Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Featured article log Featured article statistics Random featured article Former featured articles

Nomination procedure Toolbox Disambig links Edit count External links Alt text Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may want to create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use emboldened subheadings with semicolons, as these create accessibility problems. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Anbe Sivam

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Anbe Sivam, a 2003 Indian Tamil film starring Kamal Haasan and R. Madhavan. The film is known for its story, screenplay, dialogues, performances and music. A special note of thanks to Dr. Blofeld for reviewing the GAN and to my fellow editors who peer reviewed it. This is my fourth FAC attempt and my first solo nomination. Constructive comments here are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

I think the infobox shouldn't include dialogue writers.

Plot

You could remove the actor names to reduce the plot, and avoid overlinking (if actors are linked in the plot, they can't be linked in the production section).

Cast

This complies with WP:FILMCAST, so no problem.

Development

• Don't straightaway mention the film, like "After completing a draft of the film's script in early 2002, Kamal approached the Malayalam filmmaker Priyadarshan to direct the film". The film has to be introduced somehow. Perhaps something like, "After completing the draft of a film script in early 2002, Kamal approached the Malayalam filmmaker Priyadarshan to direct it ... The film's title Anbe Sivam was derived from the Shaivite saint Tirumular's poem Tirumantiram.
• "In a 2008 interview with The Times of India, Sundar C. stated that Anbe Sivam "changed [him] personally and professionally", making him a more confident person and changing his outlook towards life" - I think this is better put in the Legacy section

Casting

• A lot of crew members are mentioned here, when they are better put in the development section. Or retitle the section to "cast and crew".

Filming

Nothing much to say here.

Themes

• You may want to expand upon the "Tennāṭuṭaiya Śivanē pöṛṛi" sentence using info from the source.

Box office

• "In later interviews with Nakkheeran and Dinamalar, Sundar C. revealed that the failure of Anbe Sivam led him to become almost bankrupt and he remained unpaid for his work. His bank accounts frozen by the income tax department for a year for not being able to pay his taxes" - please ensure that those are actual interviews with Sundar C, and not reproducing content from an earlier interview.

Legacy

• Now that the article is large enough, I think un-detailed comparisons of other films with Anbe Sivam can be removed.

More comments to follow soon. I would also like to see the article mention somewhere that Sundar C was better known for making commercial films, and Anbe Sivam was dissimilar to those (See where this can fit). --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I have resolved all your comments now. Do have a look and tell me if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Operation PBHistory

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a CIA covert operation in Guatemala, one of many articles I worked on related to the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, which became an FA in 2017. It's based on pretty much every scholarly discussing the subject. I feel it's comprehensive. Shearonink provided a detailed GA review. This is my second effort at FAC; the previous one was archived, essentially for lack of participation. At that FAC, it received an image review by Nikkimaria, a source review by Brianboulton, and comments from Dudley Miles and SchroCat, whom I am pinging to see if they have anything to add. The article has not changed significantly since that review. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The previous nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation PBHISTORY/archive1. The article was retitled following a discussion there. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley Miles

As I said in comments on the previous nomination, there are still two issues which you did not address. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I apologize for missing your comments: I was away for a few days and did not check the page thoroughly enough on my return. I have tweaked the wording in both cases to try and address your points. Let me know if that helps, or whether further clarification is needed. With respect to your second comment, I've simply removed the phrase referring to Castillo Armas "taking power", because I realized it was ambiguous in this case: Castillo Armas held power both as leader of the junta and as President. Vanamonde (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My second query has been dealt with but I still cannot see what you are getting at in the last sentence of the lead: "Historian Max Holland stated that 'PBHistory ultimately could not repair the damage caused" by the fact that the US could not hide its involvement in the overthrow of Árbenz,[2] while Bevan Sewell wrote that it was an "ill-fated" operation, and that "the level of discord that US actions had caused in the region overshadowed any attempt to publicize [their] success."' In the first part you appear to say (or quote historians saying) that the US agents unsuccessfuly attempted to conceal their involvement, and in the second part that they attempted to publicise their success. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: I don't believe you've completed the nomination process, as this is not listed on the WP:FAC page Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I have done so now. Vanamonde (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• No changes to the sources, which I approved last 4th October. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Neferefre

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Neferefre a short lived pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the mid 25th century BC. There is nothing special about his reign, however his unexpected death meant two important things. First, it caused a bit of turmoil in the dynastic succession, and second his pyramid and mortuary temple were far from finished. Because of this, the pyramid was left relatively unscathed by grave robers, allowing us to uncover more statues of Neferefre than of any other king of the Fifth Dynasty. In addition, his mummy survived the centuries and reached us, showing that he died in his youth.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map

Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Pyramid_of_Neferefre,_Abusir,_1970ies.jpg: given that publications of this photo predate its upload here (example), I'm concerned that the uploader may not have been the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I don't know what to do here. Should I remove the pic altogether?Iry-Hor (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Absent further details about its copyright situation, that would be safest. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Ok, would this alternative picture be acceptable copyright-wise ? Iry-Hor (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

NikkimariaI was wondering: did you know that you could click on the [show] button on the right of "Royal titulary" in the infobox? It seems many people miss this altogether, so I am doing a kind of poll to check whether the infobox needs a redesign on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I think two occurrences of "plateform" should probably be "platform", but I wasn't confident enough to go in and change them. That apart, I found this an absorbing article: easy to read, well and widely sourced, splendidly illustrated, and, as far as I can tell, comprehensive. I always enjoy Ivry-Hor's articles, and one of these days I may even stop mis-reading "Shepseskare" as "Shakespeare", but that's just my problem ("Old, Master Shallow!"). This is well up to I-H's standard, and I am very happy to support. Tim riley talk 21:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim riley! About the "plateform", you were right, the Oxford English dictionnary writes "platform" with no e. I was once more betrayed by my French mother tongue it seems. That said, I was wondering: did you know that you could click on the [show] button on the right of "Royal titulary" in the infobox? It seems many people miss this altogether, so I am doing a kind of poll to check whether the infobox needs a redesign on this.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't spot the button, and it would be a pity to miss such excellent supplementary material. Perhaps the info-box setting should default to "show", with the button allowing readers to collapse the sub-box if they wish. Happy to add my two Euros-worth at any discussion you initiate, if wanted. Please feel free to ping me. Tim riley talk 19:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive and readable, a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• primeval mound— At first I thought this was a slip for "primitive". Although it is eventually explained, it looks odd as it stands in the lead. Perhaps a note here, or avoid the term until it is clarified

I have added a wikilink to the Benben the primeval mound in Egyptian mythology. In addition, a short explanation is now given in the lead. Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• "likely" is overused, there are other words for expressing probability

Damn! I agree, there was tons of "likely". I have removed most, thanks for noticing this! Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Multiple references should be in numerical order, there are numerous places where you haven't done that, eg queen Khentkaus II.[35][3][5]

Fixed everywhere I could see it in the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• however, thereby—yuk, lose the "however"

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope this addresses your concerns Jimfbleak!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

All looks good now, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

15th Tank Corps

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a Soviet tank formation that fought in World War II, serving in many major actions such as the Soviet offensive after Stalingrad and the Third Battle of Kharkov. I would like to improve this as far as possible, and am attempting to improve coverage of an underrepresented area of World War II. Kges1901 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up all maps and providing a legend for the first
• File:Polozenie_17_09_1939.png: what is the source for the data presented in this map? Same with File:Operation_Star_1.png, File:Operation_Star_2.png, File:Operation_Star_3.png

• The maps are own work by the users who created them, but they match up with what I've read on the battles. I will post on MILHIST talk asking if there are any users who would be willing to make maps (I don't have the expertise to do it myself), as the books I've consulted have maps that include the corps.

• File:Bt7_3.jpg: which of the rationales in the given tag is believed to apply?\

• Rationale #3

• File:Vasily_Koptsov.jpg: FUR is not adequate for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have any more information on the image than I did for the A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Bill McCann

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Bill McCann, a decorated soldier of World War I, a barrister, and a prominent figure in the military and ex-service community of South Australia during the interwar period. The article successfully went through GAN and Milhist A-Class review in July–August last year, and has been stable since, just waiting to have a run at FAC. All comments and suggestions gratefully received. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, Nikki! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

I made minor copyediting changes to the article as listed here. Please revert any that you think are misguided. Below are further questions and suggestions.

They look great, particular thanks for editing out the passive voice (which I do have a tendency to fall into). I will get onto the rest of your comments shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Gallipoli campaign

• ¶1 "During that period, the 10th Battalion suffered casualties of 13 officers and 453 men." – Would it be possible to say how many officers and men were in the battalion before these casualties or to render the losses in percentages?

• Added and expanded footnote to cover it.

Western Front

• ¶1 "...fight over the O.G.1 trench system..." - Link or explain O.G.1 trench system?

• Added a note. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• ¶3 "In February 1917 he was evacuated suffering from illness,..." – Slightly smoother as "Suffering from illness, he was evacuated in February 1917,..."?

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• ¶4 "...before being seconded to a training battalion..." – Link "seconded" to secondment?

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Interbellum and later life

• ¶1 "McCann commenced studying as an articled clerk in December 1920, and married Mildred Southcott on 20 August 1921, there being two sons and one daughter from the union." – This sentence bothers me in two ways. The "with plus -ing" construction is awkward, and "from the union" seems anachronistic. Suggestion: " McCann commenced studying as an articled clerk in December 1920 and married Mildred Southcott on 20 August 1921; they had two sons and a daughter."
• ¶1 "In 1921 he commenced..." – Replace "commenced" with "began" since the sentence before this one uses "commenced"?
• ¶2 "...defended the status of Anzac Day as a public holiday against protests from the retail sector,..." – Why did the retail sector oppose the holiday?
• ¶2 "...was a foundation member..." – Should that be "founding" rather than "foundation"?
• ¶2 "When the National War Memorial design was being finalised, McCann strongly advocated for the inclusion of the names of all South Australians who were killed in World War I inside the memorial;..." – The sentence is a bit wordy, and the South Australians weren't killed inside the memorial. Suggestion: "As the memorial design neared completion, McCann strongly supported including the names of all South Australians killed in World War I;...".
• ¶2 "...McCann sharply criticised the defence policy of the Federal Government, "[d]efence has been brought down to such a low point," he said, "that it is now an absurdity." – Can you add any specifics? What in particular was he objecting to? Too few soldiers? Too little training? Too little money? Outdated weapons?
• ¶3 "the Unattached List" – Should that be linked or explained?
• ¶6 "...resulted in his home being deliberately set alight." – Were the culprits ever identified or charged with arson? What was the extent of the damage to the house?

• All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

General

• Some images have alt text, but others don't. Concise alt text for all of them would be nice even if not required.
• No dead URLs.
• No disambiguation problems.
• Duplicate links in the main text include University of Adelaide, 9th Battalion, counter-attack, and Anzac Day. I don't think you need the duplicates. I doubt that you need the three duplicates in the lead; they are the OBE, etc. in the first sentence, followed by Officer of the Order of the British Empire, etc., in the last.

• alt text and duplinks fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• All done, Finetooth. Thanks very much for your thorough copy-edit and other suggestions. Here are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Romney Classical Institute

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is the most complete and comprehensive history written about the Romney Classical Institute. I feel this article meets the criteria for a Featured Article, and I would appreciate any guidance and feedback you may have to further improve it! Thank you in advance for taking the time to review this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

3 of Hearts (album)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Following my success with putting Pru and Ho Ho Ho through the FAC process, I have decided to nominate this music-related article. It is about a teen pop and country music album by American group 3 of Hearts. The album was managed by American producer Byron Gallimore and was marketed towards a younger audience through the group's crossover appeal. It was released on March 6, 2001, through RCA Nashville. Reviews of 3 of Hearts were mixed; some critics praised the group's vocals and image, while others criticized the songs as generic and lacking an authentic country sound.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this nomination. If anyone is interested, this is what the article looked like before I worked on it: here. I am honestly not a fan of the album or country music in general, but I found a teen pop approach to country music to be interesting and unique so I enjoyed research and writing this. Thank you in advance and have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

• I understand that it is not mandatory to have a specific number of paragraphs in the lead, but you could use three here (if at all). With the first focusing in the album and the group, the second in the marketing and the genre, and the third obviously the reception. This is just my POV though.

• I understand what you mean, but I am not certain about it. I think that separating the first paragraph of the lead into two would make two rather short paragraphs and that would look awkward at the very beginning of an article in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Even though this the debut album for the band, I am not too sure about the relevance of the group's entire history in the Background section. I get most of it and how it helps weave a narrative, but it really does belong in the group's page. Although, this too is really just my POV, and you could use a second opinion here as most of the section is fairly well written and does in fact talk about the group's immediate history.

• I understand what you mean here; I just think that it is important to include all of the information about how the group was signed to the label as this is their debut album so I would find those parts to be relevant in how the album was made. I would argue that it would make sense to this information on both the article on the debut album and the article on the group itself. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I believe that Walmart is not mentioned anywhere in the article but the lead. You might want to cross-check and then substantiate the sponsor claim in the article's body.

• The information is already present in the "Release and promotion" section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Also, the release date of the album is never directly mentioned in the relevant section. You should mention when it was released and in what formats (cassette, CD, digital download) here in prose as you do in the release history table.

• Added. The release is directly mentioned in the "Release and promotion" section, but I have also added the formats in which the album was release. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Would the "Following the album's release, 3 of Hearts was removed from RCA due..." paragraph fit better in the Reception section considering the fact that it is the commercial reception being talked about. Also, the critical reception as a backdrop for the same would make a lot more sense than the marketing section. Again, POV.

• I think that the information is best suited for the "Release and promotion" section given the quotes from Joe Galante and the information about the removal of the group from the record label actually deals more with the promotional tactics than with the sales. Sales seemed to be a partial reason, but I found more information on how the group's promotional campaign and their connection with radio audiences shaped the label's decision to remove them. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ocean Way Nashville, never finds a mention the body or did I miss it? You could also substantiate it in the text if it is not already mentioned.

• Added this part into the "Background and recording" section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Although this is more of a query, but is the list format the preferred manner for arranging the personnel section? I am not familiar with music related articles as such, so forgive my ignorance here.

• It is a very valid question so no worries; it is a pretty standard practice so someone can easily access all of the credits for the album at a glance. You can look at my previous articles on albums that passed through the FAC process both here and here to see what I mean regarding this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The rest looks great Aoba47! Fine work, as always. NumerounovedantTalk 05:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: Thank you for your comments; I believe that I have addressed everything. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Hope you had a wonderful start to your new year! Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Very minor: You could avoid repetiton of of in the second paragraph of the lead.

• Revised somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Again very minor: "some critics praised the group's vocals and image" - The image bit might not be as clear as one would wish (could be just me). Maybe you could say public image or media image or whatever suits it best, just to make it more specific.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I can support the article. Good luck Aoba47, have a great year! NumerounovedantTalk 06:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the help, and have a wonderful rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Aberfan disaster

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A warm and Happy New Year to you all. The Aberfan disaster was a truly terrible and shocking incident: a slip from the spoil tips led to an avalanche of coal slurry down onto a small Welsh village. The junior school was the first major structure to be hit. Of the 144 people who died in the disaster, 116 of them were children, mostly between the ages of 7 and 10. Five of the adults who died were teachers at the school. Even fifty one years after the event, it is still an uncomfortable subject to read and write about. This has been re-written recently and a number of images from the official report became copyright free on 1 January 2018. At the time of PR I also contacted Iain McLean, an academic who has studied the disaster and its impact (and whose work is included in the sources). He was kind enough to read through the article and give advice and pointers on some points that needed clarification, which was extremely useful. – SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the inquiry map and the plaque
• File:Aberfan_disaster,_October_1966.jpg: still not happy with that non-free tag - perhaps {{non-free fair use}}? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikkimaria, all done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• First two paragraphs of "Legacy" section are repetitive. I've never been keen on ending a paragraph, or a section, or especially an article with a blockquote; I've seen writing textbooks etc. that disallow it. But it's common practice on Wikipedia, where, as we all know, there are no rules. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
  • Thanks Lingzhi. I've removed/combined the paras in the Legacy section. I take your point on the ending quote, but I'm minded to leave it in for now; if others raise it as a problem over the rest of the FAC, we can always move it around. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• How far was the tip from the school, from the farmhouses? How fast did the mining waste travel? Did anyone hear a noise before it hit the school? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll have to do some digging on the distances, as the main sources don't include them: I'll keep looking and sort the remaining questions shortly. Thanks for looking over this. - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I can't find any reliable sources that deal with the distances, which is odd, as I would have expected them to have been recorded. The speed of the waste is already covered in the second para of the Tip collapse section. I've added the noise information. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • In his biography of S.O. Davies, Robert Griffiths writes (p. 271): "Over 50,000 cubic yards of coal waste had rolled 700 yards down the mountainside and into the village". Is this useful? If so, you can get the book details from the S.O. Davies article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Ah, that's great - many thanks Brian. I'll add that now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The Internet tells me that the time from start to impact was at most just over two minutes, and perhaps as little as half that. I don't think simple math is WP:OR.. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) We already cover the telephone call point and the speed of the flow (11–21 mph) - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Were there laws regarding inspections? What govt agency, if any, had authority? Were there formal inspections, and what were the results? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No laws at all (only some internal NCB guidelines). The authority was the NCB, which was a state-owned industry; as such it would have come under whatever title the Department of Industry went under, but it was an arm's length relationship. We cover the NCB angle in the Background section. The sources make no reference to inspections. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    • "However belatedly, it was conceded by the NCB that the Aberfan disaster stemmed from their failure to initiate any policy in relation to the siting, control, inspection and management of tips"... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes: there was no policy and the NCB did not initiate one, which was the error. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I dunno how authoritative this is -- perhaps not very, as it was written by an eyewitness who was 8 at the time -- but "Aberfan" By Gaynor Madgewick has the distance from tip to village at 500 feet (or it that the vertical distance?) and the speeds at 30 to 40 mph... also destroying eighteen houses and a farm cottage. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmmm... as you say, an 8-year-old eyewitness isn't the best judge. The official report has 11-21 mph, and other reliable figures I've seen are within that bracket, so I'd rather go with that figure. In terms of the guess it could depend on where they are measured from (i.e., does the measurement start at the lowest part of the tip, the centre, or the further part that moved, and it it measured to the school or the furthest point the spoil reached (which could also be judged to be a couple of places, as spoil was constantly being washed down the hill by the rain/burst main). It could be quite a range of figures given the possibilities. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Could the Mel Parry photo be used? Book above mentions... Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
      • I included that one initially, but took it out at PR, as it was unlikely to get through. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
        • I think it could be added as {{Non-free historic image}}, like the image atop the bengal famine article File:Statesman j.jpg. You'd need to find quotes (I've already seen some) saying this was the image worldwide that captured the public's attention PLUS it wouldn't hurt if the resulting inquiry was somehow "the first public inquiry of its kind" (I saw that quote too). That may in part have been because this was the first coal disaster that caused deaths among the non-involved public (the NCB wasn't even required to report accidents which didn't involve colliery workers' deaths, so very technically, it would not have been required to report this accident). But you would be making the casde that that specific picture, the policeman holding the child, caused the public outcry which resulted in the first such public inquiry. Then maybe optionally also find quotes that Welsh mining lost its heroic/nationalistic lustre. Ask Nikkimaria. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
          • The argument could potentially be made, if Lingzhi's information is correct. (Remember, the fewer non-free images you have, the stronger the potential case for each). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Thanks to you both. Nikkimaria, I've uploaded at File:Rescue at Aberfan.jpg - is that rationale OK? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Looks good to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
                • That's great - many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• "After the slide, the NCB stopped tipping tailings on number 7, but normal spoil continued to be deposited" An academic source (which also makes several other interesting points) states that the decision to cease depositing tailings was a direct response to the local council complaints (also mentioned in our article) ; the local council mistakenly believed that the danger from the tip came from tailings and not also from the usual waste. Is connecting those dots worth the trouble? It underscores a general lack of understanding of the problem, even though the problem had been correctly described as early as 1939 in a poorly-circulated NCB memorandum. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I've seen this one before, and ignored it after I read "The London headquarters of the National Coal Board remained unaware that tips constituted a potential source of serious danger until after the Aberfan incident." As the tribunal stated the opposite, (and as the NCB admitted that it was the failure to initiate a relevant policy, rather than ignorance of the possibility), I find it hard to take the article seriously. – SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your reply. That article, "The organizational and interorganizational development of disasters" by Barry A. Turner, has been cited 885 times by other academic sources. 885 is very far from a puny number. It includes several observations about the causes of Aberfan... I firmly believe an article cited 885 times deserves a summary in Wikipedia... I certainly don't think we can dismiss such an article out of hand... In a few hours, I'll write a two- or three-sentence summary of those causes as described by Turner. Right now I gotta sign out for a while... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
      • As I've already said, I would rather not use an article that contains such a blatant and fundamental error – it is a poor piece of work that so utterly misrepresents something that is at the heart of why the disaster occurred in the first place. To say the NCB did not know of the problem is to completely invalidate what every other source has stated time and time again: the NCB were utterly culpable. If you think there are things in that article that are not in our article, then say what they are and, if they are suitable for inclusion, then alternative sources can be found, because this source is untrustworthy. - SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
        • As I said, I'll write a summary. You can argue with it then. However, Wikipedia does not have the authority to dismiss oft-cited academic sources out of hand. If you can find sources that say this source sucks, then those latter sources grant you the authority to say it sucks (while citing the sources that say that)... meanwhile, just wait. The article is not quite as exculpatory as you seem to fear. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
          • I disagree when there is such an obvious and misleading flaw. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

