation archive link for that ref and verified that it worked. --PresN 22:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All right, sources are fine, images are fine, and having read it, I have no problems with the content. Support. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Judgesurreal777[edit]

Hey @PresN: and @ProtoDrake:! Been a while, I hope to more active this summer, glad to see you are keeping this project sprinting in a way no others seem to do. Article looks great, well written, covers all the bases, references are archived where appropriate. I Support its candidacy. One small point, and I may not be up to date with our current best practices on this, but shouldn't the plot section have references? Awesome job overall, never stop! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Judgesurreal777, been a while! No, even when you were more active plot sections were implicitly sourced to the game itself; plot citations to game quotes are nice, but optional. I don't have a transcript of the game (I worked out the plot by skimming through lets play videos), so I don't have an easy way of getting game quotes for optional referencing. If you know of one, let me know and I'll add some. --PresN 15:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, @Judgesurreal777, long time no see. Happy memories abound of our previous encounters. Hope to see more of you (well, not see exactly, but you know what I mean). --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @PresN: and @ProtoDrake:, you guys are the best! Good to know about the plot stuff, if I come across a game manual I might offer it or add it myself, but no biggie, looks Featured Article ready. I cannot wait for a Mana series Featured Topic, I always wanted to see it happen :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

The references are all formatted consistently and correctly, and appear to be reliable, as far as I can tell. My only question is the same as Judgesurreal777 raised above: is there no way to provide a source for the "Story" section? I'll admit I'm not too familiar with the style of video game articles, so I'm happy to be educated on that point. Have others passed FA recently with similarly uncited sections? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coemgenus: Journey (January 2013) has no refs for story; Final Fantasy XIII-2 (June 2013) has only a sprinkling with most of story unreferenced; Thirty Flights of Loving (February 2014) no refs; Grand Theft Auto V (May 2014) almost no refs; Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (movie, February 2015) no refs. --PresN 15:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. Sources look good to me, then. Note to coordinators: I have not done spotchecks. If these are required, let me know, and I'll do some. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: New Age Retro Hippie did do spotchecks up above. --PresN 17:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How did I miss that? Well, now you have two source reviews. I'll make a note on the list so you don't end up with three! --Coemgenus (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! --PresN 18:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to clarify: the "source review", which is to do with formatting/reliability of citations/sources, is something we like to see carried out on every FAC (like the image licensing review), whereas the "source spotcheck", meaning to check some of the sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, is something we generally only require for a nominator's first FAC, and then on the odd occasion subsequently -- we never discourage them though! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2015 [47].

Jarrow March[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing revolutionary about the 1936 Jarrow march; it was the polite, constitutional action of a town brought to destitution by 1930s economic policies. They came to London, presented their case, were fobbed off with tea and sympathy, and quietly went home. Yet the march became one of the defining images of the decade, and greatly influenced post-war policies towards full employment – at least until the 1980s. But that's another tale. My thanks to some careful peer reviewers who have watched over the article's preparation and made numerous helpful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I was one of the peer reviewers and had my say there. It is an excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Wehwalt. Also had my say at the peer review. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to both of you. I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.
  • Alt text. None of the photographs have alt text.
  • Alt text isn't a FAC requirement. Opinions differ as to its usefulness; I am a sceptic and no longer include it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree on the usefulness, but I've struck my comment. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll follow up with a more thorough review. GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your interest in the article. Any further comments will be very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I haven't been able to make further comments, I think it is a very good article. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

References
  • You have the unitalicised "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online edition", but the italicised "Who's Who online edition". I'd aim for consistency, unless you have a good reason to do something different for these two
  • Neither should be italicised, since in both cases the source is the website version, not the book. Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9: "et al": shouldn't you have this italicised?
  • My view is that this tag is used so often in English that, like for example "etc", it no longer needs italicising. If the Great Riley says otherwise I will defer to him. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN18: Comma after author
  • FN21: I have a feeling there should be some italicisation around at least some part of "The Guardian Housing Network"
  • Slightly tricky one, this, as the source is not the newspaper but a site run by the newspaper. I have compromised by putting the paper's title in italics. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN22: I think you mean 5 November 1932
  • FN29, 42 & 89: Should be comma after author, not full stop
  • FN75: is there a reason you have a book here, rather than in the Sources section?
  • Well. it's an unpaginated ebook, so the normal short citation "Parker, p. ???" doesn't work. I though the direct link to the page would be the most helpful way of dealing with this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN111: Are you sure you retrieved it in 1936?
  • Yes, my private timelord arranged this on my behalf. But someone else has "corrected" it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Skidelsky: for consistency you should add UK to Harmondsworth, as you have done for the other two Penguin books

That's it for the moment, but I'll go over it again later to make sure I've not missed anything. – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking these things up. All sorted now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another peer-reviewer: happy then and happy now. The prose is compellingly readable, the illustrations are admirable, the text is balanced and thoroughly sourced and cited. Plainly of FA quality – as well as thought-provoking, and touching. Happy to support, on St George's Day, an article that does justice to the Englishmen and Englishwomen concerned. – Tim riley talk 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, Tim, your kind words and encouragement are most valuable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from SchroCat. I made some minor tweaks four or five days ago (see here) prior to the source review I gave. I have only one comment: in the UK unemployment section, is it worth a link to gold standard? Oh, and one further thought: T. Vosper Salt? Was Blandings Castle nearby? – SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added the link. I'm afraid I can't do anything about Mr Salt. If you can find a way of working him into the Wodehouse article, that will be worth an extra-large barnstar. Thanks for your tweaks and comments here, and of course for your welcome support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • When the feasibility report was received by the BISF in March 1935, the Federation's chairman, Sir Andrew Duncan, at first reacted positively, his members from the north-east rather less so. - strikes me as a run-on sentence.
  • I think the readability problem perhaps arises from too many commas. As a sentence it is perfectly grammatical but I agree it reads awkwardly, and have rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special Branch - link?
  • That table with the route is really small. Could it be a bit bigger? 80% or 90%?
  • I've increased the font on both the in-text tables to 80%. Anything larger, I think, is uncomfortable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Minor nitpicks only. I feel comfortable supporting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld comments Been rather busy today, I'll be better off giving this a full read tomorrow after a good night's sleep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Is there an article on something like "social reform after the Second World War"? It might be useful to have a link to more background info on that.
  • Well, there's Postwar Britain, which rather skates over the immediate post-war years, or Attlee ministry, perhaps. Neither is particularly strong on social change, and neither is very well written. Not sure how useful a link to either would really be, but I'll give it further consideration. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing isn't it that we don't seem to have any solid articles on these very important topics! Can you think of anybody who would be ideal to create a decent article on Social reform in Postwar Britain?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
National background
  • "Unemployment was particularly heavy in Britain's traditional staple export industries—coal mining, shipbuilding, iron and steel and textiles" -is there anything worth linking here too? I'm not sure we have specific articles on industries in the UK, we should have. Textile industry in the United Kingdom etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'll look to see what if anything can be usefully linked here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Labour Party linked but not Conservative?
Local background
  • Perhaps "The town's years as a coalfield were unhappy" should be tweaked to The town's years as a coalfield were generally unhappy as it's quite a generalised statement to make, different people might have had happier years than others! I suppose if you're referring to the town in general then it's OK as it is though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1931 general election" and "general election of November 1935", -links? -you linked the 1935 one further down but not in first instance.
  • Both theses now linked at first instance
March
  • " was given by James Gordon, the Bishop of Jarrow ." -close gap before punctuation.
Appraisal
  • "that drew the ire of one Conservative MP" -who? Why not just give the name?
  • I thought I'd save the bloke embarrassment by not revealing him as responsible for such cheap hypocricy, but it's in the source, so I've outed him. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thing I can think of is perhaps asking at the graphic lab for somebody to make you a map of the route of the march or something like that with the towns illustrated and the dates. That might be useful to the reader. Aymatth2 is often good with that sort of thing, but I believe is still on holiday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A map would look prettier, but would it be able to hold all the information that's in the table (all the stopping places, the distances between them, the dates of the stops, the dates of the rest days)? If it did it would, I think, be either too large for the article, or the detail would be too small to be useful. Your friend is welcome to give it a go, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is really an impeccable piece of work, found it very difficult to see anything to complain about at all. Easily meets FA criteria, excellent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a very generous summary.Thank you for your observations which I've either attended to or commented on. And thank you for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read through this a few days ago as the subject interests me; I fixed the DABS referred to above automatically without realising they had been flagged by another reviewer, sorry. I've watched the other tweaks made since then and I'm happy to support this interesting, well written nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 [48].