(←) OK. This needs tweaking. The first set of assertions comes from the whole damn Turner paper; since other groups are allowed to put 50-page page ranges in their Notes, I dunno if you wanna take the trouble to cite each page separately. The second set of quotes (about regulatory failure, with page numbers) are from "The origin and strange history of regulation in the UK: three case studies in search of a theory" by McClean:

Sociologist Barry A. Turner has identified approximately 36 human errors that led to the Aberfan disaster. Describing a pervasive attitude of "major institutional neglect" by the NCB, Turner cites failures such as: years of rigid and unrealistic disregard for the importance of the safety of the above-ground tips (as opposed to dangers within the mines); perfunctory decision making which ignored or minimized the likelihood and the scale of the emergent danger; dismissive attitude toward the complaints from Aberfan residents, discounting the validity of their concerns; incomplete and inadequate response to conditions which caused those complaints; and poor handling and distribution of existing information which accurately described the potential dangers. Moreover, according to Iain McClean, the general lack of existing regulations covering the safety of mine tips was a significant regulatory failure. In this respect the HM Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries "failed grievously to protect the citizens of Aberfan," (p. 18) and ".. There could be no clearer case of regulatory capture" (p. 23).

Sorry I gotta run again. I don't know what time I can lock back on. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• I remain unconvinced on this, but to bring this to a conclusion, I have added some of this information. - SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I see your side of this: the Turner article takes the Inquiry's assertions at face value, thus condemning the NCB at great length on many points, but going along with the key assertion that the top brass at the NCB never saw or read their own internal memos which very explicitly explained why the tips were dangerous. Turner essentially says they were arrogant fucking morons, and you say, yeah, maybe they were, but they were also fucking liars. I can see your point.... but Wikipedia can't. If you think they were arrogant fucking liars, you have to find a source (preferably a secondary source) that explicitly says they were arrogant fucking liars. Wikipedia doesn't know how to read between the lines. Moreover, you can't merely disregard a source that is right on eight counts but wrong (in your opinion, which may be correct) on one other key point... so thank you for adding that text... but the issue of whether they were "merely arrogant morons" or "dirty lying arrogant morons" needs a clear resolution with explicit sources.
    • Even the report questions the truthfulness of the NCB employees, and the NCB counsel asked that Robens's testimony was ignored, it was so full of untruths. SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Ummmm. In a carefully prepared statement, Lingzhi said: "I am not saying that they are not liars." But I don't like the way that all the "culpability" dots have not been gathered together into one section. For example, Robens' remarks about the spring is located within the "rescuing the survivors" section. Yes, that's chronologically when he made the statement, but I think there is an overriding need to organize the article logically. The info about the springs is also scattered around in different sections. The Council's 1963 complaints are not explicitly connected to the slide that was labeled a "tailings run," nor to the subsequent decision to stop dumping tailings there (which Turner labels a "decoy", since the presence of tailings was not the key factor here). And no mention of the damning 1939 internal memo (mentioned in Turner). And I recall reading of larger slides that went unreported because no mine workers were injured (?); the NCB was not required to report unless colliers were hurt and would not have been legally required to report the Aberfan tragedy... The lack of manslaughter charges is dropped into a footnote.. And so on... My copy of the Inquiry itself is non-searchable and I surely do not have time to read it, nor even to read many more sources other than the two or three I've found/read in the past two or three days, but to my mind there must be many other things that could have been gathered together and presented... I also want to see WP:RS quotes that explicitly say "Robens was a liar", rather than letting Wikipedia readers draw that conclusion for themselves... The saving grace of this article is that it is relatively short, and so it is not unbearably taxing to read it all the way through and connect the dots for one's self. But I think Wikipedia should go out of its way to organize things in a way that puts all those dots together in one place. Please do persuade me otherwise; I am quite open to listening. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
        • There are several ways that articles like this can be structured, and we have gone with the way it is now, which is chronological for the most part, with the aftermath thematically and chronologically done. The fact that Iain McLean, probably the person with the most knowledge of Aberfan and the outcome, considers this covers the main points in an appropriate manner for an encyclopaedia – in others words, what is a supposed to be a summary of the main points – then I think we're on the right lines with what we have. – SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What about the bit about regulatory failure and regulatory capture, which in turn throws some shade on HM Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    • hey thanks that is great Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• "public+inquiry"&ots=sv9Vq_oKJs&sig=y2JP0FPVDm96S3i0Hfbxz27XG8I&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=disaster%20%20Aberfan%20"public%20inquiry"&f=false Disaster Victim Identification: Experience and Practice says the BBC was making live broadcasts; the first disaster to be broadcast live. (p. 12) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were live news broadcasts (with Cliff Michelmore), but I'm not sure that we need to go to that level of detail on something that is rather tangential. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, I think it is the sort of interesting historical tidbit that readers like to know, especially if it is true that it was the first live broadcast of a major disaster. [I am not sure that assertion is correct.] I won't argue over it, but I disagree. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my comments at the peer review, here. Very nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Wehwalt for your thoughts and comments at PR, they were extremely useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support: my detailed comments are here and I have nothing further to add so far as the content is concerned. An excellent effort which, I imagine, was quite difficult to write. A sources review will follow in due course – I'm a little backed up at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian, as always - your comments were extremely helpful at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support: As someone who's family comes from not very far away from Aberfan and who's mum was a primary school teacher, I have a particularly strong memory of this tragic waste of life, and would very much like to see this at FA status. I've had a read through and I can't think of anything obvious that I would change, as it seems all the issues were sorted out in the PR. Well done, chaps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your comments Richie - and a happy new year to you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – I'm afraid my rereading of this fine article hasn't been as complete as it usually is when I revisit for FAC an article I've previously peer reviewed. Reading it for PR made me so distressed, disgusted and angry that though I have now reread most of the article I have gone rather quickly through a couple of the sections this time round. But from my rereading, and my thorough scrutiny at PR, I am confident in supporting the promotion of this article. I echo Brian's comment above that it must have been difficult to write, and I congratulate SchroCat on undertaking it, and letting the facts speak for themselves. I am old enough to remember the Aberfan disaster, but at the time we knew nothing of the damnable cover-up and sheer lying that is here objectively set out with horrible clarity. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my judgement, and I add my support for its promotion. – Tim riley talk 16:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Tim. As you say, a difficult one to write, but it's worth getting the full story down in all it's horrible detail. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support from Jim I'm old enough to remember this well, and reading this reminded me of the extent of the tragedy and the gross negligence of the NCB. I saw nothing to criticise in the writing, well done for taking this on Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Jim - I'm much obliged for the review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - I have been following the development of this article which has been on my watchlist for several years. I remember the disaster and the aftermath. The nominator should be applauded for bringing this important contribution to FA level.Graham Beards (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Graham. I hope all is well with you, and thank you for taking the time to look over this article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

A few very minor points:

• Ref 146: p. range format inconsistency
  • Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Sources:

• Aberfan (Stanford University): suggest you extend title to "Opening Night! Opera & Oratorio Premieres – Aberfan"

• Done. SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Aberfan: The Fight for Justice (BBC) appears to be listed twice

• It's two different things: one for the content from the programme, and one regarding the date of the broadcast. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Page no. for Strawbs Revival: South Wales Evening Post

• Done. SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources are in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian: all done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• (no relation to the inquiry chairman) Is this really necessary? Davies is a common name. In 1960s South Wales, I'd have thought it would be very common, so not unusual that two people involved had the same surname.
  • It was there for those who don't know about the seemingly small number of Welsh surnames, but I've removed it (on the grounds that if there was a relationship, we would have made it clear) - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• was taken by them, it was thought Can we try to use the active voice here?
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• When the counsel for the families, Desmond Ackner, QC, attacked Robens for making the statement, saying it was "a public scandal" What happened here? The sentence seems to terminate abruptly. A gremlin from re-drafting perhaps?
  • Nice spot - now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Nine employees of the NCB were censured Can we say a bit more about who these individuals were, since the inquiry specifically singled them out? Not necessarily their names, but their job titles and the role the inquiry felt they played could be a useful addition.
  • If we go down that route, there is quite a lot of information to include (even if we keep each of the nine very brief). There are two options here and here, which are worth looking at before deciding which way to go. Option 3 could be a table, but I'm not a fan of them in prose articles, particularly when we can work the info into paragraphs a la option 2. Thoughts? – SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Nine employees of the NCB were censured suggest swapping the order with the previous sentence so it's clear which action is being referred to (ie not the slurry washing down the streets)
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• According to McLean and Johnes, "the general commitment to public safety that the Tribunal had envisaged was not implemented" Do they specify what further provisions the government could or should have made?
  • Will pick this one up shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm picking nits, really. I feel obliged to find something to criticise at FAC! This is another excellent piece of work. You have a knack for picking interesting (albeit in this case tragic and uncomfortable) bits of history. I'm not nearly old enough to remember the event itself but I watched a lot of the television coverage of it around the anniversary in 2016 so I'm very glad to see it here and getting the thorough treatment it deserves. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks Harry, much obliged indeed. A couple of these I'll revisit a little later, particularly after getting your input on the 'NCB nine'. I find these events in British history fascinating, and hope you'll be available to look over the next one I'm working on, the murder of Yvonne Fletcher, another shocking event with long-lasting consequences. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is an outstanding piece of work. I read it through at peer review, and I've just read it again. It's hard to read; I can only imagine how hard it was to write. SchroCat, thank you for doing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Sarah! Thanks also for your copy edits over the last couple of days. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 Vegas eRace

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 Vegas eRace, a Formula E eSports race held as part of the Sports Business Innovation Summit at the 2017 Consumer Electronics Show on January 7, 2017. Unlike other races, it was not a championship race and was held on a virtual racing circuit with a lucrative prize fund of $1 million. The twenty professional Formula E racing drivers were pitted against ten sim racers who took part in a four-race challenge competition to enable their participation in the eRace. The race itself had a controversial ending as one sim racer, Olli Pahkala, was discovered to use FanBoost for longer than permitted due to a software bug and the victory was awarded to Dragon Racing's sim driver Bono Huis. This article recently passed its GA review and I have made some edits to polish the prose. Also, it would be the first eSports article to reach FA class if successful as well as the first Formula E related entry as well. I look forward to your comments. MWright96 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• The sources themselves look of appropriate quality and reliability, but there are formatting inconsistencies, particularly in the italicisation of publisher details. These arise I think from inconsistent use of the template fields "work=", "website=" and "publisher=". For institutions such as CNN and Fox News, and other non-print sources such as Würth Elektronik, you should use the "publisher=" field. The "work=" field can be used for the title of newspapers or print magazines, where the publishing organisation is usually omitted for major media such as The Times, Auotosport, etc. If the "website=" field is used, you should use "publisher=" as well, since the website name is not the publisher – an example is ref 9, where the publisher is Motorsport Network, not motorsport.com. I've only checked the first column of references but I think the same issues are apparent in the second.
• A very minor point with Ref 18: the publisher appears to be Inside Sim Racing rather than Inside Racing Sim.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Black-shouldered kite

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This article on another Australian raptor is comprehensive and should be within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

image review

• File:Elanus_axillaris_distribution.svg: what is the source for the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

oops, added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon. First, the images seem a bit samey, not that we have many alternatives, but here's a head-shot[1], and a photo of some kind of aerial battle.[2] Perhaps this art[3] could be useful for spice under taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

the eyes of the head-shot one are too pale (overexposure?) and misleading. Added teh Gould illustration. Will check the other Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Why no separate status section, as in practically all other FAs?

added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• "meaning "armpit"" Why?

rationale for name added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Seems the image of the immature would fit better under description, where its differences are mentioned?

moved now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• You only present some people mentioned under taxonomy and not others.

aligned them now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• "described Elanus notatus" What does it mean?

clarified now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• "distinguish it from the Eurasian E. caeruleus and American E. leucurus" Why no links or common names?

added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• You give scientific names after common names for some species mentioned, but not others.

added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Are the mice this bird eats an introduced species? if so, may be interesting to note as one of the things that have benefited the bird after human colonization.
• Oh, I see this was mentioned in the intro (which I always read last) that the mouse was introduced, could be mentioned in the article body.

added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• You use both ise and ize in the article.

all should be '-ise' now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You still have a section named "Vocalizations". FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

fixed now - I was cntrl-f "ize". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• You could mention the eye markings in the intro.

added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• When the publisher location is London, you don't need to add "United Kingdom" or "UK" (6 and 24)

For completeness and aligning with other locations...not sure if London, Ontario has any publishers...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I think "London" is assumed to be UK unless otherwise stated – as per your refs 2, 4 and 8 for example. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

removed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 26 lacks a publisher location

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 38 is a self-published work. WP:RSSELF allows this "when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Can you confirm that this is the case?

Aah, that is Gordon Beruldsen, whose bird egg book is/was widely referenced. Yes he is an authority Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

Taxonomy

• "The black-shouldered kite was first described by English ornithologist John Latham in 1801, as Falco axillaris." Why cite the book review by Penhallurick?

I was looking for a place where someone debunked Mathews' rejecting axillaris, but found the original so ref is unneeded. Now removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps mention that the species is monotypic - no recognised regional variation.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Description

• "The leading edge of the inner wing is black." From photos it seems that it is the leading edge of the outer wing that is black.

Vocalisation

• "The call has been confused with that of a silver gull.[26]" Surprising, compare here and here. Do other sources mention this?

no, and given the dissimilarity best I think to just drop this sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Breeding

• For the black-winged kite the eggs are laid at 2 to 3 day intervals and hatch asynchronously. Is this info available for the black-shouldered kite?

References

• 33 Chan, Melinda - This doesn't appear suitable as a RS - it seems to be a blog by YC Wee (the images are credited to Chan Yoke Meng)

Aa77zz (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps the lead should mention the related letter-winged kite that also occurs in Australia and say how the two species differ. - Aa77zz (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

A nice article on a subject about which I have no prior knowledge. I'm heavily leaning to support, but three points caught my eye, none of which are much to worry about:

Lead

• You tell us twice in the opening three sentences that the bird "is a small raptor".

yikes - removed second one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Description

• "bright- or dull yellow". As "bright-" is hyphenated, shouldn't dull also be? (or should bright not be hyphenated?)

removed hyphen Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Distribution

• "Australian kites may be sedentary or nomadic, and generally occur in open grasslands": I'm not sure "occur" is the right word (unless that's the standard in ornithology). "Live" or "are found" or similar seems more natural – although don't push the point if there is a good reason for "occur".

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Lovely - nice piece of work. As a non-specialist I support on prose, with my usual cop out (stolen from Dank, of course!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Edwininlondon

Nice work. Again. Very little to quibble with, not being an expert in birds:

• However, Schodde and Mason -> when was this?

1980, added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Vocalizations: any sound files available?

none on commons sadly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• almost exclusively on mice ... and other mouse-sized mammals account for over 90% of its diet -> these 2 statements do not quite work for me. Almost exclusively suggests 90+ % mice, not also including other mammals. I think almost exclusively is too strong

actually the point is a tad labored - removed the offending segment with no loss to meaning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• When hunting the kite -> a comma perhaps?

added now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's all. I might be able to do a source spot check tomorrow. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Amarte Es un Placer (album)

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

After my successful FA nomination for Segundo Romance, I am now nominating this FA. This is a pop album by Luis Miguel like Aries (which I also got FA). Regrettably, it's also his last good album before they started to go downhill (except for México en la Piel which is also good). I look forward to your comments. Thanks! Erick (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• A few general issues:

• In a number of cases you provide (subscription required) templates when there is no link to the source – 6, 16, 17 and lots more. There's no point in showing the template in such cases.
• Page numbers are required for newspapers and journals where there is no online link. You provide these in some cases but not others, e.g. 15, 16, 17, 19 and more.
• Who publishes Billboard? In some cases you show Prometheus Global Media, in others Nielsen Business Media. In refs 85, 86 and 87 neither is shown.

• Other points:

• Ref 2: link goes to "404 error"
• Refs 56 and 58: should "tronc" be all lower case as in 56, or "Tronc" as in 58?
• Ref 61: the source has a different headline
• Ref 65: main link and archive link both go to blank pages
• Ref 71: main link times out. Archive gives "page not found"

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I've added urls to search on Newsbank which is where I found these articles. Billboard articles prior to 2009 are published Nielsen Business Media while Prometheus Global Media is the current publisher. The albumschart doesn't have a publisher parameter and doesn't work for refs 85-87. Ref 65 requires a download now for whatever reason, but it still verifies the list of winners. Ref 71 works fine on my end. Erick (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Freikorp

• "which lasted from 1999 into 2000" - I'm really not a fan of this choice of words. I mean, running from 1999 till 2000 could just mean going from December 1999 till January 2000. I'd try and be more specific, say mention when the tour started and then how many months it went for.
• "Miguel did not show up at the award ceremony and declined an invitation to perform" - this is interesting - is there any indication as to why he declined?
• I'd at least reduce the amount of times you use the term 'noted' as per WP:SAY, if not get rid of them entirely.
• 'the production sounds "dated"' - should this past tense? I.e "sounded dated"?

Despite these minor points I'm happy to support this nomination now. Well done on the article. No pressure but I'm looking for comments on my nomination here. Freikorp (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Freikorp: Thanks for your comments and support. I have addressed everything you brought up. I searched everywhere but couldn't find the reason why Miguel refused to perform for the Latin Grammys. He's not known to be a public guy except when promoting his albums. I'll comment on your FAC when I get the chance as I have work today. Erick (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (Despite the popularity of crossover his comntempraries Latin artists), I am assuming you mean “his contemporaries”. Also the word “contemporaries” is misspelled here.
• For this sentence (Amarte Es un Placer debuted at number one in Spain, and on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart in the United States.), I would remove the comma after “Spain” as the verb phrase “debuted at number one” is also carried over to apply to the Billboard charts part of the sentence.
• Would it be possible to move the image of Mariah Carey to the top of the “Background” section to avoid having it clip outside of the section and interfere with the audio samples in the next section? Feel free to say no as this is more of a stylistic preference.
• For the Mariah Carey image, I would specify in the caption the year in which it was taken.
• For this part “series on which he covers classic”, I would revise “on which” to “in which”.
• For this part “absence of two years on the music scene”, I would revise “on the music scene” to “from the music scene”.
• For this part “The album's final title, Amarte Es un Placer was announced on 17 August 1999.”, I am not sure what is meant by the phrase “final title” as you have not mentioned any tentative titles or working titles prior to this. It may be better just to say “The album’s title” instead, unless there were other titles in consideration prior to the announcement.
• I would suggest a link to rock ballad when you are describing the track “Tu Mirada” in the “Composition” section.
• For this part (performed live covers of "Y" and "La Bikina”), I would include the names of the original artists for both songs if known and possibly the years in which they were first released.
• The link for “AllMusic” needs to be moved up to its first reference in the body of the article. It is currently linked in the “Critical reception” section, but the publication was reference in the previous section on the album’s promotion.
• I am pretty terrible at writing reception sections so I will leave that section to more experienced reviewers.
• Ricky Martin is linked twice in the body of the article. Please unlink him in the “Accolades” section.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC, which is also about an album. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the comments and a Happy New Year to you too! I believe I have addressed your comments. I will look at your FAC when I get the chance as I have work today. Erick (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Mosaics of Delos

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The mosaics of Delos might seem like an arcane, niche topic but in terms of surviving Greek mosaic artwork it is of prime importance. I created this article from scratch and have since brought it up to GA status. A peer review was also made, although I've decided only to implement a few suggestions from the reviewer there. Overall the article is well-written, stable, fully cited with a decent amount of reliable sources, and in my view the images are all meticulously well-placed, sufficiently relevant, and licensed appropriately. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Some of the images appear to be duplicative - for example, the House of the Trident section could easily lose at least one image if not two without impacting reader understanding
• File:Delos_cubic_floor_mosaic.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Same with File:Delos_Theaterviertel_21.jpg, File:Delos_Theaterviertel_18.jpg, File:Delos_Theaterviertel_14.jpg, File:Delos_Haus_des_Dionysos_05.jpg, File:Delos_Haus_der_Delfine_03.jpg, File:The_House_of_the_Dolphins_(II)_(5182955988).jpg, File:Ancient_Delos.jpg, File:House_of_the_Lake,_Delos_01.jpg, File:House_of_the_Trident_02.jpg, File:House_of_the_Trident_06.jpg, File:House_Trident_Delos_13M204.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Since you and the peer reviewer both brought up the House of the Trident, I've decided to remove one image from that section that was admittedly rather repetitive. As for the other images needing "a tag for the original work", can you explain that, please? I have no idea what sort of tag this would be or what that would entail. Do you mean a second type of Public Domain license or something? Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently these images have a tag representing the copyright of the photographer; they also need a public domain tag indicating the status of the original work - the mosaic, sculptural work, etc that is shown in the photographs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: thanks for clarifying! I have standardized the licensing for all images as requested, with the appropriate PD tags indicating the status of the original works. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

• I'll certainly be supporting this excellent article, based in the 50% of it that I've so far. Comments to follow (its a little late here). Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: hello! Take your time to review the article, there is no rush. I'm glad that you have enjoyed reading it thus far. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

I like this a lot. Short and sweet, and nicely illustrated. Some comments:

• and subsequently abrupt decline -> and the subsequent abrupt decline?
• eight millimeters square -> I think "eight by eight millimeters" would help avoid the classic ambiguity that the square notation creates
• not sure the chip-pavement link is particularly helpful
• fifty-five -> 55; twenty-five -> 25
• and appear in mosaics -> appears
• Although the three major -> although twice in quick succession
• weren't -> contractions are to be avoided
• Like the House of the Lake, -> since this has not been introduced yet, this statement doesn't help the reader much. I'd leave it out.
• ISBN numbers should all be in same format (seems ISBN 13 is becoming de facto standard at FAC). Include hyphens.

Questions:

• is anything known about where the materials (mostly marble) came from? Locally sourced?
• how did they get the different colors marble?
• is it known why these mosaics have survived so well?

Edwininlondon (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it! To the best of my abilities I have tried to amend the article according to your suggestions. However, I have not changed "subsequently abrupt decline" to "subsequent abrupt decline", because I believe that "subsequently", an adverb, is a modifier for abrupt, an adjective. Adverbs are used to modify both verbs and adjectives. I'm almost certain that the sentence as it stands now is grammatically correct. Also, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to fiddle with the ISBN numbers. For instance, I checked on the very first source, Brecoulaki's 2016 book chapter "Greek Interior Decoration" in A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, which does not include hyphens in its own ISBN number. I'm not sure if adding hyphens would screw things up or not. Perhaps you know more about this than I do, but I will refrain from touching this. You are more than welcome to edit it if you like. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

As for your questions, they are good ones, but I'm not sure if I can adequately answer all of them. I'm not sure about the quarries and places where the materials were gathered for making the mosaics; I don't think I've come across a single article or book that explains this or even mentions it. I can look around, but I can't promise to find information on quarry sites for these materials or the common methods for gathering them.

As for the second question, notice how the article says "white marble" and not any other kind. The rich varieties of color in the mosaics are therefore achieved through the use of pottery fragments, glass, pebbles, and other materials that comprise the tesserae. Although I do provide a link for it for anyone who's curious about this material, should I perhaps also define what tesserae is in the article? Notice how in the "House of the Dionysos" section I state that "The tesserae materials, made of glass, faience, terracotta and natural stones, are fashioned into pieces measuring roughly one millimeter square, allowing for sharp detail and an elaborate color scheme." I wonder: should the materials that are found in tesserae be mentioned further up, in the "composition" sub-section? I don't want to be too repetitive about it, though. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

"is it known why these mosaics have survived so well?" This is a fantastic question, although I don't think I can answer it right away. I have a suspicion it has something to do with the island of Delos virtually being abandoned until modern times. As the article Delos explains, it didn't have enough local natural resources to sustain a sizable population of its own, relying on outside imports for food and other necessities. Once the island was bypassed as a major trade route and suffered damaging raids by the armies of Pontus, the Romans basically deserted the place. I don't think I've seen a book or article that has explicitly stated that this is why the mosaics have survived so well, but it seems to be the case. For instance, Roman artwork in various other locales have been well-preserved throughout the ages either because of geographic isolation, being buried in a tomb or mausoleum, or because institutions like the Catholic Church decided to preserve architecture (and the artwork tied to them) by converting buildings into churches. Antiquarianism during the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance perhaps played a role as well, but as far as I know this didn't apply to mosaics, only to more vaunted pieces of artwork such as busts and statues that could be easily transported from one private collection to another. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• General: page ranges require ndashes, not hyphens, per MoS
• Ref 47: I don't really see the purpose of including this information. Is the translation in the source? If not, it's a bit of editorial OR and shouldn't be here.
• Ref 57: I suggest you replace this with a short citation, since the link is given in the entry within the References list.
• References list: Dunbabin, Joyce, Westgate 2000 and Westgate 2007 are all behind paywalls, so you should add (subscription required) to each entry.
• The link in Hardiman presently goes to an irrelevant page.

Otherwise, sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: hello! Thanks for reviewing the sources. I have removed Ref 47 about the French translation per your suggestion. I've also shortened the citation for Ref 57 (now 56), added the "subscription" tag to the sources Dunbabin, Joyce, and Westgate 2000 and 2007, and provided a different URL for Hardiman (from archive.org instead of Google Books) that goes straight to the relevant page number for his book chapter. However, I'm not sure what to make of your suggestion regarding ndashes versus hyphens. From what I can tell, I have done nothing manually in this article in regards to page ranges. I have only used the Harvard citation template. I'm not even sure how to tinker with the Harvard citation template in order to force it to have ndashes instead of hyphens. If you have some sort of solution for this I'd be happy to implement it, but I'm not going to remove the Harvard citation template and format simply because it cannot currently accommodate ndashes. The Harvard citation format is the chosen one for this article and I don't think we should go about changing that to satisfy some other issue. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Civil Service Rifles War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I bring you—just for a change! ;)—a war memorial. This one's a relatively obscure one given its location in the very centre of London. It's dedicated to members of the Civil Service Rifles, a regiment made up of British civil servants, who died in the First World War. It's not a huge article because everything seems to have proceeded reasonably smoothly (barring a change of architect early on), which doesn't leave any great campaign or controversy to write about. It's had a very helpful A-Class review at MilHist and I think it's up to scratch, but I'll be very glad of any feedback. Here's to my last FAC of 2017 and hopefully my first FA of 2018! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Inspection_of_the_Civil_Service_Volunteers_at_Somerset_House_by_the_Prince_of_Wales.jpg: uploader shouldn't be listed as the author in this case, and per the UK-unknown tag the description page should include details of steps taken to try to ascertain authorship
• File:Civil_Service_Rifles_Memorial,_Somerset_House_(6).JPG: would it be at all possible to re-take this image with less shadowing? It makes the inscription rather difficult to read. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks Nikki. I'd missed that on the first one, now fixed. As for the second, that's the best I've got and we don't have any better photos from the rear on Commons. I visited it with Thryduulf so I'm hoping maybe he got something better? Failing that, I intend to get some better photos next time I'm in London but that won't be imminently. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell and Nikkimaria: I've uploaded the 6 good images I have to Commons (by chance they are the first six alphabetically by file name in the category). Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks Chris, I've used one of those. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "when war broke out in August 1914": I've asked about this a few times, and general agreement is that (according to Wikipedia!) the phrase "the war broke out" refers to events in the last few days of July. You could mention July, or you could say the battalion was mobilised the same day Britain declared war (4 August). - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much, Dan. I did put back the words "following it" in the background section because I don't think the sentence works without it (worth noting that I've just been copy/pasting that whole paragraph with minor edits across the whole series, so you'll have seen it multiple times before). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• "was placed inside it." I don't think you need the "it."
  • Fair enough; gone.
• "part of a national collection". What exactly is a "national collection"?
  • As far as I can tell, it's a term Historic England have made up for a group of closely related listed buildings (eg, Wren's churches).

Background

• "the war had a profound effect on him". This seems a bit airy. Why? In what way(s)?
  • He travelled to the battlefields during the war and was heavily involved in getting the Imperial War Graves Commission off the ground; from letters he wrote it's clear that he was very deeply distressed by what he saw and by the scale of casualties, to the point that he spent the next several years making war memorials either pro bono or for a very modest fee as well as consulting for the IWGC and designing several of its monuments and hundreds of its cemeteries. But that's mostly out of scope for this article. When I've finished the set, I'm going to write something like "Edwin Lutyens and war memorials" and link it from all the individual memorials so that there's a proper answer to questions like those.
    • I see your point about scope, although I find it quite interesting that the architect actually visited battlefields of the war he commemorated. I don't think that that fact, worded along the lines of "clients, but travels to the battlefields during the war for [one- to three-word reason for travels] had greatly affected him, and", would be too tangential.
• "for the Cenotaph on Whitehall". Do you need two separate links? What about "for the Cenotaph on Whitehall"?
  • I think so, because not everybody realises that Whitehall is the name of the street (this being London, they couldn't just call it "Whitehall Street").
• "which became Britain's national war memorial". Minor point, but I think of "became" as implying growth, whereas an object either is or is not Britain's national war memorial, and does not grow into either. Having some déjà vu here (your point about "rose" in the Nigel Williams review).
  • It wasn't built as a national memorial per se. It became that later.
• "These were among the least controversial". Is "controversial" the right word? It seems to contrast a bit with what you just described as his popularity. Maybe something about encountering less friction.
  • I'm happy with controversial. A lot of his big war memorial projects ran into controversy—look at Manchester Cenotaph or Spalding War Memorial or Norwich War Memorial for examples.
• "properly named the ... Civil Service Rifles)". This is confusing, can you put quotation marks around the full name?
  • Done.
• "at their annual camp". Not sure what an "annual camp" is. A time to roast marshmallows and tell scary stores over a campfire?
  • Essentially, but in army uniforms. I've linked it to military camp but even that's not much use.
• "in August 1914. The battalion was mobilised on 4 August 1914". How about "on 4 August 1914. The battalion was mobilised that day"?
  • Good point. Rewritten.
• "having lost 1,240 officers and men killed". So the officers weren't men? Also, "killed" is redundant.
  • Not in a military sense, no; the "men" are the private soldiers and NCOs (some memorials explicitly say "officers, NCOs and men", others just say "officers and men". Agreed on "killed".

Commissioning

• "After the war, the demobilised soldiers formed an Old Comrades Association and discussion". Suggest moving the comma to after "Association".
  • I've put another comma in there but I think we need the one after "war"
• "The association formed ... regimental history." I'd split this in two.
  • Done.
• "established a fund to raise £750". Isn't a "fund" something with money in it, not an empty piggy bank?
  • I think the use is legitimate, but changed to "appeal" nonetheless.
• "The committee". Should "committee" be capitalized?
  • "Committee" itself isn't a proper noun so I don't capitalise it (cf. "army"), which is also my reading of the MoS; some people do, but I suppose it's a stylistic choice.
• "at the north end of the quadrangle at Somerset House". You could avoid the at/at by saying "the Somerset House quadrangle".
  • I think that's a bit chatty, which is worse than a minor prose flaw, but I've changed one of the "at"s to an "in".
• "At some time". Probably don't need the "At".
  • Done.
• "the committee replaced Baker with Sir Edwin Lutyens". Why? It seems like the Baker design was well on its way, why the 180?
  • We don't know. All we have is a letter from Baker to the Office of Works, and then later another letter from Lutyens to the Office of Works. Had the site not been a government building (thus requiring the consent of the office), all record of Baker's involvement might have been lost.
• "To this the Office of Works objected, concerned about its effect ... in the quadrangle." Another run-on. Also, I think "its" technically refers to the Office, not the monument.
  • Fixed.

Design

• "with classical mouldings in Portland stone approximately 4.9 metres (16 feet) tall." The mouldings are 16 feet tall?
  • Fixed.
• "the dates of the First World War." Do you mean the start and end dates?
  • Yes, done.
• "The flags were originally copper but were later replaced with carved stone." Any idea when?
  • Sadly not. Even Historic England don't seem to have a date.
• "Lutyens intended his design to be sympathetic". Are you sure about "sympathetic"? What about something else like "harmonious"?
  • I can live with that.
• "The dedication DDDDDD on the front (north) face, while the south face reads". How about "On the front (north) face is inscribed the dedication DDDDDD, while the south face reads"?
  • And that.
• "The dates of the war". See above. This is more problematic after looking at the next sentence; I read "dates" as meaning dmy dates, not years.
• "The dates of the war (in Roman numerals) are inscribed on the plinth". How about "The dates of the war are inscribed on the plinth in Roman numerals"?
  • I've rewritten and clarified this.
    • Still recommend scrapping the parentheses in favor "are inscribed below the urn in Roman numerals," but up to you.

History

• The/The/The/The starts off the first four sentences.
  • Good point. Fixed.
• "By that time ... old regiment." Another run-on.
  • Also fixed.
• "and amalgamated". Should be "and had amalgamated".
  • I'm not sure about that; certainly I'd have thought a regiment "is amalgamated" (by a higher authority), not that it amalgamates itself. Either way, the full sentence reads had been reduced in size to two companies and amalgamated so I think it's fine.
• The whole first paragraph feels a bit choppy and unstructured.
  • I've reworked it a bit and split it.
• "and the government leased parts". What about "was leasing"?
  • Fine.
• "During the process". What process?
  • Clarified.
• "Walter Humphrys". When did he die?
  • Not in the sources, and it would feel a little tangential to include it unless it had some effect on the memorial.

History pt. 2

• "By the time of the ceremony, the Civil Service Rifles had been reduced in size to two companies and amalgamated with the Queen's Westminster Rifles to form the 16th Battalion, the London Regiment (Queen's Westminster and Civil Service Rifles) during post-war reorganisations, though veterans were determined to maintain the traditions of the old regiment." Suggest "By the time of the ceremony, post-war reorganisations had reduced the Civil Service Rifles in size to two companies and amalgamated it with the Queen's Westminster Rifles to form the 16th Battalion, the London Regiment (Queen's Westminster and Civil Service Rifles), though veterans were determined to maintain the traditions of the old regiment."
  • Works for me.
• "Retired members continued". Perhaps "Surviving" instead of retired. It's unclear whether you mean retired from the war, or retired from their post-war vocations.
  • Good point.
• "were aged in their nineties". Do you need "aged"?
  • I thought it seemed too informal without it, but you're at least the second person to raise it, so perhaps not.
• "was leasing parts". Come to think of it, perhaps "was leasing out parts" would be best.
  • I don't think this is necessary.
• "When the requisite legislation". What legislation? Necessary for what? You could get away with just saying "When the subject arose in
  • That's how I was thinking of doing it. Should have gone with that first time.
• "reached the House of Lords, a former member of the regiment". The House of Lords used to be part of the regiment?
  • Reworded.
• "and subsequent restructuring". Should this instead be "and a subsequent restructuring" or "and the subsequent restructuring"?
  • I think it's clear from the context (resulting from further amalgamations following...) that it means restructuring subsequent to WWII.

Overall Looks pretty good. Most of the above are very minor points and suggestions. The main things are three run-on sentences, and the first paragraph under "History" that feels disjointed. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking a look, and for your detailed comments! Please have a look at my responses and let me know if there's anything you feel needs more attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem, HJ Mitchell. I've responded above to two points inline, and created "History pt. 2" to address the reworded section; as you've undoubtedly seen, I've also made a few edits to the article. Of all of that, the only thing that should be seen as more than a mere suggestion is the part about "requisite legislation". --Usernameunique (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed everything now, except the bit about Lutyens. It's an oversimplification to suggest that it was one visit to France that had such an effect on him, and it's hard to go into any great detail while staying on-topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks great, you've got my support. Good point about "enlisted," I didn't know that was a US term. I suppose you could say "other men" instead if you want. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

I could see little that Usernameunique hasn't already covered, and those points seem readily actionable, so I'm happy to support. Just three extra points

• A 2nd battalion was raised— either "A second battalion was raised" or "The 2nd battalion was raised"
  • Done.
• Multiple refs [15][10] at end of penultimate para in wrong order
  • Done.
• I walked past Somerset House almost every day for three years back in the day, and I believe that the elevation of the terrace means that the monument can't be seen from public roads (specifically the Victoria Embankment). That's implied by your blurb above. Is it worth mentioning in the text? Your call, feel free to ignore Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It indeed cannot be seen from Victoria Embankment, but it can be see, from a distance, from Waterloo Bridge Google Street View. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thryduulf, good thinking. I only rarely crossed the bridge to go sarf of the river Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure there's an easy way of including that without straying into the realm of original research, though Chris's new photo might make it clearer. The inconspicuous location perhaps explains its relative obscurity. Thanks for looking Jim! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley

This is a lovely article, and I shall be supporting it, but first a quibble or two.