Bill Denny (Australian politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Bill Denny, a South Australian Labor politician and former Attorney-General who enlisted to fight in World War I at the age of 43. He served on the Western Front and was awarded the Military Cross for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. Denny became Attorney-General in two more Labor Governments after the war, and served in the South Australian Parliament from 1900 to 1905 and 1906 to 1933. It has been brought through GA and Milhist A-Class since it was created on 17 January 2015. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata comments[edit]

[Support. All my comments below have been addressed. I think the article is now sufficiently comprehensive in that it outlines some of Denny's major policy initiatives. The only hesitation on my part is whether the prose amounts to "engaging". At times the article is a fairly bare chronology. But ultimately I don't think the prose is any less engaging than in a number of FAs I've recently seen promoted. And hopefully it will benefit from one or two other commenters dropping by and picking up prose matters to be further improved. So I'm happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)][reply]

My most substantive point is that the article is short on detail about what Denny actually did as a Government Minister: the policies he pursued; his successes; his failures. This is especially the case for his second and third stints as a Minister, about which the reader learns very little at all. Other comments:

  • The lead suggests that the whole of his parliamentary career was as a ULP/ALP member, which doesn't seem to be correct. He seems to have also had stints as an independent and PLP member.
  • "He was again Attorney-General in the Labor governments led by John Gunn (1924–26) and Lionel Hill (1930–33)" - Missing Robert Richards.
  • There seems to be conflict between the ADB and the 1919 Sunday Times article about when he started to work for the newspaper. The former says 1896; the latter says 1893. Any reason why the former is preferred?
  • "When a by-election was held for West Adelaide on 17 March 1900..." - I think this sentence tries to do too much. Split?
  • "In the 1902 state election the electoral district of West Adelaide was abolished" - do you abolish a seat in an election?
  • "In 1903, he began studying law at the University of Adelaide, and was defeated at the 1905 state election, gaining only 9.9 per cent of the votes" - the and implies a relationship between the two clauses of the sentence, but there is none. Perhaps take the law studies and the 1908 admission out of where they are and put them as a separate sentence, admittedly out of chronological order, at the end of the paragraph? As it is, it gets in the way of the political stuff.
  • Is there any story behind why he started as a ULP candidate, then became an independent, and then rejoined the ULP?
    • Not that I'm aware of, but I've included a mention of where Howell observes he "abandoned" his former liberalism. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Australian Government" - as an Oz lawyer, I prefer "Commonwealth Government" but happy if you ignore this.
  • "These included the Advances for Homes Act 1910, and in his speeches he highlighted that many workers were faced with high rents and poor conditions. It allowed for 80 per cent of the value of a property to be advanced to a worker at 4.5 per cent interest over 36.5 years" - These two sentences seem out of order. Shouldn't we understand what the Act did before learning about what Denny said in his speeches?
  • "long, spindly legs" - who said this? There are two footnotes so the reader really has no idea.
  • I think we need a geographical location for the wounding in the body of the article, not just the lead. In the body, Egypt is the last location mentioned, which confuses the reader because, of course, it happened in France.
  • "He was subsequently invested with the Military Cross" - this is a long sentence and starts in the passive voice, so is quite difficult to digest.
  • "with a similar proportion of the vote" - "similar proportions"?
  • "During this period he carried several significant legislative changes." - this seems to be a very significant period in Denny's career; I think we need to know what these legislative changes were. It makes the next para, which talks about opening war memorials, seem trivial.
  • "address was punctuated with applause" - it would be good to know who said this without needing to follow the footnote. Although... is this sentence needed at all? It is just about one memorial.
    • I think it goes to how he was a rare beast, being a returned Labor pollie. The quote is from Inglis et al, but I don't see the need to attribute inline. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any explanation for his unusually strong performance at the 1930 election?
  • "Appointed Attorney-General for the third time in the Labor government of Lionel Hill" - this doesn't seem right; the reader initially thinks it was his third stint as A-G in the Hill government.
  • "Lang Labor Party" - I'd suggest just "Lang Labor" as there was no such thing as the "Lang Labor Party".
  • Any explanation for why he lost his seat in 1933, after such a long run of electoral success? Again, this seems to be one of those significant career moments that would warrant more detail.
  • "Denny wrote a further autobiographical book, A Digger at Home and Abroad which was published in 1941" - missing the close to a set of parenthetical commas? [I'd change it myself but I wasn't completely sure]
  • "Mr. Ephriam "Brownie" Tripp" - any reason why he gets a "Mr."?
  • Nice ending to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review and comments. This is my first FAC on a politician, I'm mainly a Milhist guy, so bear with me. I'll start working though your comments and raise any queries as I go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two quibbles with the above: there absolutely was a (formal) Lang Labor Party in South Australia, and they swept out all the incumbents in Denny's three-member seat in 1933, which is why that sentence says as much as can be said. I felt that the reason Denny lost in 1933 was implied there - the PLP was obliterated and nearly all its members were defeated - but that's one point that could probably be fixed by making it explicit in one sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that. Lang Labor doesn't mention the SA version of the party, which makes it a slightly problematic wikilink. Maybe we could add something brief to that article? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • There should at least be some mention in Lang Labor (though it's not something I feel like I can slip in easily: it's a narrative article entirely structured around Lang's shenanigans in NSW), but I should really getting around to writing Lang Labor Party (South Australia): it's a significant part of telling the story of 1930s-era South Australian politics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps I should redlink it for now? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • That sounds fine to me. Redirecting that title to Lang Labor would be the other option but that article says nothing about the SA party. Incidentally, there is a 1969 article "Lang Labor in South Australia" by Don Hopgood in the journal "Labour History" (vol 17), which seems to be available through JSTOR. Not relevant to the FAC but thought it worth noting somewhere as it would seem to be useful for filling in the red link. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • If it needs to be bluelinked for this to pass (I am an old biddie in Wikipedia terms and can't keep up with changing criteria) I'll see what I can do about digging that JSTOR article up and making it happen in the next couple days. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, it doesn't need to be blue-linked to pass. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had FAs promoted with red links in the past. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny quibbles re the lede and the most recent edit:

  • Why the scare quotes around Parliamentary Labor Party?
    • My understanding was that it wasn't really a party, per se, with grassroots members, more a grouping of members of Parliament. But if that is incorrect, happy to remove them from the lead and body.
      • They were a bloc of members of parliament, and considering they contained what had previously the entire Cabinet had to have significant grassroots support in e.g. campaigning in 1933. I think they're definitely a party (they certainly contested the 1933 election as one). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't state when he joined the Labor Party, and essentially suggests that it could have been anytime between 1900 and 1917 (this is important because he was only briefly an Ind. Liberal)
    • Actually, he was a member of the ULP when he ran unsuccessfully in 1899, then he ran as an independent liberal in 1900 and again in 1902 and 1905. I wouldn't say he was "briefly" an independent liberal, he won two elections and lost another as an independent liberal. Assuming that they were strict about party members not running against other party members, he must have resigned from the ULP after the 1899 election and before the 1900 by-election. He must have rejoined the ULP after the 1905 election and before the 1906 election, but I haven't found a source for the actual date.
      • Is there a way this could be explained better in the lede? I feel it's a little vague prior to 1917, and his earliest affiliations I don't think are in the infobox? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have tried to make it clearer. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks good. Only further suggestion I'd have is clarifying the infobox re: his parties (it doesn't mention years or his PLP stint). The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denny's expulsion had very little to do with him personally; he was expelled because the entire ministry was expelled for supporting the Premiers' Plan, and I think the sentence about him being ejected from the ALP could better reflect that The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting a little as I go; please revert as needed. Overall this is in fine shape.

  • "he was elected as an ULP candidate": surely "a ULP"?
  • You only use the abbreviation ALP once; I think you should drop it and use the expanded form.
  • The abbreviation ULP is not explained in the lead, but it is given in the first paragraph of early life. If it's worth explaining I think it should be done on first use. I'm not crazy about doing that sort of thing in the lead, so you might rephrase to avoid needing it there.
  • "During his time as Attorney-General, Denny legislated important reforms": did Denny write or otherwise originate the bills referred to? It seems odd to say "he legislated" when passing a bill is an act of a legislative body, not of one person.
  • Would it be possible to get a map showing South Australia and the Northern Territory within Australia, and ideally showing Adelaide? A map showing one or more of the electoral districts he ran for would be a nice touch too.
  • "During this period he carried several significant legislative changes": should this be "carried out"?
  • "he was one of few Labor politicians invited to unveil memorials": I think "one of the few" would read more naturally.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, Mike. I believe I have addressed all your points except the map one. Unfortunately, due to the size of the infobox, there is very limited space for any more images, and adding such a map would definitely be problematic in the relevant section due to text sandwiching. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Fair enough on the map; everything else looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this one seems to be travelling ok with three supports, an image check and no opposes. Given it is an older nom, any chance I can be granted leave to nominate a fresh one while this one goes through? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead -- at the same time, pls seek a source review for formatting/reliability for this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy. Will do. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: would you mind having a look at the sources for this one? It would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Dead link
  • Brooks et al: typically we don't include titles in author names
  • Newspapers: I realize this is the formatting that NLA provides, but it's problematic.
  • Some of the wikilinks don't go to the right places - you don't mean observer and chronicle, you mean the publications by those titles.
  • Should be consistent in whether the initial The is included in publication titles, and whether it is considered when alphabetizing.
  • The first parenthetical - (Adelaide, SA : 1895 - 1954) - should be excluded
  • The second parenthetical is inconsistent in how locations are presented
  • The publication is not the author - where there is no named author, suggest excluding author parameter and sorting by either publication title or article title
  • Some entries are missing page numbers
  • AWM: you're crediting AWM as the author, work, and publisher - pick one. Same with City of Mitcham
  • SA Parliament or Parliament of South Australia? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, @Nikkimaria: think all those are fixed now. I've sorted the websites by publisher, because they don't all have authors. Would an alternative be better? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, though not the clearest - what I've often seen is alphabetize by author if present and by title if not (eg. Lincoln, Mitcham, Powell). Up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 [49].

Russulaceae[edit]