• Background
  • "The Civil Service was headquartered in Somerset House" – I don't think that will do. S.H. was an important government building, but insofar as the Civil Service had a headquarters in 1924 it was at HM Treasury in Whitehall, or possibly at the newish Cabinet Office next door to it. You could reasonably describe S.H. as one of the most important government offices or something like that.
• Commissioning
  • "after Lutyens … claimed that…" – I'd be cautious about "claimed". It carries overtones of unjustified assertion. If the sources support Lutyens's assertion, then perhaps "discovered" or "showed"; if not, then perhaps a neutral word such as "contended" or "argued".
• Design
  • "…the Union Flag…" – linked here but not in the lead.
• History
  • "…the Treasury authorised…" – I might either link this to HM Treasury or expand the name to something like "the British Treasury". Just a thought, and I won't press the point if you demur.

Those are my few – very minor – points. Nothing to cause alarm and despondency, and I look forward to supporting in the next day or so. May I say, that as someone who has lived in London for most of the last 50 years I am touched to find an article on a memorial I didn't even know about? I shall go and see it in January. Tim riley talk 17:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tim. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and equally glad that it's inspired you to go and see the memorial. If you're interested, the article is part of a series; I have a handful more that I'll be bringing through FAC eventually (including two memorials within half a mile of this one). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

My small quibbles having been attended to I am very happy to support the promotion of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria, and I am glad to have read it. Tim riley talk 17:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 8: In what is becoming my signature quibble on MilHist articles (see candidate immediately below), may I point out that "Imperial War Museums" is a plural entity? Otherwise, sources are in excellent order and of appropriate quality and reliability. 19:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
  • God point; done. Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I was hoping you'd get round to this - my grandfather's regiment in the war (although he was transferred to the 6th Westminster part way through 1918), and one I've visited a couple of times. An excellent article that fully meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you for the support, and wonderful to hear about the family connection. If I'd known, I'd have put it higher up the list. It seems it was quite common for Civil Service Riflemen to be commissioned out or transferred; I suppose the skills involved in administering a country were useful in administering an army. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

SMS Zähringen

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

This is another in my series of German battleship articles. This article is part of the sub-series of articles that were written back in 2010 or so and then recently revised and expanded with new sources.Zähringen served for over 40 years in three different navies (from Imperial, Weimar, and Nazi Germany), but had a fairly uneventful career nonetheless. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SMS_Zähringen_01.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This auction site gives a date of 1912. Parsecboy (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Indy beetle

All of my concerns were addressed in the A-class review. I support this article's promotion to FA class. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• No DABs
• No overlinking
• Link rammed, main battery, knots, squadron, Baltic Sea, torpedo, submarine, bomber, scuttled (all in the lede)
• Add Kaiserlich Marine in parenthesis after German Imperial Navy in the lede
• Link secondary armament, Kattegat, blockade, Skaggerak,
• Hyphenate twin gun turrets
• Move the links for North Sea and Danzig to the first occurrence
• Bornholm's Danish, how could German ships return there?
• When did IV Squadron become VII Squadron? Or is this a typo?
• neither mistakes were repeated when
• A little light on images; can you find any more out there on the intarwebs?
• Add a link to the Commons category.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges

• Support, I was a part of the recent A-Class review, can find no more faults. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• All sources consistently formatted and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

K-25

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Another article on the Manhattan Project. This one is about the gaseous diffusion project, codenamed K-25. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• For the gaseous diffusion process diagram, suggest including a legend in the caption
• File:Gaseous_diffusion_process.jpg: not seeing this attribution in the given source, is it elsewhere in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  The whole book is in the public domain, being produced by the Department of Energy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  The listed publisher is Penn State - is there a notice somewhere that it falls under the DoE PD default? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  On pp. ix-x. The DOE have it for download on its web page. [4] OSTI says it is a "Comprehensive official history produced by the History Division, now the Office of History and Heritage Resources, of the Department of Energy" and lists the Atomic Energy Commission as the publisher. [5] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 23: minor page range format inconsistency
• Ref 31: requires publisher information
• Ref 102: the link doesn't seem to be working - I'm getting repeated timeouts
• Ref 105: "Oak Ridge Today" is the name of the publishing website, not the title of the source article which appears to be "DOE, UCOR demolish last piece of K-25, once the world’s largest building".
• Ref 108: is "The Oak Ridger" a print source? If not, it shouldn't be in italics
• Ref 109: publisher given as "United States Department of Energy", while other references to the same source give it as "Department of Energy". There should be consistency.

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Gloucestershire Regiment

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

One of the UK's more unassuming regiments, now history, which was unique for wearing a back badge on its headdress after one of its antecedent regiments fought back to back in Egypt. It fought in the Second Boer War and both world wars, and achieved for itself both fame and the American Presidential Unit Citation at the Battle of the Imjin River during the Korean War. A peer review did not receive too much attention, but the article received a closer inspection in its successful MilHist A class review. I'm hoping it's FA quality now. Factotem (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the first map

  Done Factotem (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Gloucestershire_Regiment_Badge.jpg: since these are 3D objects, is the fair-use claim intended to apply to the objects, the photo, or both?

  The commons description gives a source website, on which it is stated that the images are copyrighted, so I believe it is both. Factotem (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  Hm. If we're assuming the design is copyrighted, it should be possible to redraw and apply the fair-use claim to the design only, rather than to both. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  OK. I understand that the photograph fails the conditions for fair use and needs to be replaced. In terms of the object, i.e. the badges, the Ministry of Defence states in Section 7 of the MOD Crown Copyright Licensing Information that "People are free to use MOD insignia for illustration purposes. For example to include a regimental badge in a website such as Wikipedia for the purposes of describing in their own words what that regiment does". Is that statement by itself enough to eliminate the need for a fair use rationale on the object itself? In other words, could I locate the badges myself, take a picture of them, and release that picture into the public domain? Factotem (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  That link doesn't work for me so I can't comment specifically, but in general a statement allowing use on Wikipedia without further details about what other usage is or isn't allowed wouldn't be sufficient to demonstrate appropriate licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  Apologies - mis-formatted the link. It works now. The document gives a full license in Annex C. Factotem (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah, my reading of that is that it's too restrictive for our purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  OK. Thanks. I'll try and source a PD photo, but the badges themselves will have to be fair use. Out of curiosity, and if you have a moment, is the licensing on this commons image of the regimental badge valid? Factotem (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  The licensing on the photo is valid, for the badge would need more information to determine. The tag for that gives three possible reasons, and it's not clear which is believed to apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  I puzzled over that, and the only possibility seems to be {{Template:PD-UKGov}}, but I don't understand how the same badge can be out of copyright simply because its older than 70 years. The source, BTW, is not explicit, but it appears to come from a collection that dates to 1914-1918. If nothing else, this will be my fall back option, with a fair use rationale added, but I'd really like to get the back badge into the article as well, if I can. Factotem (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  If the badge itself dates to that era, we wouldn't need a fair-use tag at all, just a UK-Gov tag would suffice. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  Then I must confess that I am at a loss as to how any fair use rational can be applied, when it's possible to locate an old badge and take a photo of that. On that basis, I've applied a PD-UKGov tag to a derivative work of the above CC BY-SA 3.0 image, the original source of which dates the object to the period 1914–1918, and inserted it as the lead image in place of the previous one. I really, really hope that passes muster now... Factotem (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

  After a bit more digging, the provenance of the badge is not specifically stated, but the Europeana page on commons gives more background about the collections and some information about the licensing. While recognising that there were issues attaching dates to objects, it specifically states that "In all cases the item is related to WWI (making it at least 100 years old)". Factotem (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: I've added a new image, File:Glosters colours.jpg in the "Later history" section, which I believe should have no licensing issues. Would you also be able to advise if the new lead image licensing is acceptable per the above? Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, both of those are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• File:Lieutenant_FW_Harvey_DCM.jpg: does the OTRS ticket provide publication details? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  Do not have access to OTRS myself, but the ticket was checked out as OK during the MilHist A class review. Factotem (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell: Can you shed a little light on what it says? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: The correspondent asserts that it was published in the 2 September 1916 issue of The Gloucester Journal but the photographer is unknown. This is from a professional academic at a respected UK university and he forwards correspondence from the trustee of FW Harvey's estate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, suggest including these details on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Factotem (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

All looks very good. Some suggestions:

• Don't abbreviate "March" in the infobox
• anniversary of the 61st Regiment's victory at Chillianwallah when overseas, or on the anniversary of that regiment's victory at Salamanca when at home What dates were these?
• "The name arises from an incident in 1764" Use "arose" to keep in the past tense
• "also awarded to the 1st and 2nd volunteer battalions" Should be "Volunteer Battalions"
• "the only German offensive that year" should be "the only German offensive on the Western Front that year"
• The link for "Entrenching Battalions" should span both words ie Entrenching Battalions
• Link George VI, Soviet Union

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Have accommodated all your suggestions into the article. Factotem (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I went over this with a fine comb at the A-class review and I was impressed. I'm glad to see this here and I'm confident that it meets the criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• General point: A number of the refs carry sometimes lengthy additioinal texts. If these texts merely summarise what's in the source, thay aren't necessary. If they are offering further information on material in the sources, such explanations would be better placed in the article text, or in the "Footnotes" – otherwise why have a "Footnotes" section?

  I've moved nearly all refnotes into article text, footnotes or ether. Would you indulge me the three short refnotes remaining?

• Refs 33, 34, 35: Surely, "The Long, Long Trail" is the name of the website, not part of the title? There is also a reliability issue with this website, as it appears to be "a personal website, born in 1996 and developed as a hobby ever since". Although the site's writer is a published author, the site itself does not seem to have editorial oversight or professional moderation.

  I'm surprised that it's not considered reliable, given that the author is now a full time researcher, but the information sourced to that website was not essential to this article, and I removed it.

• Ref 57: You need to state that the publisher of the website is The National Archives. In what part of the website are the casualty figures quoted in the accompanying note to be found?

  Good catch. I wrote that on the first attempt at this article in 2016. I remember thinking then that it won't pass muster, but took a long break and forgot about it. Replaced with a better source.

• Ref 84: being very pedantic, "Imperal War Museums" is plural

  Pluralised.

• Ref 88: You don't need a retrieval date for a link to a facsimile book. The book, not the facilitating website, is your source.

  Removed.

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Factotem (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

You could probably make an argument that the Long, Long Trail is reliable. I've seen it cited by several other sources while researching war memorials. But I'd still be sceptical of anything I couldn't source elsewhere (besides minor details that might have been neglected by other sources in summarising). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not reliable, but the question is whether it meets our quality standards, given that it is a confessed hobby site and the work of a single writer. If there is evidence that it has been recommended by an authorative source such as a journal or institution, then it could pass muster, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Iazyges

• Support, I was a part of the A-Class review, can find no more faults. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support I have been following this article as I served as an officer in the regiment just before its amalgamation. I made a few edits when it was quite a short start class article in 2014 and have been very impressed by the edits made by User:Factotem who took over from the already sterling work done by User:Dormskirk. I believe that it meets the different criteria and also agree with the removal of the non-free image that I added to the article following the explanation given by the nominator. From my personal knowledge of the regiment (my father also served with the Glosters) I believe the information given is accurate and comprehensive. Well done! Domdeparis (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Petropavlovsk spent more time under construction than she did in service as she was sunk early in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 after striking a mine. While her loss certainly weakened the Russian position in the Far East, the biggest impact was the death of the Russian squadron commander, the aggressive and charismatic Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov. The article just completed a MilHist ACR and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose and any jargon that needs linking or explaining and look forward to working with reviewers who find any such.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Petropavlovsk_-_NH_84769-A.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Unknown. Presumably it was a print published by Geiser since it's credited to him and purchased by a naval attaché or somesuch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay. The source link gives a 1976 collection date but no publication date, so not sure about the pre-1923 tag here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Geiser was a commercial photographer, so I expect that he sold prints at some point between when it was taken in 1899 and his death in 1923. AFAIK, his photography company didn't survive his death. Meister, the donor, was a historian of the Russian Navy, so I imagine that he purchased it at some point.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Support. I've read the article twice and found nothing to prevent supporting. Well-written and comprehensive. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• Feels a little bit short in general, and what you just said above introducing this article ("While her loss certainly weakened the Russian position in the Far East, the biggest impact was the death of the Russian squadron commander, the aggressive and charismatic Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov.") should be included.
  • There's not much that I can add to the lede because she had such a short career, with details on her peacetime activities not available in my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Lemme think on the consequences because I'd have to enumerate all the various ways that his successor was an idiot.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "She participated in suppression". Do you mean the suppression?
  • Indeed.
• "near Port Arthur." For those that don't know where Port Arthur is/was (me included), can you add a brief clarification (e.g., "Port Arthur, in Northeast China.").
  • Good idea.
• "Casualties numbered 27 officers and 652 men". So the officers weren't men?
  • Perhaps the Russians were more progressive than most people realize? ;-) Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Design and description

• "12-inch guns and the 8-inch guns were replaced". Should probably be a comma after "12-inch guns".
  • I really don't see the point of the comma.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • It would be to immediately indicate that "12-inch guns and the 8-inch guns" isn't what was was made to be more powerful and higher-velocity; otherwise you have to get to the words "were replaced" to get clued in to the fact that something different happened to the 8-inch guns. Minor point, though.
• "Poltava was almost 400 long tons (410 t) overweight". This is the first time you've mentioned Poltava, yet you only imply that she's one of the Petropavlovsk-class ships. Although you said in the lead that there were three ships in the class, this should also be in the body of the article. I'd recommend by leading off with that in "Design and description" and giving their names up front.
  • Sorry, that was a copy-paste error.
    • You still state that Petropavlovsk was one of three ships in the lead, but not in the body.
• "British firm of Hawthorn Leslie". Is the "of" necessary?
  • Nope.
• "twin-gun turrets". Is the hyphen necessary?
  • Yep, compound adjective.
• "the actual rate of fire was half that." I think you mean to say that it was actually 1 round/45 seconds, but this could technically also mean .5 rounds/90 seconds.
  • Remember that rate of fire is actually a fraction so it means the latter or 1/180 seconds.
    • I guess that makes sense, but it's still confusing because "one round every 90 seconds" isn't really in fraction form. I'd still consider to make it clear (n.b. as per my previous comment I thought it was the opposite), but it's a minor point.
      • Think of it in this way: If I do something half as fast, it takes twice as long.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Then say "the actual rate of fire was half as fast", not "half that". Saying "half that" means you're dividing an unspecified something in two, while saying "half that" means you're dividing speed in two.
          • Not sure that I fully agree, but I'm used to these sorts of calculations and may not have the best perspective.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "quick-firing (QF) guns." I'm not sure the parenthetical abbreviation is worth it, considering you only use it once more in the article, and it contributes to a bit of a sea of blue.
  • Blue's a wonderful color; I really don't understand what Wikipedians have against it. ;-) Actually I'd forgotten to add it to the 37 mm guns, so good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Construction

• "Delayed ... the ship was laid down on 19 May 1892". The delay lacks context unless you add when the ship was ordered (perhaps in the preceding section).
  • Rephrased
• "[She was] launched on 9 November 1894. Her trials lasted from 1898 to 1899". What did she do from 1894 to 1898?
  • Covered in the above rephrasing.
    • Where? I see what happened before 1892 now, but not what happened from 1894 to 1898.
      • Look at the 2nd sentence of the paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
        • So the ship was still under construction when launched (I thought "launched" meant done?), and continued to be for four years afterwards?
          • Yep. Launched means that the hull was watertight, but most of the internal work of installing armament and propulsion machinery remains.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "raised his flag on Petropavlovsk." What does this mean? Does it mean that he personally resided on the ship?
  • It's another way of saying that Petropavlovsk became his flagship.
• In general, it's a little unclear what the relationship between Skrydlov and Stark was. Was Skrydlov in command of the squadron before Stark?
  • How does it read now?
    • Looks good.

Battle of Port Arthur

• "the Russian failure to withdraw its troops". I think this should be "Russia's failure to withdraw its troops". Also, this sentence (about activities in 1903) should perhaps go after the discussion of what happened in 1901.
• "The final straws were ... in Korea." This is a long and somewhat awkward sentence. It would be better with the word "the" between "were" and "news", and with a comma following "in northern Korea".
• "These caused the Japanese government". How about "These actions caused", because otherwise you're essentially saying "These straws caused", which sounds odd.
  • I adopted all of your suggestions other than the comma, which looks very odd to me in front of "and"
• "The Pacific Squadron began mooring". Not sure the link to Wiktionary is worth it.
  • Better safe than sorry in an article replete with arcane nautical terms.
    • How about linking directly to moor#Verb, then?
      • Found an even better link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The Pacific Squadron began mooring in the outer harbor at night as tensions with Japan increased, in order". How about "As tensions with Japan increased, the Pacific Squadron began mooring in the outer harbor at night in order".
  • Good idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Sinking

• Generally, I think you need to add some of the significance of the sinking. You alluded to here—saying the loss of Makarov was a big deal—but it's nowhere in the article. The Japanese also seem to have thought it was a big deal, considering the caption on the illustration, and the fact that several contemporary depictions of it were made.
• How about a bigger picture? See here or here or here.
  • Upgraded the existing image.
• "taking 27 officers and 652 men, including Makarov and the war artist Vasily Vereshchagin, with her." How about "taking with her..." Also, what about some background on why Vereshchagin was on the ship?
  • I wish I knew; that bit was added by a Russian-reading editor, not me.
• "Seven officers and 73 men were rescued." Here and above, same point about officers also being men.
  • Ironically, that's straight from my source.
• "Japanese divers identified his remains inside the wreck of Petropavlovsk". What were Japanese divers doing down there, and why not Russian divers? Does the source say where in the ship his remains were found?
  • The Japanese conquered Port Arthur during the war and kept it in the territorial settlement. No idea where his body was as that's from a Russian-language source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Overall

• Looks pretty good, and most of the points above are fairly minor and discretionary. The main things are 1) the short lead, 2) the lack of discussion of the significance of the sinking (and Makarov's death), and to a lesser extent 3) the lack of a sentence giving the names of the other ships in the class. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thorough review. I don't think that the names of the other ships in the class is really necessary as I've corrected the mistake that led to one of them being mentioned without an explanation. Not sure that I can do much with the short lede as adding technical details there would only be redundant to the description and not a summary. Still thinking about adding something on the significance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • No problem. Replies are above; I think the only thing you didn't respond to was the suggestion of a comma after "12-inch guns". Just noticed one other small thing: why does "laid down" link to keel? Did you mean to link to keel laying? Adding the significance should also take care of the short lead, to an extent. Other things you could consider adding there are the date she was laid down, and a bit more about her activities in the Battle of Port Arthur. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Good catch on Keel; I'd bet that the second word was accidentally deleted. Still thinking on adding the significance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
        • A few more responses above; take your time on significance. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the edit/clarification above. Just ping me whenever you add the part about the significance and I'll check that out, and give the article another look over. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
            • Sturmvogel 66, gave the article a final read through, and now support. Made a minor change (revert if you don't like). Also, I wonder about the death toll. The artist wasn't an officer or an enlisted man, was he? So did 677 men die (27 + 651 + 1), or 678 (27 + 652 + 1)? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
              • Interesting question, but one I don't have an answer to as my sources don't address the issue. Thanks for your very thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

It has become more or less standard for ISBNs in featured articles to be rendered in consistent 13-digit form. Thus, Corbett= 978-1-55750-129-5; Kowner= 978-0-8108-4927-3; Silverstone= 978-0-88254-979-8; Westwood= 978-0-88706-191-2. Otherwise, sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking them up for me, but I'll stick the original ISBNs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy

• Article started with a mix of Am and Br Eng, so no action needed here.
• No dupe links
• "one each forward and one aft" - I think the "each" is unnecessary
• Any idea what type of 37mm guns? I'd guess either Hotchkiss or Maxims
  • I'd never even thought to check.
• I think the idea of the significance of her loss is good - I don't think you need a litany of his successors' failings, just something along the lines of "The death of Makarov robbed the Pacific Squadron of its ablest commander - Vitgeft lacked his aggressiveness and Ukhtomsky his competence." Parsecboy (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I couldn't source anything so succinct, but I cobbled something together. Lemme know what y'all think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Parsecboy Ping--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from PM

I reviewed this in detail when it recently went through Milhist A-Class review, and have looked over the changes made since. I believe it meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Iazyges

Support, I was a part of the A-Class review, and can find no additional problems. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Advance

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 12:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fine folks! This article is about a 2001 video game that Sega released for the Game Boy Advance. It is extremely notable for being the first original Sonic the Hedgehog released on a Nintendo gaming device. After rescuing it from being stuck in start-class for years, I bombarded it and, within a few days, got it up to GA-status. It has just undergone a copyedit by the GOCE and I now think it can stand among our best articles. Enjoy! JOEBRO64 12:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC) I like this article but I think somethings could be further explained before becoming FA.