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well known (among mushroom enthusiasts) family of fungi which also has considerable ecological importance. I boldly submit this as my first FAC, after expanding it over the last months, with much appreciated help from Sasata, Circeus, and Casliber, and having passed a GA review. The article draws on a wide range of different sources, most of them research articles. This is partly due to the fact that the family's taxonomy has changed a lot over the last years, which is not yet reflected in many standard mycology works and field guides. I'm looking forward to comments and critiques! Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (mostly) The article meets most, or all, of the criteria, depending on the way you look at it. It is certainly comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and very stable. The prose is very good, but I can't say it is exactly brilliant, as WP:FA? states. It is one of these things were I can't give examples, but is just the minute differences between choice of words and way to phrase that make all the difference between very good and purely brilliant. Gug01 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This review is for the second set of criteria. The article has a clear and concise lead section, has appropriate structure, and has a consistent format of using footnote citations. Gug01 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lactarius_rubidus_spores_1000x.JPG: what is meant to be the description on the image page?
This looks like a broken template linking to the original source of the image (Mushroom Observer). I am not familiar with Commons and don't know if this can be repaired. Can anybody help? Otherwise I can replace the spore image with one of slightly lower quality, but with a good description. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that (just skimming) - the template name was misspelled. GermanJoe (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Uniflora-root.jpg: do we have evidence of the listed permission? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the user that uploaded the image. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had received permission via email correspondence with Martin Bidartondo (who I had also fact check the article on mycoheterotrophy when it was initially written). I never went through the formal documentation procedure, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Peter G. Werner. Is this accepted as evidence? The image is surely informative, and I would like to keep it in the article. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, if you still have that correspondence I would suggest forwarding it to OTRS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review The quality of refs is fine: all academic, reputable organizations, or books. However I see an inconsistency with web refs: Ref 28 doesn't have a publisher, most of them have the publisher as part of the title (which I haven't seen before so I don't know if that is or isn't allowed); as for book refs some have locations and some don't. HalfGig talk 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book references now all have locations, and websites have publishers as separate parameters. Also added some English translatons of foreign titles, where helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'm not a fungus expert, but I've reviewed a few fungus GANs, so will make some comments as a "layreader"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last half of the articles, there are a lot of single sentence paragraph, is it possible to merge some of these? Looks a bit fragmentary/disjointed now.
  • There are three or more "introduction" sentences in the beginning of some sections that end without citations, but they should probably have citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone there? FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was offline over the weekend. I'll see how I can integrate your comments this evening – thanks anyway! Tylototriton (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merged some paragraphs in the "Chemistry" and two other small sections.
However, after reviewing, I do not see where an introductory sentence in a section would need citations. They are merely "wrappers", and the facts they contain are all backed up through citations later on in the respective section. Could you give me an example where you think a citation is necessary? Tylototriton (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in FAs, it is best to have citations after every paragraph to be safe, including "wrappers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really convinced; I feel citations should be used where necessary and not simply "to be safe". For me, these introductory wrappers act a bit like the lead for the whole article; the sections as a whole have references where appropriate. But I'm not a very experienced editor, if others support your view, I can add references... Tylototriton (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do it myself. But well, let's see what do others say? You have any view on this, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name Russulaceae was first validly used in 1907" I'd suggest replace "used" with "named". FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reformulated this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "does not meet the requirements for valid publication" Why? Couldn't hurt to elaborate in a sentence.
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The agaricoid species in Lactarius" Why is agaricoid italicized? It is not a genus name or foreign word.
  • Likewise for: "Laterally stiped (pleurotoid)"
  • There are more such issues in the rest of the article.
Used italics when I introduced a technical term. In that particular section, paragraphs are structured by fruitbody morphology, so I used those keywords as "anchors". IMO this improves readability. I noticed though the use of italics was not consistent in the "Chemistry" section, fixed this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some characters of the mushroom-forming genera (marked with *) can be less obvious or absent in tropical species" Wouldn't it make more sense to explain the asterisk before the list?
It does. Rearranged the paragraphs. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the only among the mushroom genera in Russulaceae" The only what?
The only genus. I think this is correct English, but I'm happy to reformulate if it really sounds strange. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Tropics" Why capitalisation?
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their basal position suggests this has been the ancestral trophic mode" What basal means here may no be clear to most readers.
Changed "basal" to "early-branching". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsequent authors reaffirm nevertheless that "[n]one of the corticioid species in the family shows any sign of mycorrhizal activity." How can the statement of one writer be attributed to "subsequent authors"?
True, fixed this. Somehow thought the paper cited had more than one author. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few information is available on" Is this proper English?
No. Fixed to "little information". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could have an etymology under taxonomy. What is the name derived from?
As for all fungus and plant families, the name is derived from the type genus, so any etymology would be better placed in the Russula article (which actually has info on this). Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "popular mushroom-forming fungi" If only some of them are edible, I'd assume the group is not "popular" as a whole? Not the intro doesn't state why they are "popular".
Popular means well known and easily recognisable, even if not eaten. Not sure how I can make this clearer. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just write well-known then? Popular seems a bit informal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it, Tylototriton. When these issues are addressed, I should be ready for support. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worked through your suggestions, thanks for the thorough review! Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good - few queries below:

  • I'd change "has significantly changed ideas about the taxonomy of the family." to something like "has significantly changed ideas about relationships within the family." - and tchange the next "relationships" to "affinities" in the next sentence. makes the segment more accessible to the lay reader without sacrificing meaning.
  • Link genera at first instance in body of text.
  • Can go either way on refs for the wrappers....

Otherwise looks good and worthy of FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Included your suggestions, thanks! Tylototriton (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

@Casliber and FunkMonk: How are things looking for you guys now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look though this today... FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Article essentially meets the FA criteria. There is some link duplication, redundant wording (use of 'also', for example), and a vague 'rather small compound', but nothing that derails the presentation. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to address some of the redundant wording. Tylototriton (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tylototriton: You can install this script to help you spot duplicate links; I removed a few that seemed excessive, the rest I leave to your discretion. Now it's just occurred to me that this might be your first FAC nomination, in which case we usually ask for a reviewer to perform a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if any reviewers still watching the page have done that pls let me know, otherwise I'll post a request at WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Installed the script, but it seems you've found them all? I linked taxa in the phylogeny and the image boxes even if they were already linked somewhere in the text, for more superficial readers... Tylototriton (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tylototriton has been inactive since mid-April. Hopefully he will be returning to this nomination soon to address GermanJoe's comments below, or this will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm back now. Addressed the comments below. Tylototriton (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Welcome to FAC, I see you've done quite a bit of high-quality writing.
  • "their size ranges from 2–17 mm diameter or less in Russula campinensis to 30 cm (12 in) ...": I fixed the garden path ... most will read that as "from 2 to 17", until they get all the way to the second "to", and realize that's the "to" that goes with the "from". To fix it, I had to simplify, and decided to drop the "2" ... if that's important, you might go with "as low as 2" instead, or rewrite.
  • "clustered in "rosettes",": ambiguous, since both the word "rosettes" and quote marks in general can mean different things. Link it instead of enclosing it in quote marks.
Term is not really necessary. Replaced it with cluster. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but reluctantly, because parts of it read like the contents of a database rather than an encyclopedia article. I think perhaps some pruning would fix the problem, but what to prune is up to the editors of our biology articles, particularly the fungus articles, not me. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for ce; some information got however mixed up in the lead, brought that back in shape. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks (online) - all OK[edit]