• Reference 3 needs lines for the ISBN 9780970646866.
  • I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "lines". Can you be a bit more specific?
• Can you add a more specific caption to the GameBoy Advance picture. Seems a bit pointless unless you add something "the console was chosen because ____" If not you could add a free image of Yuji Naka
  • I wasn't really able to find a specific reason why the GBA was chosen, so I changed it to the Yuji Naka picture.
• Can sales be more specific? Like the game sold "1.21 million copies" but was it in the entire world or just in North America?
  • That's from the US alone, I've clarified this. The only source that provided worldwide sales was VGChartz, which is unreliable.
• While many people know of Super Mario World's popularity, you could expand it a bit for newcomers like saying "compared them positively to Super Mario World (1990), a highly acclaimed video game"
  • Done.
• Reference 17 needs translation, just go to the article and add "trans-title= TRANSLATED TITLE". Same thing writh reference 26
  • Done.

Other than I don't find other notable issues. Just ping me when you have solved and I'll give you my support. By the way, if you have free time one of these day, could you comment on my peer review here? It's Holidays season so take your take. Cheers.

@Tintor2: I've resolved all your concerns except for the ISBN one; I'm just a bit confused by what you mean. Thanks for reviewing! I'll take a look at your peer review soon. JOEBRO64 14:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll support. Good luck and Merry Christmas.Tintor2 (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Please add ALT text for the image in the infobox.
  • It already does, it was just at the bottom of the infobox. I've moved it.
• For this part (as they journey to save their homeland and stop Doctor Eggman from taking over the world), I am not sure what the difference is between “save their homeland” and “stop Doctor Eggman from taking over the world”. I think that you could remove the “save their homeland” part and preserve the same meaning.
  • Done.
• For this part (The story follows Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, and Amy) in the lead, do you think that you should use their full names (i.e. Amy Rose, etc.)?
  • I didn't use their full names because it kinda bloats up the first paragraph and, in my opinion, is a bit harder to read since all the names are grouped together.
• For this part (The game takes place over six levels called zones.), I would add a link for “levels”.
  • Done.
• For this part (As the Sonic games released for the Dreamcast allowed players to download the Chao Garden minigame onto the VMU,), I would spell out “VMU”.
  • Done.
• For this part (Sega announced Sonic Advance and two other GBA titles, ChuChu Rocket! and Puyo Puyo, on January 30, 2001), I would suggest adding a note to clarify that ChuChu Rocket! was rereleased on GBA in 2001, but it was originally released in 1999. Otherwise, it is a little confusing if someone clicks on the link to the game.
  • Done. I turned it into a footnote since it makes it easier to read.

Wonderful work with this article. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to promote this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look through my FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for reviewing another one of my FACs! I've responded above. I'll comment at your FAC soon. Thanks again, and I hope you have a good holiday season. JOEBRO64 20:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review:

• File:Sonic Advance Coverart.png: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:SonicAdvanceLoop.JPG: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Yuji Naka' - Magic - Monaco - 2015-03-21- P1030036 (cropped).jpg: Use seems fine for me. License seems OK as well.

ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an awesomely stupid film from the Resident Evil franchise. The article was promoted to GA in 2008 by someone else who no longer edits Wikipedia. I thought it fell embarrassingly short of GA standards when I stumbled across it (this is what it looked like at the beginning of this month: [6]) so I blew it up and wrote it again. The article has since received a peer review and a copy edit from GOCE. I now believe it meets the standards for FAC. Freikorp (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro1. Just my incorrigible impatience again :). 5 votes of support, a source review and an image check. Would you like anything further? Freikorp (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Slightlymad

• "critics" doesn't need wikilinking in the lead
• "At a separate location, Valentine, Wells, and news reporter, Terri Morales, are about to be..." → reduce comma splice by ditching the one that goes after news reporter
• I don't intend to list them all but there are a decent amount of quotation fragments in the prose whose terminal punctuation should be placed outside. For instance, in Themes section: "it stops short of challenging them and, indeed, often deploys them."
• The photos are captioned with complete sentences so add them with periods.
• "Anderson said that he began writing" → remove "that" to improve textual flow
• "The sequel was officially greenlit by Sony in mid-2002, however, Anderson" → change "however" into "but" sans the comma that's bolded. "However" should only be used in circumstances where it's unavoidable
• "The character Claire Redfield was originally to appear in the film portrayed by Gina Philips, however, she eventually turned down" → same as above
• Cinematographers Christian Sebaldt and Derek Rogers should be mentioned somewhere in Filming section. The British Film Institute can be used as source
• "The site's Critics Consensus reads:" → no uppercase on CC please, it's just simply the status quo...
• "Based on 124 reviews, the film holds an approval rating of 21% on Rotten Tomatoes, giving it the lowest rating of the six films in the series." → Unsourced
• Ditch the summary statements in Critical response unless you can provide sources for them.
• Paraphrase Dave Kehr's and Roger Ebert's input
• Home media should not be its own section because it is a scope of the Release section.

Happy to pass once attended. Slightlymad 12:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments Slightlymad. I've attempted to address everything, with the exception of removing the topic sentences in critical response. I was asked to add them during the peer review, and it's my understanding that such sentences are quite common and are covered by the sources in the rest of the paragraph. Happy to hear more comments on why they should be removed though. Freikorp (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

See WP:RECEPTION as it states quite clearly that you must be vigilante to avoid OR in those sentences, and it makes total sense since WP requires verifiability, not truth. Slightlymad 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: OK, removed. Freikorp (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Support: Good luck with this. Slightlymad 01:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I confess this article feels more GA than FA; the writing isn't great in places. I can't commit to a full review, but hopefully these comments will help:

• "At a separate location, Valentine, Wells, and news reporter, Terri Morales, are about to be overrun, but for Alice who comes to their rescue." Clumsy.

• Reworded

• "Umbrella dispatches an experimental supersoldier, Nemesis, for testing." Do you mean "deploys"?

• Fixed

• "he is Matt Addison, following a genetic mutation." This should be rephrased.

• I don't see the problem, and accordingly don't know what kind of rephrase would be an improvement. Happy to hear more feedback about this sentence.

• "Writing for the journal Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, Stephen Harper" Are you sure? That's an academic rather than journalistic source. The citation should probably be changed, too.

• I've removed that is a 'journal', let me know if you think describing is as a 'academic journal' would be more appropriate. I've reformatted is with Cite:journal as well.

• My point is that one doesn't really write for a journal in the way that one writes for a magazine or newspaper. I'd just say something like "The media studies scholar Stephen Harper" and not bother mentioning the journal in the prose. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh I getcha. Done. Freikorp (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "characters in Apocalypse, both" Italics!

• Fixed

• Be aware of MOS:LQ.

• Fixed

• "That same year, Adam Seeback from The Nerd Stash said that while he did not consider any films in the series to be good, he considered Apocalypse to be the most enjoyable.[14]" Reliable?

• Removed

• "Both Blu-ray.com and High-Def Digest gave the Blu-ray release three stars out of five for video quality and 3½ stars for special features.[55][56]" Reliable?

• I've used them as successful FAC's in the past, so I'm inclined to wait for additional comments on them at this stage

• "A novelization of the film was written by Keith DeCandido.[48]" I'm not really keen on the short paragraph; would it not make sense to bundle this into the marketing section and lose the "related media" thing? I'd mention the publisher and publication date, too.

• Done

• "An exclusive sneak peek scene" Informal; sounds like an ad

• Good point; reworded.

Good luck with the review. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments J Milburn. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Anderson caption needs editing for grammar
• File:Resident_evil_apocalypse_poster.jpg should have an expanded purpose of use in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Looks like someone else recently edited the caption and made a grammar error; I've now fixed it. Someone else beat me to fixing the image FUR :). Thanks for the image review Nikkimaria. Freikorp (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• There are numerous italicisation issues. You need to work through the reflist and de-italicise those sources (e.g British Film Institute, BoxOffice Mojo, MSN and many others) that are not initially from print media. Italics should be used for sources such as The New York Times, The Village Voice and other newspapers, magazines and journals.

• I think I've got them all now. :)

• Consistency is required in use of retrieval dates. It's not clear what principle is currently being used.

• Fixed. Only half a dozen sources were using retrieval dates (they were added by someone else) so I just removed them.

• Ref 23: What makes this (Mr X) a reliable high quality source?

• It isn't. I only really added it so readers could link to the actually company and read more about it since the company doesn't have a wikilink. The fact that Mr X did special effects is backed up by the other source so I've just removed the Mr X source and have left the prose unchanged.

• Ref 39 is apparently identical to 17

• Merged

• Ref 52 uses a non-standard archive date format.

• Fixed

Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again Brianboulton. Your source review is much appreciated as always. Freikorp (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this sentence (It is the second installment in the Resident Evil film series, which is based on the video game series Resident Evil.), I would revise the final part to read as follows (which is based on the video game series of the same name) to avoid the repetition of Resident Evil.

• Done.

• For this part (The films marks Witt's feature directorial debut), I assume you mean “The film” instead of “The films”.

• Yep that's what I meant; done.

• For this part (Directly after the events of the first film,), I would move the link for “the first film” to this earlier part in the lead (Anderson, the director of the first film,).

• Done.

• I would rephrase this sentence (Directly after the events of the first film, where the heroine Alice escapes an underground facility overrun by zombies, Alice bands together with other survivors to escape the zombie outbreak, which has now infected the fictional Raccoon City.) to avoid the repetition of Alice. I would also try to make the information read more smoothly.

• I've reworded it. Hopefully it reads better now.

• Do you need the word “heroine” in the lead?

• Removed.

• The word “film” appears a lot in the lead so I would suggest some variation.

• Removed three instances.

• I would change the word “criticized” in the phrase “from critics who criticized the plot” to avoid having variations of the word “criticize/critics” in such close proximity.

• Reworded.

• I do not believe that the Jovovich image is really necessary for this article. It seems more decorative and does not seem to really illustrate anything in particular.

• It is decorative, but I've always believed articles are improved with decorative pictures. I'm inclined to leave it as it is unless it gets further criticism.

• Makes sense to me; I am personally not a huge fan of it, but it is more of a personal/stylistic choice or preference so it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• For this sentence (Milla Jovovich confirmed her character would return in the sequel if the first film was successful), you could only use her last name as you already introduced the actress in the same paragraph.

• Fixed.

• I would revise this part (The character Claire Redfield was originally to appear in the film portrayed by Gina Philips), as the placement of this phrase “portrayed by Gina Philips” directly after “the film” reads rather awkwardly.

• Done.

• I would revise the entire sentence (The character Claire Redfield was originally to appear in the film portrayed by Gina Philips but she eventually turned down the role which was then given to Emily Bergl, who left before production began.) as it reads awkwardly.

• I've reworded it. Hopefully it reads better now.

• For this part (The character was dropped,), the citations are out of order.

• Done.

• In this phrase (and filming took place at forty-seven locations), do you think that “forty-seven” should be written as “47”?

• Done.

• For this part (The introduction of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis), please link the title.

• Done.

• For this part (C.O.R.E. won the contract to animate the Lickers), I would use the full title of the company (i.e. C.O.R.E. Digital Pictures).

• Done.

• In this part (though her insurance company would not allow her to attempt several of the more dangerous ones), could you clarify what is meant by the “more dangerous ones”?

• Wouldn't you assume in an action film some stunts are more dangerous than others? I am aware from the DVD's special features of only two scenes that Jovovich used a stunt double for. One where her character runs down a building while attached to a rappelling harness and the scene mentioned in the above section "where Alice runs through a building while an Umbrella helicopter fires". Would you like me to explicitly mention one of these scenes in this section?

• I was just curious if there was anything in particular (i.e. a major action scene in the film or something of the like) that may help clarify this point as it sounded like a rather vague sentence that, like you mentioned above, could be applied to pretty much any action film. It seems fine to me as it currently stands, but I just wanted to ask this as a clarification question more than anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• For this part (Soundtrack.net gave the score 2½ stars out of five), I would include the reviewer’s name.

• Done.

• In this part (By May 2004 the teaser had), I would add a comma after “2004”.

• Done.

• In this part (In 2017, Michael Nordine of TheWrap), I would italicize “TheWrap”.

• Done.

Wonderful work with this article. Once all of my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to promote this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look through my FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Aoba47. I've made replies to everything. Please let me know if you'd like any further work done. I'll get to your review soon. :) Freikorp (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

...taking a look now. (I didn't mind this film...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

You have 3 sentences in 1st para of lead starting "It..." - need to change it up a bit.

The film borrows elements from several games in the Resident Evil series, such as the villain Nemesis. - sentence comes over a bit weird with only one example.

In the previous film, former security operative Alice and environmental activist Matt Addison escape from the Hive, an underground genetic research facility that was the source of a zombie outbreak. - given we are talking about the current film, this sentence should be in the past tense.

Alice and Addison were both taken into custody by Umbrella - might be better as "The film ended with Alice and Addison being taken into custody by Umbrella" (so we know that was the last bit of the previous film)

Umbrella send a team to re-open and investigate what happened in the Hive, but it is overpowered by zombies who quickly spread through the surrounding Raccoon City. - the team is the object of the first clause but the subject of the second - would be better if it were the subject of both or sentence split.

I split the sentence with a semicolon. I'm not good at this kind of stuff. Let me know if you have a suggested rewording Casliber. Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

... to fight zombie attacks - one would either "fight zombies" or "repel zombie attacks" or something...

I also remember the DVD where they had alternate material/deleted scenes...I recall a storyline where the Terri Morales character was addicted to pills..? Evolution of the script is important and worth including.

I went through all the deleted scenes again. There was one scene showing Terri taking a single pill on set after she gives the weather report and a second scene later where she drops her pills and Alice tells her not to take them as they're bad for her. It didn't seem like it was ever a major part or even much of a sub-plot. I did go through the additional commentary track, in which Anderson talks about two of the deleted scenes which can be viewed on the DVD. I added coverage from one of them, as well as new information on several aspects of the film. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Umbrella deploys an experimental supersoldier, Nemesis, for testing. Nemesis kills the remaining STARS members. - these sentences are too short.

I've expanded it a little, let me know if you'd like more. I'm not sure which part would be improved by fleshing it out. Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, last thing - it isn't clear for a neophyte reader that a supersoldier is a monster - something on that briefly would be good. Then I think we're done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: I've described him as a 'heavily-mutated experimental supersoldier', and I've reworded the later description of him so that 'heavily-mutated' doesn't appear twice. Let me know if that's not enough. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

perfect. thanks 02:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

more later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments Casliber. I enjoyed this film as well. Between myself and Homeostasis an attempt has been made to address all the prose concerns; let me know if any need further work. I ordered the DVD to write the article; I went through the special features when I got it but didn't find that storyline you mentioned. It might be on one of the cast/crew commentaries (there are 3, and I only listened to 2 of them; it's hard to watch a film 3 times in a row even if you do like it). I'll have another look through the DVD after I get home tomorrow. I'm currently away for the new years celebration; I took my laptop with me but not the DVD. Freikorp (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: I've now addressed everything. Freikorp (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Homeostasis07

Sorry for butting in at this point, but I'd been reading the article for the past couple of hours and decided to be bold and make a couple of changes myself. Probably would've been better to take it all here first, but I have the flu and don't currently have the brain capacity to explain what it was I wanted changed. But as far as prose goes, I believe the article from Themes onward is spot-on. I couldn't see anything from that point onwards that needed changing. The only issues I had were in the Plot section, but they were fairly minor – clarity and consistency – and I think I resolved most of them anyway. There are just two sentences in the third paragraph I couldn't take care of myself: "Valentine and Morales continue, picking up stranded civilian L.J. along the way" I don't know why, but this just rolls off my tongue the wrong way, but I couldn't rephrase it and avoid having "L.J.." or "L.J.," appear, which just look even worse. Also, "Angela reveals that the zombie outbreak is the result of a virus created by her father to treat the genetic disease from which she suffers" — I'm sure this could also be re-arranged a better way, but I have Kristen Schaal from The Last Man on Earth screaming "'Out for what do you need that gun'?" in my head; you know, ending sentences with prepositions and all that.

So, with this in mind, maybe @J Milburn: may want to take another look at the article. And, sorry, @Casliber:, I believe my edit completely stepped on the toes of your comments above; some of those issues still present (ending the first Plot paragraph with "The film ended with..." is a good idea), but I inadvertently resolved most of your points. Anyway, sorry for rambling. Happy to support this article for promotion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your edits and support Homeostasis07. I think the L.J. sentence was reading awkwardly because it rhymed; I've reworded accordingly. I'm having some trouble thinking of a way to reword the other sentence at the moment. I'll take another look at it later. Freikorp (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, @Homeostasis07: I saw your changes as an improvement. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Let There Be Sunshine

This is my first review for any GA/FA/FL. :) Some minor suggestions listing down:

• In the lead, Carlos Olivera is directly linked, but in Plot and Cast it's a redirect. Could follow a consistent style, I would prefer the former.
• Don't forget to use non-breaking space between numbers and units (do not use in infobox).
• In Pre-production, Sony → Sony Pictures
• In box office, link "$" in $23 million and unlink from $129,394,835
• In box office, UK → United Kingdom

• All the above have been fixed.

• In the second sentence in box office, it is said that the film performed well in some countries and lackluster in Sweden, but without the box office numbers that sentence looks vague. Is there any way you could find the figures ?

• I found the figures and added them. I also inadvertently found some other box office results in the process and added those as well.