A few (non-academic) spotchecks, as requested on WT:FAC, focussing on 10 randomly picked online sources:

  • ref #1 (3 refs) - mostly OK, but the exact detail "now-obsolete" in usage "b" is apparently not mentioned - the book only mentions this genus as "chromospore", please double-check
Lotsy considered Russulina a separate genus at that time, whereas it is now a synonym of Russula – I clarified this. Tylototriton (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #5 - OK
  • ref #17 (6 refs) - all OK
  • ref #38 - OK
  • ref #50 - OK
  • ref #57 (3 refs) - all OK
  • ref #97 (2 refs) - first OK, second one sources "the Mediterranean orchid Limodorum abortivum only associates with Russula delica and closely related species", however the source notes "a predominant association with ectomycorrhizal fungi of the genus Russula in Limodorum abortivum and its close relatives ..." (emphasis mine) - it looks like the article's statement is too strong and exclusive here.
True, corrected this one. Tylototriton (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #105 - OK
  • ref #110 - OK (general summary statement, covered by source)
  • ref #112 - OK (all mentioned examples and their regions sourced).

Aside from 2 questions, all statements are covered by their sources without any signs of close paraphrasing. When a reference was used multiple times, all usages have been checked (but IANAM). GermanJoe (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The PDF-link for ref #35 is acting up (404 error and the archive server for it is down for maintenance, grml). Not a big problem, as a JSTOR-link is provided as well - but you might want to keep an eye on it (or just delete the 2nd link, if it doesn't come back soon). GermanJoe (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the second link. Tylototriton (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All minor points have been addressed, thank you (status updated). GermanJoe (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) [50].[reply]