• In Critical response, BOMB → bomb

• Done.

• In Home media, rating in Blu-ray.com is user generated, better remove it.

• Done.

• How is Category:German film relevant here ?

• Not sure who added that. Removed.

• In image alt texts, replace "brunette woman" and "Caucasian man" with their names. Present text is similar to the Queen's example. Need to rewrite to something in the line of "Paul W. S. Anderson seated in front of a microphone and looking sideways" or "photograph of Milla Jovovich looking straight to the camera".

• Reworded.

The article looks good to me. Good work. Will pass this once these concerns are addressed. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review Let There Be Sunshine. I've tried to address everything. Freikorp (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the corrections. I support this nomination. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake

I didn't think I'd read a film article I'd enjoy quite this much. Many of the issues I might have raised have been addressed above. I'll happy give my Support to this nomination. Congrats, Freikorp. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Constantinople (674–678)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 22:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the first major Arab attack on the Byzantine capital, Constantinople. It was essentially rewritten from scratch some time ago, in 2012, along with its pendant, the Siege of Constantinople (717–718), which became an FA already at the time. The only reason I did not nominate this too for FA then was that I had glimpsed somewhere about Howard-Johnston's different opinion of these events and the poem of Theodosius Grammaticus, but could not yet source them properly. This has now been done, and some details have also been added to the siege's cultural impact (thanks to PericlesofAthens), news of which apparently reached as far as China. The time has come to complete this article's progression. Any comments and suggestions as to further improvement are, of course, welcome. Constantine ✍ 22:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Europe_around_650.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Fixed --Constantine ✍ 15:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class (5 years ago!) As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support: a shining example of Wiki's finest work. Well done, sir! It was a pleasure to read this article. As for my little contribution regarding the siege in medieval Chinese historical records, perhaps a small little blurb about that can be added to the third paragraph of the lead section. That small paragraph, which discusses both Greek and Arab historiography, could also provide a little sentence summarizing the Chinese historiography on the matter. Just a thought! Cheers and congratulations on crafting a fine article. Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you followed my suggestion about adding a sentence to the lead regarding Chinese historiography. Excellent! It looks fantastic. Kind regards, --Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Just a few very minor format issues:

• Ref 36: hyphen in page range should be ndash
  • Fixed. Constantine ✍ 17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Ref 38: I'm unsure about the italicisation – is "Bryn Mawr Classical Review" a print source? No problem if it is.
  • It is both. As a journal name, I think the italicization is proper. Constantine ✍ 17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• ISBNs: the general norm at FAC is to standardise isbns in their 13-digit form. For Mango this is 978-0-19-822568-3; for Treadgold it's 978-0-804-72630-6; for Turnbull it's 978-1-84176-759-8.
  • Thanks a lot for providing them. Fixed. Constantine ✍ 17:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability.Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comments reading through now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

and the first culmination of the Umayyad Caliphate's expansionist strategy towards the Byzantine Empire - must say I am not thrilled with this sentence...sounds a bit bureaucratic....but an alternative isn't springing to mind...

Hmmm, which elements precisely are "bureaucratic"? Perhaps "the culmination of the expansionist strategy pursued by the Umayyad caliph Mu'awiya I towards the Byzantine Empire", rather than the caliphate as a whole? Constantine ✍ 15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"culmination of..expansionist strategy" sounds like something from an annual business report of a multinational. That said, I know what it means and I can't think of an alternative, so don't regard it as a dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Arab land army in Asia Minor was also defeated by the Byzantines, forcing the Arabs to lift the siege. - I'd switch this to, "The Byzantines also defeated the Arab land army in Asia Minor, forcing them to lift the siege. "

Good point, done. Constantine ✍ 15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It should also be noted that both Byzantine and Arab chroniclers record the siege as lasting for seven years instead of five - the " It should also be noted that" - sounds a bit essaylike. Can we just remove it?

Done. Constantine ✍ 15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise reads well. I am not familiar with the topic matter but it seems sort of complete I guess....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking the time, if you are not familiar with it but it reads well, then my main objective is accomplished :). As regards completeness, I can confidently say that it is the most complete single account of the siege and associated scholarship I know of online, and probably (I don't have access to some recent published sources) also in print as well. Constantine ✍ 15:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Lead

• ¶3 "The siege left several traces in the legends of the nascent Muslim world, although it is conflated with accounts of another expedition against the city a few years previously, led by the future Caliph Yazid I. As a result, the veracity of Theophanes's account has been questioned by recent scholarship, which places more emphasis on the Arabic and Syriac sources. On the other hand, echoes of a large siege of Constantinople and a subsequent peace treaty reached China, where they were recorded in later histories of the Tang dynasty." – The main text suggests that most modern historians accept Theophanes's account but that James Howard-Johnston does not. Instead of saying "questioned by recent scholarship, which places...", it might be more appropriate to say "was questioned in 2010 by Oxford scholar James Howard-Johnston, who placed...".

• Excellent point, done. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Background

• ¶1 "The Arab sources on the other hand report...". – Delete "The" since this is the first time in the main text that Arab sources have been mentioned?

Hmmm, indeed. Done. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Opening moves: the campaigns of 672 and 673

• ¶1 "The undertaking was not haphazard, but followed a careful, phased approach...". - Trim by four words? "The undertaking followed a careful, phased approach...".

Done. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Arab attacks and related expeditions in 674–678

• ¶2 "... led a campaign in 677, whose target is unknown." - Maybe "the target of which is unknown" since a campaign is a which rather than a who?

Done. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Cultural impact

• ¶2 "...account where he mentions an augmentation of tributary payments a few years later due to the Umayyads facing some financial troubles." - Substitute "which" for "where" and tighten the ending a bit? Suggestion: "...account in which he mentions an augmentation of tributary payments a few years later when the Umayyads faced financial troubles."

Done. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Modern reassessment of the events

• ¶1 "The Syriac chroniclers also disagree with Theophanes in placing the decisive battle and destruction of the Arab fleet by Greek fire in 674, during an Arab expedition against the coasts of Lycia and Cilicia, rather than Constantinople." - More clear without the two commas?

Removed the first, I think the second is best kept. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

General

• No problems with dablinks.
• No dead URLs.
• Has alt text.
• No overlinks.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Finetooth, and thanks for taking the time, and for your suggestions and edits. I have implemented most of your suggestions. Any further comments, apart from and beyond FA requirements? As I wrote in response to Casliber above, I am keen to know the impression upon the uninitiated reader. Constantine ✍ 11:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Uninitiated, I found the maps, especially the one in the infobox, helpful in understanding some of the basic elements of the historic account(s). A most interesting and enjoyable read. Finetooth (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. What Finetooth has written, immediately above, applies precisely to my view of this fine article. As a complete layman I found the article easy to understand, widely sourced and splendidly illustrated. As far as I can see it meets all the FA criteria, and I am happy to add my support for promotion. Tim riley talk 20:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tim riley for your kind words, and a happy new year! Constantine ✍ 08:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Connecticut Tercentenary half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a commemorative coin that for once, was not beset with scandal. And the Charter Oak is a bit of American history they don't teach much these days. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

Another authoritative article on coins from Wehwalt. A few trivial quibbles, which don't affect my support but you might like to consider:

• Background
  • As I have said in previous reviews, "took the throne" doesn't sound quite right – shades of a coup d'etat – and "came to the throne" might be better.
  • "vend them to the public" – I don't know what "vend" has got that a plain "sell" hasn't.
• Legislation
  • "that state's ...that committee" – perhaps change either or both "thats" into plain definite articles?
• Preparation
  • "subject to Lawrie's criticisms being addressed, which they were, for the most part" – just checking that ref 15, a bit later in the para, covers this point.

    Yes, Taxay goes through the things that were changed, such as the pinion feathers on the eagle.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there, and I'm pleased to support the promotion of this article, which I think meets all the FA criteria, and will be a valuable addition to the Wikipedia articles on coins. – Tim riley talk 21:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and kind words. I've made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

The citation detail in ref 6 could be a little more lucid. Otherwise, the sources look in good order and of appropriate qualility and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I've expanded it a bit. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• All images are appropriately licensed.
• The templates for the Charter Oak and the 1935 stamp and 1999 coin all allow for alt text but none is currently present. I don't know whether the Css Image Crop template for the Indian Head coin allows for alt text.
• No action necessarily required but I noticed the template used for the 1935 stamp and 1999 coin does not allow the user to click the image to find licensing information. The reader needs to go into edit mode, find the name of the image, go to Wikipedia Commons, and search for the image. That's what I did anyway, not sure if there may be a quicker method. Anyway, I'm just saying it might be inconvenient for the user, something you may or may not wish to consider. Moisejp (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I've split up the 2-image template and added alt text to each. I don't understand the css image crop and prefer not to mess with it. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. I've also added alt text for the Charter Oak image. Moisejp (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

One more minor thing, the caption for the 1999 coin is a full sentence and rightly has a period, but of the other three that are not full sentences, only the stamp has a period. This is slightly inconsistent and would be better to decide one way for all three. Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the period. Thanks for the catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Anythingyouwant

Looks good to me. I merely inserted a pipe link to governor in the future state of Connecticut. That way, if people are interested, they can find out (e.g.) that it was really the 300th anniversary of Saybrook Colony which was distinct from New Haven Colony and from Connecticut Colony. Anyway, this is a nice little article, well done. I also added a tricentennial category. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• It appears that the Congressional Record for 1934 was volume 78, not volume 80.[7] Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• You say in the lead that there was no debate in Congress, but in the article body you discuss a conversation between Congressmen Maloney and McFarlane, so better to simply say in the lead that there was no dissent, not that there was no debate? Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Regarding the 1999 and 1907 coin pictures, I would put them side-by-side; the way they are now takes up a lot of vertical space, causing text to be sandwiched between images (as viewed on my laptop). Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Good catch on the Congressional Record. That seems to be the template, so I've done it manually. I've moved the 1999 image and adopted your suggestions. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Moise

Everything looks good. I made some minor copy-edits. Moisejp (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Reads well, I find nothing to nitpick about Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Meets the FA criteria, and an interesting read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Washington State Route 520

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 05:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This highway is the bane of thousands of daily commuters in the Seattle area, with its daily bouts of congestion (in both directions, twice a day) and never-ending construction. It connects the headquarters of tech giants Amazon and Microsoft using the world's longest and widest floating bridge, which was recently completed to replace a decades-old bridge. SounderBruce 05:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Rschen7754

Noting that I do intend to take a look at this, though unfortunately it might not be until after the holiday period. --Rschen7754 19:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• number of axles - of the vehicle?
  • Fixed.
• The concept of "lidded park" is not clear and it may run afoul of WP:NEO.
  • Replaced with "park lid", which is a pretty neutral term, and a link to this list. SounderBruce 02:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

More later. --Rschen7754 02:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

Mainly, just a few minor format points:

• Refs 7, 20, 21, 33: HistoryLink not being a printed source, should not be italicised
• Ref 11: likewise "Crosscut"
• Ref 12: link goes to a blank page, as does the archived link
• Ref 32: For some reason you've added "Associated Press" to this Seattle Times citation, but not to the others.

Otherwise, sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the source review.

• I have un-italicized HistoryLink, but kept Crosscut italicized, as it is an online newspaper. Un-italicizing it would mean, for consistency, some Post-Intelligencer links would switch (as it has been an online newspaper since 2009).
• Ref 12: The link works for me (Chrome on Windows 8.1) as a PDF that is embedded into the page, so it seems to be a plugin issue. There is an interactive version of the map, but it is harder to archive.
• Refs 32 and 36: These two Times articles originated from the AP, and credited as such, while the others were original reports.

Hope that addressed some of your concerns. SounderBruce 05:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy. Brianboulton (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dough4872:

1. In the first paragraph of the lead, you begin two consecutive sentences with "SR 520".
   1. Fixed, though I had to throw out the mention of 520 being a "major regional freeway".
2. Since you defined the abbreviation for Interstate 5 is I-5, you do not need to do the same for I-405. Therefore it should say "SR 520 intersects several state highways, including Interstate 5 (I-5) in Seattle, I-405 in Bellevue, and SR 202 in Redmond."
   1. Fixed.
3. "The original Evergreen Point Floating Bridge was opened in 1963 as a replacement for the cross-lake ferry system that had operated since the turn of the century.", turn of what century? Better to clarify here, i.e. "beginning of 20th century" or whatever might work better.
   1. Fixed.
4. You do not need to define what SR 920 stands for as you already defined what SR X stands for in the first sentence. Therefore it should say "replacing the temporary designation of SR 920"
   1. Fixed.
5. Make sure to wikilink some of the places in the lead if they are not already linked there.
   1. Added two missing links.
6. Again do not need to define what I-5 stands for.
   1. Fixed.
7. How many lanes wide is SR 520? This should be mentioned in the route description.
   1. Generally six lanes (2 HOV + 4 GP), but there's some exit lanes and a C-D system thrown in. I added a mention of the HOV lanes and the six-lane portion on the bridge.
8. In the first section of the history, I-5 and I-405 should be abbreviated.
   1. Fixed.
9. In the second section of the history, SR 520 should be abbreviated.
   1. Changed to emphasize the 1964-era name for the highways (later changed to State Route in 1970).
10. What local roads did SR 520 use for its temporary route?
    1. Added the two roads and map references.
11. Do we need to use the formal name for the bridge in the exit list? I think the common name would be better here. Dough4872 02:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
    1. Fixed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 02:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Article looks good now! Dough4872 02:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

• This is clear, informative, and highly detailed. I made a small number of minor edits, and I have only two suggestions.

Route description

• ¶4 "...a Highway of Statewide Significance, which includes highways...". – Modify slightly to "...Highway of Statewide Significance, a category that includes highways..."?

General

• Alt text looks fine.
• No dead URLs.
• No problems with disambiguation.
• Many duplicate links. About 15 such as Roanoke Park are linked in the "Route description" and then linked again in the lower sections. I doubt that any main-text duplicates are necessary.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Finetooth: Reworded that sentence in the Route description and removed all the duplicate links I found in the history section. SounderBruce 23:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Looks fine. Switching to support on prose. Happy New Year. Finetooth (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Livyatan

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a really big whale from the Miocene. I think it's up to standard, and I'd like to remind people that news sites are reliable sources. ISBN's and doi's aren't the sole recipients of the mark-of-reliability   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the spermaceti image
• File:Livyatan_melvillei.jpg: what source or data was used to create this image? Same with File:Sperm_whale_head_anatomy_(transverse_%2B_sagittal).svg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

got the source for File:Livyatan_melvillei.jpg, still working on the other one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

I have made a few copyedits. Feel free to revert if you disagree.

Research history

• The holotype and Beaumaris tooth are mentioned. Parts of the content imply other specimens exist. Any idea of how many and from where?

there aren’t   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Phylogeny

• Conversely, the modern sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) lacks enamel, teeth in the upper jaw, and the ability to use its teeth to catch prey. I could not find anything in the cited reference saying that the modern sperm whale lacks the ability to use its teeth to catch prey.

the ref says that the tooth reduction trend is seen in the sperm whale, and then it says the sperm whale uses suction feeding, and it says the upper teeth are in contrast to the sperm whale which only have teeth in the lower jaw   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Teeth

• ...the largest tooth of the holotype was the second and third on the left lower jaw... Number inconsistent. Teeth?, were?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

OK.

Basin

• Tense: The fossil skull still exists? Should tense not be present when referring to fossils? (or refer to the animal in past tense).

should the entire Description section just be in present tense?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

More later. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• villain— Moby is as much victim as villain, the subject of Ahab's desire for vengeance. I'd prefer the less loaded and less anthropomorphic "antagonist"
• hyper-predatory macroraptorial— two technical terms in the first paragraph, neither is linked or glossed to help us
• Though it has not been given a species designation, the tooth...— perhaps Although as of late 2017 it has not been given a species designation, its tooth...

Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• "similar in size to the modern sperm whale". Since you're technically comparing a genus to a species, would it make more sense to make the comparison after you name the one species in Livyatan?
• "and the book". Should probably be "by the book".
• "implies either". How about "implies that either".
• "and so forth". Seems a bit casual.
• "A characteristic of raptorial sperm whales, Livyatan had functional". Technically this says that Livyatan was a characteristic of raptorial sperm whales.
• "Its total size was estimated to be around 13.5 or 17.5 m". You mean length?
• "It is distinct from the other raptorial sperm whales by the basin on the skull, and how it spans the entire length of the snout." First, "distinct" should be "distinguished". Second, what spans the entire length of the snout?
• "used in biosonar and communication". I think "for" should be used instead of "in"
• "It may have interacted". Although you mean the whale, "it" technically refers to the the spermaceti organ.
• "caused by climate change which caused food populations to drop". Two uses of "caused" is awkward.
• "The whale was featured in the animated movie Ice Age: Continental Drift." This comes out of nowhere, and feels like you're just tacking on some pop culture. It would be more relevant if you could say, for example, "The bigness and hugeness and viciousness of the whale has ingrained it within the popular imagination, and has led it to be featured in such things as..."

Research history

• "containing teeth and mandible". I don't know the answer, but can you say "containing mandible", or does it have to be "containing a mandible" (or similar)?
• "stumbled across them". Should it "it" (it's a skull).
• "on the final day of a field trip there." "there" is redundant, not to mention awkward considering the next sentence also ends in "there."
• "The fossils were prepared in Lima, and are now part of the collection of the Natural History Museum there." Were they also prepared at the museum?
• "author of the book Moby-Dick". Needs a comma after Moby-Dick.
• "million years ago (mya)". You already did "(mya)" in the lead, so just delete "million years ago" and the parentheses.

Phylogeny

• "This group is known for having large, functional teeth on both the upper and lower jaws which were used in capturing large prey, and had an enamel coating." You need either a comma after "jaws", or a "which" before "had an enamel coating" (or both).
• "a characteristic of sperm whales". Are you referring just to the development of the spermaceti organ, or also the size increase? If the latter, "a characteristic" should be "characteristics".
• "Since fetal modern sperm whales have enamel on their teeth before being coated with cementum". The whales are coated with cementum?

Description

• "is not known for certain." How about just "is unclear", since you already use "known" and "unknown" in the sentence.
• "(44 short tons)". How about wikilinking "short tons"?
• "Livyatan is the largest fossil sperm whale discovered, and was also one of the biggest known predators, and it had one of the largest bites of any tetrapod, and possibly of any vertebrate." and, and, and, and, and...

Skull

• "The skull of Livyatan was 3 m (9.8 ft) long in the holotype." Do you mean "The holotype skull of Livyatan was 3 m (9.8 ft) long."?
• "like other sperm whales." Should probably be "like [or as] with other sperm whales."

Teeth

• "The wearing on the teeth". How about "The wearing on its teeth"?
• "As well as this". One word—furthermore, moreover, additionally—would work.
• "which were adaptations to holding struggling prey." This seems off. Maybe "adaptations that made it easier to hold struggling prey."?
• "it has the lowest tooth count". This paragraph otherwise uses the past tense, so "had" should be used.
• "in each side of the jaw." How about "on each side"?
• "The first right tooth was the smallest". Smallest, or shortest?
• "measured around 30 cm (12 in)." Should be "...(12 in) long."
• "These teeth are thought to be among the largest of any known animal". You go further in the lead, saying "The tallest tooth ... is the largest tooth of any known animal."
• "30.5 cm (12 in) ... 18 cm (7 in)." Also needs words indicating that this refers to height.
• "Some of the lower teeth have been shown to contain a facet". What's a facet? Is there an appropriate wikilink?
• "due to wearing throughout its life." Should be "their life."
• "onto the teeth throughout its lifetime." Same.
• "the fourth being the largest at around 197 mm". Are the measurements here referring to depth? It's unclear.

Basin

• "was the most deep and wide". Could be "was deepest and widest".
• "It was defined by high walls on the sides, and the antorbital notches ... were inside the basin." Is this supposed to be saying two distinct things, or are you trying to say that two things did the defining, the high walls and the antorbital notches?
• "and was defined by a groove". What about a fresh phrase, since "was defined by" is used twice.
• "dwarf and pygmy sperm whales". There should be a comma after "whales"

Hunting

• "consisted of mainly". How about "mainly consisted of"?
• "ranging from 7–10 m". Again, doesn't specify length/width/arm span.
• "It was contemporaneous". Should be "contemporaneous with".

Spermaceti organ

• "target animal to shutdown". You want "shut down" (verb), not "shutdown" (noun).
• "due to exposure to the intense sounds." How about "from" instead of "due to", to avoid the "to ... to"?
• "Another theory says ... modern sperm whale." I would split this into two sentences.
• "to support this". Should be "in support of this".
• An alternate theory ... to the surface." Again, suggest two sentences.

Palaeoecology

• "including over 3500 shark teeth". Should be "more than", not "over".
• "hammerhead sharks; and to a lesser extent". The semicolon doesn't work here. I'd suggest ending the sentence after "3500 shark teeth", and beginning a second with *"These mainly belonged to".
• "Livyatan and Megalodon were likely the apex predators of this area during this time." Not sure why this is here in addition to in "Hunting"?
• "5 mya in Pliocene." Should this be "in the Pliocene."?
• "Beaumaris Bay is". It's sort of implied, but what about "Beaumaris Bay, within the Black Rock Formation, is..." or alternatively "Its place of discovery, Beaumaris Bay, is..."?
• "have been discovered". Should be "have been discovered there".
• "becoming coextinct with the small baleen whales it fed on." Something's off with this grammatically, but also, are you saying that a species of baleen whales went extinct, of that just small baleen whales went extinct? If the latter, I think you should go for a work other than "coextinct."

Overall

• Looks good. Most of the points above are grammatical/stylistic, so feel free to take with a grain or spoon of salt as appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I want to review this, but I'd like confirmation that Dunkleosteus77 is still around, as it seems it will otherwise get archived soon. FunkMonk (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

coming back Friday or Saturday depending on if I can book the plane   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, ping me when one of the above reviews are finished. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Thorium

Nominator(s): Double sharp (talk), R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The unsung natural radioactive metal (uranium gets all the press). I rewrote this article and sent it to GA in September 2014, having been motivated by the since semi-retired Mav's 2010 statement that he wanted to send it to FA. Since June 2016, R8R and I have been doing extensive work on it (including a PR; we addressed some of his concerns together even after the PR have been closed). This element deserves to be saved from the development hell its article has been going through and I hope your comments here will finally rescue it! (P.S. I recently helped at the PR for Smerus' project of Felix Mendelssohn, and some of the language in my nomination statement is inspired by his. ^_^) Double sharp (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the decay chain image

Good idea. Done.--R8R (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Thorium_sample_0.1g.jpg: confused by the licensing here - it has an NC-ND tag, which is not permitted on Commons, but also a Free Art tag?

The author pointed me at Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing and Commons:Multi-licensing. I think that makes it clear.--R8R (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Uranocene-3D-balls.png is tagged as lacking a description

Added description.--R8R (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Jöns_Jacob_Berzelius.jpg: source links are dead, needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Used a different file instead.--R8R (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Biological

• Is leached used correctly here? Leached into strikes me as an unusual usage. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted, thank you. Reworded the sentence to match information in the source a little more closely.--R8R (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by XOR'easter

• In the "isotopes" section, it says, "²³²Th is the only isotope of thorium occurring in quantity in nature, and thorium is usually considered to be a mononuclidic element." But then, a little later, "The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) reclassified thorium as a binuclidic element in 2013" (ten years after the reference used to support the "usually considered mononuclidic" claim). A little clarification on what the status quo is — rather than making a claim and then walking it back — would help.
  • I'll give this a second check: when I wrote this in 2014, it was true that IUPAC's reclassification wasn't really followed very much, but now that 2018 is almost upon us things may be different. Double sharp (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• References 5, 28, 29, 63, 77, 83, 101, 115, 128, 134, 135 and 145 are showing the "Check |url= value" warning message.
• Reference 23 points to The Feynman Lectures on Physics, and it would be nice to have the title wiki-linked. Also, the referenced chapter can be read online. XOR'easter (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I must be able to fix the referencing problems in a week. Sorry for the delay.--R8R (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• The citations with links to google books all carry red error messages. I haven't investigated, but they need to be looked at.
• Ref 51 (Persson): returns "page not found"
• Ref 107: What makes straightdope.com a reliable source?
• Ref 120: Check publisher. I can't see any mention of Battelle Memorial Institute: the publisher appears to be SciTech Connect
• Ref 146: The Guardian should be italicised
• Ref 148: Requires retrieval date.

Other than the above, the sources look in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll fix the above in a week unless Double sharp manages to do it before the week passes. Sorry for the delay.--R8R (talk) 14:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I never link to Google books in my FAs (unless the source is out of copyright) because the links vary with location and over time. Basically, they aren't sufficiently stable to be useful. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon

I have no expertise in the field, but I can offer a few comments on prose:

• I find the first sentence a little low on info. Would it not be better to open with something like "Thorium is a weakly radioactive chemical element ...?
  • A while ago DePiep was rephrasing all the first sentences of the chemical element articles (e.g. Ac) so that they all read "X is a chemical element with symbol Y and atomic number Z". I don't think this was a terribly good change precisely for this reason, so I've changed it back. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• only two radioactive elements that still occur naturally -> in the universe or on earth?
  • Both, so I've changed it to "in the universe" (since the earth is evidently in there ^_^). Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• The number of f electrons increases -> I assume you're still talking about going from thorium to plutonium
  • Yes; I've merged the two sentences to try to clarify this. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• in which +4 is also the highest possible state, but +3 also -> also twice
  • Removed the second "also". Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Like many of the early and middle actinides (up to americium, and also expected for curium), thorium forms the yellow cyclooctatetraenide complex Th(C8H8)2, thorocene -> strictly speaking the actinides form something like thorocene but not actually thorocene
  • Changed to "Like many of the early and middle actinides (up to americium, and also expected for curium), thorium forms a cyclooctatetraenide complex: the yellow Th(C₈H₈)₂, thorocene." Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• 5 pm) they behave -> comma before they?
  • Added. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• only by the r-pr. -> Twice only
  • I've tried to address this one, though I must confess that I'm not quite happy with the wording here still, so further suggestions would be welcome. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• involve thorium isotopes: uranium–thorium dating, involving -> involve twice
  • Changed the second "involving" to "based on". Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• also the highest possible state, but +3 also -> twice also
  • I think we've addressed this one already. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• In acidic aqueous solution -> should that not be In an acidic?
  • I've changed it. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Because of the abrupt loss ... uranium, because -> twice because
  • Removed the second "because" and changed the comma to a semicolon. Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• On Earth, thorium is not a rare element -> feels repetitive, mentioned 2 paragraphs earlier
  • Changed to "Thorium has a crustal abundance comparable to that of lead and molybdenum, twice that of arsenic, and three times that of tin. It nevertheless only occurs as a minor constituent of most minerals, and was for this reason previously thought to be rare." Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• moved cerium and thorium to ... cerium, and thorium. -> Twice
  • Changed to "...Mendeleev moved cerium and thorium to group IV in 1871, which also contained the modern carbon group (group 14) and titanium group (group 4), because their maximum oxidation state was +4." Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• twentieth century -> inconsistent with 21st
  • Changed to "20th". Double sharp (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Exposure is raised for people who live near thorium deposits, radioactive waste disposal sites, -> deposits or radioactive
  •  Done Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Wickleder, M. S.; Fourest, B.; Dorhout, P. K. (2006) probably needs an ISBN

Yes, added.--R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• Emsley, John (2001) has an ISBN 10 instead of 13

Fixed.--R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This somehow didn't save the last time; it has now.--R8R (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I get a Check |url= value warning for refs 5, 28, 29, 63, 77, 83, 101, 115, 128, 134, 135, 145

Some user at one moment all of a sudden changed some regularly formatted templates linking to Google Books so that they included {{google books}}. I didn't see what was good in that change but since I didn't see at the time what was bad, either, I left it as it is. Will have to fix now, though. --R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Done.--R8R (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Quite a few notes seem to be missing a source, a d f j

At the moment, only two have no sources: a and f. Do you really see the info in either note as WP:likely to be challenged? I rather don't.--R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I stumbled upon John Emsley's Nature's building blocks on my bookshelf and it has a few things worth pointing out, which you may decide are worth while integrating:

• total amount in body is given as 40 micrograms

I have not come up with a reasonable way to add this information. Given the rest of the information in the article, it rather seems a stray fact given that the element has no biological role and is not particularly notable at these concentrations.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• "There is no biological role for thorium". I think the article would benefit from a clear statement like this

Agree. Done.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Esmark worked at was what then called the University of Christiania

see comment below

• world production is in excess of 30,000 tonnes per year.

need to check if the figure is up to date

• known reserves exceed 3 million tonnes

same

• 12 ppm in Earth's crust

This seemed like a great idea, but look at Abundance of elements in Earth's crust and the diversity of numbers. I'll rather stay away from giving a figure.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• amount on Earth is about 85% of that which was present when planet formed

That's cool. Added.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• atomic weight is 232.0381

As of me writing this, we have an even more precise figure in the text.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• thorium oxide was used in the early days of X-ray diagnosis in 10,000 individuals.

Added.--R8R (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

These, apart from the Christiania note, are all good. Will do. We will only have to refer to newer sources. For instance, the atomic weight has been slightly changed since then, possibly so have production and reserves numbers. --R8R (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Overall quite an impressive effort (although, as I said, I have no chemistry expertise). Edwininlondon (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Edwin, thank you very much for taking the time. These are great comments and most of points raised are certainly worth addressing (DS has already addressed some of those). I will address at least some of your comments on Friday or during the weekend. At the moment, I will only note that Esmark's university was actually called Royal Frederick University at the time, and now it is called University of Oslo. It was never called University of Christiania. (Do not let this remark fool you, I find most of the remaining comments great and I'm looking forward to addressing them.)--R8R (talk) 11:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Lean support Comments by Sandbh

Citing Greenwood & Earnshaw, the article says, "The 5f character of thorium is also clear in the rare and highly unstable +3 oxidation state, in which thorium exhibits the electron configuration [Rn]5f1. I checked the source and, while it lists the +3 state for Th, it does not appear to say anything else about it i.e. no rare, no unstable, and no f electron (as cool as that would be). Maybe the ion has 5f1, but trivalent compounds seem to have 6d1.Sandbh (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the ref for this got misplaced in some recent reshuffling; I'll go back and look at some older revisions. Double sharp (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I did some copy editing in the rest of the article and added a few clarification required templates. An impressive and thorough piece of work. Sandbh (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• this trend is due to the itinerance of the f-orbitals— I'm not sure what this means; it implies the f-orbitals are wandering around
• density; actinium is lighter. —perhaps add "only" before "actinium"?
  • I think you've found a mistake! Einsteinium is divalent and is significantly lighter (8.84 g/cm³); though this may be because of radiation damage to the crystal structure when measured, a quick calculation shows that the divalent fermium, mendelevium, and nobelium should also have lower densities (see Talk:Fermium for the details). The trouble with making generalisations across the actinides is that information tends to run into a void around einsteinium, upon which our capability for making macroscopic samples runs out with four more actinides still to go. I've changed it to "Among the actinides up to californium, which can be studied in at least milligram quantities, thorium has the highest melting and boiling points and second-lowest density; only actinium is lighter.", with a note about Es. Double sharp (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• It is one of only three radioactive elements (along with protactinium and uranium) that occur in large enough quantities on Earth for this to be possible—For what to be possible?
  • Changed to "for a standard atomic weight to be determined". Double sharp (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• passivation can occur, as with uranium and plutonium—earlier, you have said that the presence of thorium dioxide increases corrosion, here it's stopping it. Is this consistent?
  • It's not passivation by thorium dioxide, but by thorium nitrate, which I've now clarified. Double sharp (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Thorium complexes with organic ligands, such as oxalate, citrate, and EDTA, are much more stable and tend to occur naturally in natural thorium-containing waters—Two problems here; I don't like the close conjunction of "naturally" and "natural", and the way it's written implies that thorium complexes with oxalate, citrate, and EDTA all occur in nature. I doubt that, particularly with edta, and it's not quite what the source says
  • Rephrased to "In natural thorium-containing waters, organic thorium complexes usually occur in concentrations orders of magnitude higher than the inorganic complexes, even when the concentrations of inorganic ligands are much greater than those of organic ligands". Double sharp (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Is it worth mentioning in the histogram legend that the vertical scale is non-linear (I don't mind what you decide on this)?
  • Yes, I think that's useful given the small size of the text. I've added a mention. Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I've nothing else, changed to "support" above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Thank you, though I've still got to fix the "itinerant" thing you pointed out – I've seen this wording before indeed, but looking it up in the dictionary certainly informs me that it needs an explanation. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Smerus

OK I now know a lot about thorium I didn't know before. The article seems very thorough and it's clearly written. I can't think of anything I would want to know about thorium which isn't covered. So for what it's worth from a non-scientist like me, you get my support. -- Smerus (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Smerus! Double sharp (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Felix Mendelssohn

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the composer Felix Mendelssohn. It went to GA status some time ago, was recently thoroughly revised and has just had a peer review which resulted in further additions, corrections and rewriting. Felix deserves a FA and I hope this - subject to your constructive comments and the changes that they produce - is it. Smerus (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

I enjoyed the fruitful dialogue in the peer review, and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Gerda! --Smerus (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the op. 61 and 64 images done
• File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy.jpg has two identical tags and needs a US PD tag done
• File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg: when/where was this first published? Not known: painted 1821, and artist died 1854

• What is the earliest publication we do know of? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Octetp1.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Mendelssohn_Wedding_March_Theme.jpg, File:Mendelssohn_VnConcert_op64_2mvt.png, File:Mendelssohn_oregan_sonatas.jpg, File:Elijah_arranged_for_duet_1.jpgdone

• For the last of these, was the arrangement published in 1847? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Mendelssohn-Denkmal-Leipzig_Kohut-1-S41-cropped.jpg: if the photographer is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?We don't: is there anything I can do about this?

• Do we have the evidence necessary to use this tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC) no, therefore deleted --Smerus (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:DPAG_2009_Felix_Mendelssohn_Bartholdy.jpg: according to Commons, German stamps are eligible for copyright protection. Is there anything that I can do about this?Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC) now deleted--Smerus (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• Dear Nikkimaria, many thanks for your comments, see my comments above. I am not very familiar with the image protocols on WP, is there anything I can do about the last two images on your list, or will they have to be axed? Also, does File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg need a remedy? Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Unless there's another reason why the stamp would be PD, it will likely need to be removed. For the others, see above. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Dear Nikkimaria, I have deleted the stamp and the old photo of the statue (see above). I have replaced the stamp with the portrait by Schaow, which I believe is fit for purpose by WP standards. I am unclear of the import of your queries as regards 'published' in relation to File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg and File:Elijah_arranged_for_duet_1.jpg. Neither of these as far as I am aware appeared in a printed publication (although of course they may well have done - I don't know how to ascertain this). Both are in public collections (Bodleian and Library of Congress respectively). The latter has therefore the same status as File:Octetp1.jpg - does it therefore not simply need the US PD tag (which it has)? With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
    • {{PD-US}} is appropriate when the image was published, not simply created, before 1923. If neither of these images appeared in a printed publication, then that's probably not the most appropriate tag for them. (The same applies to File:Octetp1.jpg - because of its small size I thought it was a published edition, my apologies for missing that it is also a manuscript.) Depending on when the images were digitized, {{PD-US-unpublished}} may work. It's also possible that the holding libraries would have information on publication history. The portrait at least appears to have been used for CD and book covers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Dear Nikkimaria, thanks for your continuing advice. It looks like {{PD-US-unpublished}} is OK for the manuscripts. I am not sure why File:Mendelssohn_Bartholdy_1821.jpg, which is a portrait like the other portraits, can't be treated, as they are, simply as a work of art. Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• The other portraits are known to have been exhibited or published, unless I've overlooked something? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Begas portrait was given by the artist to a collector and is now in the Bodleian, where it has been exhibited. --Smerus (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, might be missing it on that page, but do we know when the Bodleian received it and when it was first exhibited? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Nikkimaria,

The Bodleian inform me as follows:

CARL JOSEPH BEGAS 1794-1854)

Felix Mendelssohn (1809-1847)

1821

Oil on canvas, 182 x 140 mm

Provenance: Given by the artist to Dr Johann Ludwig Caspar; given by the daughters of Dr Caspar to Lili Wach (1845-1910), the composer’s daughter, in 1896; her daughter, Maria Wach (1877-1964), from whom it was purchased by the Bodleian as part of her family papers and memorabilia purchase completed in 1970)

Exhibition: Oxford, 1997, no. 5

Literature: Crum and Ward Jones, vol. 2, p. 57 [Catalogue of the Mendelssohn papers in the Bodleian Library, Oxford: Printed music and books]

MS. M. Deneke Mendelssohn e. 5

Best, --Smerus (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, that's going to be a problem - if the earliest exhibit was 1997, it's not eligible for either PD-URAA or PD-US-unpublished. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• So, Nikkimaria, is there no alternative to removal? Can I change it into a file on English Wikipedia (as I seem to recall is sometimes done)? Or should I approach the Bodleian direct for some permission? If the latter, what exactly do I need from them? Pardon for my ignorance in such matters - Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• You would be able to upload locally on English Wikipedia if it were PD in the US but not elsewhere - at the moment we're struggling with the opposite. Given what you've described about the provenance, it seems unlikely the Bodleian would have held copyright, but they may have more information about publication history. Basically the issue is that the image currently falls into the 1978 to 2002 abroad bracket, which places copyright expiration in 2047; in order to use it we need to find information placing it in a different bracket, or attempt a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, I've now uploaded it as a file with fair use rationale at File:Portrait of Felix Mendelssohn (1821).jpg, and used this in the article (replacing the Commons file).--Smerus (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay. I'd suggest adding some of the provenance information from the Bodleian to the image description, but that seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Great, I've done this. Fingers crossed. Many thanks for your help and advice.--Smerus (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Double sharp

Likewise, having enthusiastically participate in the PR, I am very happy to support this excellent article. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

I've gone through this and have made various fixes. That article, on the whole, is very good, but at the moment, is not quite there in terms of FA standard. There is a lot of unattributed statements; a few lines of awkward writing; inconsistent formatting issues with he refs; POV claims...etc. Below are just a few:

Childhood

• But at that time, it was not considered proper... by whom? by Abraham and Felix, as stated in sentence, and in citation
• Could we replace "well-known pianist" with "successful pianist"? That would be inaccurate. She was not 'successful' in that she never had a career as a pianist. She was however well-known as a pianist to the Berlin cognoscenti, as the citation supports
  • Then I would say so. "Fanny was well-known as a pianist to the Berlin cognoscenti." Cassianto^Talk 11:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC) rewritten

Musical education

• "Like Mozart before him, Mendelssohn was regarded as a child prodigy."I have deleted this sentence as you don't like it. but the contents of this and the next section demonstrate it to be true
  • No. my point was "regarded" by who? See my opening gambit, above. Cassianto^Talk 11:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Early maturity

• "At age 16 Mendelssohn wrote his String Octet in E-flat major, the first work which showed the full power of his genius" --POV This doesn't seem to me to be POV, but anyway I have rewritten
  • "the first work which showed the full power of his genius" looks like a personal point of view, whichever way you cut it. The fix is better, thanks.