James A. Garfield[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a President of the United States. James Garfield is almost forgotten today but for the manner in which he met his death. Yet in 49 years he rose from poverty (the last president born in a log cabin) to the White House. He did much in those 49 years, and possibly could have done more if he had been spared for four more.Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I should mention that I'm a Wikicup participant. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is a very thorough, well-written article. Especially for a person who barely held the office which brought him fame, it contains great detail, yet pertinent information Spartan7W § 01:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • until his death by assassination later that year. - By definition, an assassination (otherwise it's an attempted assassination) causes the death of the target. I'd nix "death by" from this sentence.
Nixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garfield, James's father, had been born in Worcester, New York, but came to Ohio to woo his childhood sweetheart, Mehitabel Ballou, only to find her married. - there are several minor clauses here. I'd try simplifying.
Simpled.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illness forced Garfield to return home - how long after he started working the canal boats?
Added (6 weeks).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What year is that image of Lucretia?
Those photos from the Brady-Handy collection don't have dates more precise than a range of years, unfortunately, so "in the 1870s" is as close as we can get. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among those named were Vice President (and former House Speaker) Schuyler Colfax, Grant's second-term running mate (Massachusetts Senator Henry Wilson), the current Speaker, Maine's James G. Blaine, and Garfield. - Perhaps use semi colons instead of commas where necessary to differentiate between entrees in the list?
I'm fairly traditional American English when it comes to semi-colons, one per sentence. I've restructured a bit so commas are used to separate each entry.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Peskin writing "Did Garfield lie? - who's Peskin?
I've added the first name, but I think the first part of the sentence makes it pretty clear he's a Garfield biographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second mention of him (where you introduced him in the version I reviewed) should be reworked now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any celebration was short lived, as Garfield's youngest son, Neddie, suddenly fell ill with whooping cough shortly after the congressional election in October, and soon died. - you just mentioned that the election was in October. Do you need to do so again?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garfield's appointment of Thomas Lemuel James as Postmaster General infuriated Conkling, who demanded a compensatory appointment for his faction, such as the position of Secretary of the Treasury. - If you're going to talk about James in detail, might not be worth mentioning in the first paragraph
The battle was really over Robertson, though plainly having James as Postmaster General (another really plum patronage position) didn't make Conkling happy. I've played with it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize: Western Hemisphere or western hemisphere?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among those who were in the station was Robert Lincoln, who sixteen years before had watched his father die from an assassin's bullet. - Is this all that pertinent to Garfield?
I think people are interested in the common links among the four assassinated presidents. Ever see the card you could buy with all the ones between Lincoln and Kennedy?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps... I'll defer to other reviewers on this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a chaotic trial in which Guiteau often interrupted and argued, and his counsel used the insanity defense, due to his odd character, the jury found him guilty on January 5, 1882, and he was sentenced to death. - Could this be simplified a bit?
  • There are about ten duplicate links. I'd check them and see which are really needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I trimmed a few, but left sold where the duplicates were widely spaced. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Brilliant piece of prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words, and for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:James_Abram_Garfield_Signature.svg: source link is dead
  • File:Garfield-at-16.jpg needs US PD tag; same with File:Lucretia_Garfield_-_Brady-Handy.jpg, File:Greenback.jpg, File:Left_Puck.jpg
  • File:Garfield_Monument1.JPG needs to identify copyright status of the sculpture itself, same with File:James_Abram_Garfield_Monument,_San_Francisco.jpg
  • File:Garfield_assassination_engraving_cropped.jpg: source links are dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Garfield-casket.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I've fixed the monuments so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done but the signature, the engraving, and the casket. Those will take a bit more research.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those last three should be resolved now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – comprehensive and a really good read. A few minor quibbles, not affecting my support:

  • Education, marriage and early career
    • "and as a school teacher" – is it usually two words in AmEng?
    • "janitor" – a link would be a kindness to non-Americans
    • "Westerner, was liked" – missing a "he" before "was", I think
  • Under Buell's command
    • Last para has three "Garfields" in three consecutive sentences. You might advantageously lose at least one of the second and third.
    • "friction in the Garfield marriage, which Lucretia graciously overlooked" – I don't quite follow this: if there was friction, how could she overlook it?
  • Reconstruction
    • "Ulysses S. Grant" – already linked earlier
  • Tariffs and finance
    • "gold standard" – ditto
  • Crédit Mobilier scandal; Salary Grab
    • "winning with only 57 percent of the vote" – the reader (at least this one) naturally asks what his earlier percentage of the vote had been.
  • Cabinet and inauguration
    • "a nemesis of MacVeagh" – was he really a nemesis ("a person who or thing which avenges, punishes, or brings about someone's downfall; an agent of retribution" – OED) rather than merely an enemy?
Toned down to "opponent".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign policy and naval reform
    • "Great Britain" – one realises that the importance of the "little group of isles beyond the wave" is not what it once was, but surely we still count among "major geographic features and locations", not requiring a blue link?
      Delinked. As bright now shines Great Britain’s rays as in King George’s glorious days.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "any settlement that restore the previous status quo" – either "restored" or "would restore"?
      Edit in haste, repent at leisure. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. This article plainly meets all the FA criteria, in my view. The prose is a pleasure, the proportions and balance judicious, the sourcing wide and thorough, and the images excellent (even the one of the incomparably hideous Baltimore & Potomac station). Tim riley talk 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for a thorough review and support. We shall work through these most helpful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me, also. I've addressed everything Wehwalt didn't get to already. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid stuff! Was supporting already and am now supportinger. Tim riley talk 14:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, Dank, for the support and the copyedits. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-sourced, well-written article. --Carioca (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • Something has gone awry with the pp mechanism between refs 118 and 136, where most if not all of the page ranges are represented by p rather than pp.
  • In the Books list, Vowell lacks a publisher location
  • The Emma Elizabeth Brown book has OCLC 3037198, according to WorldCat
  • No citations to the Vowell book that I can see.

Otherwise, the sources are all of appropriate quality, and there are no other format issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've taken care of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2015&oldid=664841255"