Meeting Goethe and conducting Bach

• "...the elderly Johann Wolfgang von Goethe." Why the adjective?to stress that one of the interesting aspects of the relationship was the difference in age. Not all readers will know Goethe's birth-date.
  • Elderly to him could be the difference of just a few years; or elderly in general, ie octogenarian). To clarify the point, perhaps say how much older they were and drop "elderly" altogether. rewritten

More to come. Cassianto^Talk 10:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks for these comments, see my responses above --Smerus (talk) 10:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • and my responses to your responses....--Smerus (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Düsseldorf

• "He had offers from both Munich and Leipzig for important musical posts, direction of the Munich Opera, the editorship of the prestigious music journal, the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung and director of the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra; he accepted the latter in 1835." -- should "including" be inserted between "musical posts" and "direction"? rewritten

Leipzig and Berlin

• "He was deluged by offers of music from rising composers and would-be composers" -- is there a way of avoiding the repeated word here? rewritten

Mendelssohn in Britain

• "He composed and performed, and he edited for British publishers the first critical editions..." -- and/and clash. I think this could be written with more precision. rewritten
• "Mendelssohn also worked..." The adverb doesn't work in a new paragraph. If you are insistent on it, I'd join with the previous one; but if you're inclined to agree, I'd delete it. agreed
• "at this period → "during this period" during is OK
• "and her musical husband Prince Albert" -- "musical husband" is inappropriate and somewhat irrelevant. "On subsequent visits Mendelssohn met Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert, both of whom greatly admired his music" is better.rewritten

Personality

• "Although the image was cultivated, especially after his death in the detailed family memoirs by his nephew Sebastian Hensel, of a man always equable, happy and placid in temperament, this was misleading."→ Was this Mendelssohn's image? "This was misleading" requires a modification to the prose before it. no it doesn't - Hensel helped to propagate an image which was misleading
  • I'm very sorry, but this sentence, to me, is unintelligible. I'm sure it's not me, so if you can't see it, then I think we would require another opinion on this. Cassianto^Talk 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC) Let's see what others say
    • How about: "Mendelssohn’s image was presented as that of a man always equable, happy and placid in temperament, particularly in the detailed family memoirs by his nephew Sebastian Hensel published after the composer’s death; this was misleading." -- your use of a comma at the end didn't help, if I'm honest. Cassianto^Talk 12:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Thoughts on the above, Smerus? Cassianto^Talk 08:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC) I am happy to go with something like this, and will rewrite accordingly
• "On one occasion in the 1830s, when his wishes had been crossed, "his excitement was increased so fearfully ... that when the family was assembled ... he began to talk incoherently in English. The stern voice of his father at last checked the wild torrent of words; they took him to bed, and a profound sleep of twelve hours restored him to his normal state". Who said this? Attribution needed. If you read the note you will see the source
  • Thanks, I've read the source, but why should I have to click away from where I'm reading to find who said it? It's an unnecessary distraction. What harm is there in attributing what's said in quote marks to the person who said it, in the text? Cassianto^Talk 20:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC) OK, have rewritten

• thanks again for these comments, and see my responses above. Looking forward to next batch. --Smerus (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• No problem. I'm enjoying this very much. I'm sorry for the stops and starts. Cassianto^Talk 20:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Style

• "Mendelssohn's compositional style can be seen as a reflection of his times. Schumann wrote of him "He is the Mozart of the nineteenth century, the most brilliant musician, the one who most clearly sees through the contradictions of the age and for the first time reconciles them." -- seen by who? Schumann? Attribute in the text to avoid future take asking "who". OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end
• "Secondly..." in a new para does not seem correct. Surely, this adverb is linked to to "first..." in the para before it? A new paragraph should be new altogether. OK, have rewritten
• "The absence of significant stylistic development during Mendelssohn's career makes it appropriate to consider his works by genre, rather than in order of composition." -- appears unsourced and ends in no citation. OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end

Early works

• Is there a reason why you link C.P.E Bach twice; once in this section and secondly in the musical education section? as mentioned above, I deliberately repeat links in the music section which have already been made in the life section. Rhis is for the convenience of readers, especially in long articles. I have seen this practised in other FA articles.
• "...which justify claims frequently made..." by who? as per citation - see my comments at end

Chamber music

• "In particular, his String Quartet No. 6, the last of his string quartets and his last major work – written following the death of his sister Fanny – is both powerful and eloquent." POV. Who described it as "both powerful and eloquent"? OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end

Piano music

• I may've missed it, but who is Glenn Stanley? OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end
• The last para of this section closes without a citation, it appears. OK, have rewritten, but see my comments at end

Opera

• "Although he never abandoned the idea of composing a full opera..." -- new para, new noun.sorry, don't understand the point you are seeking to make
  • Paragraphs should not start with pronouns. I see this has since been fixed. Cassianto^Talk 14:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I should finish this later. Cassianto^Talk 09:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I have made a number of changes as a consequence, not all of which I am entirely happy with. In particular your accent on physically naming in the sentence the authority whose name is clear from the citation seems to me to be over meticulous (I won't quite say nit-picking). I don't think the reader will be especially illuminated by having the name of Mercer-Taylor in a sentence, particularly as there is not a Peter Mercer-Taylor article in WP, and i don't feel that this is required by the FA standards. But let it be so. If any other editors are interested in commenting on this, I should be glad to see their views. A couple of sentences, which served merely as guidance to what was coming next but served no other vital purpose, I have deleted , or given a functional citation (e.g. to other piano pieces) although I am not convinced this is necessary. Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• If you weren't entirely happy with my edits, then you should've stuck to your guns; you should not have gone and fixed them to keep me happy and in doing so, I think you've undermined your own FAC. The naming of who said what is important as it eliminates the need to question who said it. What I've found particularly frustrating with this article is coming across a piece of quoted text, or an opinion, and finding that it is not beeing attributed to anyone. It makes me feel inclined to either add a {{who}} tag to find out who said it, go to the talk page to ask who said it, or needing to click away from where I'm reading in order to find out who said it, whether it be in a footnote or an outside source. As a reader I do not want to have to do that and you most certainly do not speak for me when you say you can't imagine a reader not being "especially illuminated" by having the name of [someone] in a sentence to whom the quote belongs to. I'm sorry you've felt the need to offer me a shit sandwich interms of feed back. I'll continue to read through and I'll switch to a weak support as it is clear a lot of time has been spent on this. Cassianto^Talk 14:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Please don't mistake me, I am very grateful for your opinions and considerations. I was prepared to over-ride my inclinations in some cases, and indeed I did so. If I felt convinced you had no grounds, I wouldn't have made the concessions I did. That's not the same as being convinced you were right, of course. As mentioned above, I'd welcome opinion or guidance on this from other editors. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe it's a stylistic choice to attribute statements in the text; it's one, I see, that you and I will just have to beg to differ on. Cassianto^Talk 14:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Lingzhi

• Relatively large number of Harv errors in refs. Suggest you get script: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Very many thanks, Lingzhi, for pointing this out, and for the useful tool. I believe all notes now corrected; there are some sources which have no links pointing to them. Best, ----Smerus (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed a couple. Note use of {{harvtxt}}. Good luck.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Aha, many thanks! Will deal with the others in this way.--Smerus (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Edwininlondon

Lots of activity today .. sorry if any of these comments were already addressed today:

• an infobox would be nice Sorry, I profoundly disagree
  • I vehemently oppose this. Cassianto^Talk 13:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
• deliberately decided -> can one decide un-deliberately? One cannot: I have changed
• (Letter to Felix Mendelssohn of 8 July 1829) -> I'm not sure this is needed here. Unnecessary detail have cut out 'Mendelssohn'
• regarded as a child prodigy.[by whom?] -> I'm fairly sure you are dealing with this, but just in case I'm highlighting it dealt with
• After the family moved to Berlin, all four Mendelssohn children -> I found this confusing because they moved to Berlin when he was 2 and the previous sentence describes activity at age 6 now rewritten to clarify
• He chose this position although -> somehow this decision is now discussed in 2 paragraphs. Better if it's just in 1.rewritten
• "historical concerts" -> a bit mysterious as to why this is a quote or by whom now rewritten to clarify
• he would "never cease to endeavour to gain his approval [...] although I can no longer enjoy it" -> mix of he and I No: the 'he' prefacing the quote clearly refers to Felix, and the 'I' is the quote as cited
• the King's request -> is that capital correct? Yes
• his former teacher Ignaz Moscheles -> not sure he needs to be reintroduced, I think Moscheles suffices dealt with
• (Letter to Rebecka Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Soden, 22 July 1844) -> not needed I think Agree to differ
• "where it is to be hoped there is still music, but no more sorrow or partings." -> check whole article against punctuation and quotation rules to be sure, but this one I think should end with ". No: Where quoted extract ends with a full stop, full stop should be inside quote marks
• jejune -> unusual word I think. Perhaps better to use a more common one? It's in any dictionary. We're not here
• "to assimilate the dynamic trajectory of "external form" to the "logical" unfolding of the story of the theme" -> quotations within quotations should be single quotes done
• "to assimilate the dynamic trajectory of "external form" to the "logical" unfolding of the story of the theme" -> source? citation is quite clear
• his three piano quartets, (1822–1825; -> I don't think you need that comma done
• its intellectual grasp -> two times grasp in same sentence In the next seentence I think, have changed
• Mendelssohn wrote the concert overture The Hebrides (Fingal's Cave) in 1830 -> both links not needed, both already linkedI have consciously relinked works and people when they first appeared in the first half of the article, for convenience of readers - applies to next 2 comments as well)
• was written for Ferdinand David. -> already linked
• of Beethoven, Brahms, and Bruch -> maybe run the article through duplinks
• nineteenth century and 19th century are used. Pick one now 19th, except quotes and source titles where 'nineteenth' is used
• "virtually alone" -> according to whom? as per the citation
• (including of course his own music) -> that's 2 sets of parentheses on same line, maybe better to rephrase done

Edwininlondon (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks for these comments, Edwininlondon - see my responses above.--Smerus (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I give my supporton prose. Great piece of work.Edwininlondon (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

A few minor points that occur to me on rereading since the PR:

• Childhood
  • "a pianist well-known to Berlin" – I don't think this wants the hyphen. If I have it aright it's "a well-known pianist" but "a pianist who is well known" agreed, done
• Meeting Goethe and conducting Bach
  • "the revival of J. S. Bach's music" – having already mentioned him by surname alone in this paragraph I don't think you need his initials here. agreed, done
• Düsseldorf
  • "Mozart's Don Giovanni" – Mozart has already been mentioned in the text and the blue link ought to be moved up to there. agreed, done
  • "direction of ...the editorship of ...and director of" – for consistency, perhaps "director of" should be "direction of". agreed, done
  • "he accepted the latter in 1835" – an old-fashioned pedant (e.g. me) might object that you can't have the latter of three; other people might tell the pedant to get a life. uh, far be it from me, of course, to suggest to anyone, least of all you, Tim, to get a new life, but....
  • the word "amongst" appears nine times in the text, and one begins to notice it after a while. Perhaps a few plain "amongs" here and there? This is not the first time you have caught me out in my 'amongst' addiction. Believe me, I am now regularly taking the medicine, and have sought to eradicate the traces of my depravity in the article
• Mendelssohn in Britain
  • "In the course of his ten visits to Britain during his life" – as he made no posthumous ones I might rejig this slightly on the lines of "Mendelssohn made a total of ten visits to Britain, totalling about 20 months; he won..." agreed, done
• Symphonies
  • "orchestra of the Royal Philharmonic Society" – the RPS wasn't Royal yet. corrected
• Other orchestral music
  • Second para: if we're giving Calm Sea and Preposterous Voyage its German title in brackets we might do the same for The Fair Melusine. agreed, done

Nothing to frighten the horses there, and I am very pleased to add my support for the promotion of this fine article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It has sent me to my shelves to get down some Mendelssohn CDs: deeply enjoyable, so thank you, Smerus. – Tim riley talk 13:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim for your comments and support. My meta-comments above in tangerine. I too have been relistening, just today to the op. 80 quartet, which so violently disproves that M. had 'lost his mojo', and that he might yet have breached new musical ear- and mind-scapes.Smerus (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• (LOL at "Preposterous Voyage"!) Just on a personal note, while I agree that the charges laid against most of the late works certainly do not apply to M's Op. 80, when listening to it just now I kept getting involuntarily reminded of Beethoven's Op. 95, and unlike the reminiscences of it and Op. 132 that permeate M's Op. 13, this resemblance doesn't entirely work in M's favour for me. Really sorry for providing more of the traditional equivocation, though I must say that I deeply enjoyed it despite these involuntary reminisces. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

The sources themselves are generally fine, but there are various formatting issues that need to be attended to:

• Page range formats should be consistent throughout. Refs 34 and 131 are a couple of examples of non-standard formats but there are others.
• Some page ranges (47, 53, 55 et al) include hyphens which should be ndashes
• There's variation in the ways that retrieval dates are presented – we have "Retrieved", "retrieved" and "accessed". I suppose this is because sometimes you use cite templates and sometimes not; whether or not you use them, the formats should be consistent.
• Ref 72 is missing a p. number (the citation is to a two-volume work)
• The formats of the online non-Harvard citations are likewise somewhat varied. The essential elements are title, publisher and retrieval date; these are not always immediately clear – in 183 for example. In some instances I think you are confusing title with publisher, as for example in 177, where "Music and the Holocaust" is the title – the publisher is "World ORT". Cite templates have their limitations, but they do help help in achieving consistency in citation formats. I would format 177 thus, using cite web template:

• 177. "Music and the Holocaust: Carl Orff". World ORT. Retrieved 3 December 2017. 

• Can Werner 1963 truly be described as a "modern" biography in 2017?
  • It's eleven years younger than I am, so of course it's modern. Tim riley talk 18:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Can "Schmooze" be justified as a high-quality reliable source?

I wish I had time to read and review the text, as I would normally enjoy doing for any composer article, but other pressures prevent this at the moment. I'm pleased to see that the article is currently well supported by reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian for making the time to review sources. Nikkimaria very kindly helped with the dash/hyphen issue for me. I think I have now dealt with all the other issues. Hensel (1884) as a citation referred to the whole shebang - I will seek and add source that confirms that Hensel was piously lenient to his uncle. Best--Smerus (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I mentioned 183, above, as one of the citations that was somewhat confusingly formatted, with no clear title or publisher. It's since become 182. My view is that the current format should be replaced by a simple citation to the book, and the link to the download included as an external link. Thus, I'd replace current 182 with Sheppard, Elizabeth (1891). Charles Auchester. Chicago: A.C. McClurg and Co. OCLC 2327181. . I would then add Full text of Charles Auchester by Elizabeth Sheppard (1891) to the External links. I think the remaining formatting issues are all resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks Brian, I will revise accordingly, all now revised.--Smerus (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I'm thrilled to see an article about such an important figure here at FAC. A few of the questions I raise have also been raised on another FAC about a classical composer; they may come from a lack of knowledge about classical music combined with a MOS that is not well-suited to the topic!

• First thing's first: File:Portrait of Felix Mendelssohn (1821).jpg. I'd whap PD-old on it and be done with it, but if we're sure that it's within copyright (bizarre though that seems to me), then it must be used in accordance with the NFCC. The problem is that (I'm sorry to say) this use is not acceptable under the NFCC. There's no way that a biography of a contemporary figure would get through FAC with a non-free image of them as a child, unless there was some particular reason to believe that their childhood appearance was very important for the article.Well, i am following the advice of Nikkimaria (above) on this, but if things get hairy I will try PD-OLD. I find the whole issue of copyright categories very confusing
• "listings of recordings at amazon.com" I'd exclude this, but if it is being included, it would be "Amazon.com".rewritten
• "his Overture and" Why caps?It was published specifically as an Overture, it was not e.g. a generic introduction to a suite
• "and incidental music for A Midsummer Night's Dream," Slightly cryptic; in the sentence, "Midsummer Night's Dream" refers to the play, but the link is to the incidental music.rewritten
• "the overture The Hebrides," Why italics? Would speech marks not be typical for shorter pieces like this?music titles in italics, as for books, is the norm
• "his mature Violin Concerto, and his String Octet" I'm not sure how consistent this usage is with the MOS; are they "Short Works" or Long Works?this format is the norm
• "his Violin Concerto" Again this format is the norm
• Feel free to ignore this, but I would be inclined to merge "surname" and "childhood"- perhaps too "musical education", or the early parts of it.I feel free :-)
• "manuscripts which she bequeathed" that? I'm Ok with which
• "his String Octet in E-flat major, a" As above I'm Ok with music titles in the article
• "as "mark[ing] the beginning of his maturity as a composer."[26] This" Is that consistent with MOS:LQ? All quotes in the article are consistent with MOS:LQ
• "This Octet and his Overture to Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream," As above, capitalisation and linking issuesas above; linking rewritten
• "famous Wedding March.)" Speech marks OK
• "The Overture is perhaps" Now this is in italics; I confess I'm struggling to understand the formatting!corrected
• "of Mendelssohn's opera, Die Hochzeit des Camacho." Was that M's only opera? If not, surely the comma should be removed? (If it was, please ignore.) corrected
• "friend and correspondent, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe" Again, unless he was the only friend and correspondent, presumably the comma should be dropped? corrected
• "overture Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage, (Op. 27, 1828) and" Should the comma not appear after the parenthetical phrase? corrected
• "references which Mendelssohn" that? I'm Ok with which
• "score which he" Perhaps add a comma after score? corrected
• "the editorship of the prestigious music journal, the Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung" Again, lose the comma? There's more than one prestigious music journal. (I'm also slightly puzzled about how this fits in to the sentence; was this part of his role in Leipzig or in Munich?) corrected
• "of 'historical concerts' featuring" Why single quotes? corrected
• "Schubert's Ninth Symphony and sent" Caps again seems right to me
• "his oratorio Paulus, (the English" Is that comma necessary? seems right to me
• " music for productions of Sophocles's Antigone (1841) and Oedipus at Colonus (1845), A Midsummer Night's Dream (1843) and Racine's Athalie (1845)." Some of these are the "cryptic" links I mentioned earlier, some aren't! corrected
• "including string players Ferdinand David and Joseph Joachim and music theorist Moritz Hauptmann" the string players and the music theorist corrected
• "met Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert, (himself a composer), who" Either lose the brackets or the first comma, surely. corrected
• "soloist in Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 4 and" Caps/speech marks/etc. I think this is OK
• "sorrow or partings."[71]" Again, I'd put that period outside of the quotemarks no, per MOS - this is the end of the sentence quoted, therefore comes inside the quote marks
• "temper which" Comma, or else change which to that? I'm happy with which

Stopping there for now; very engaging so far. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Very many thanks for this scrutiny, see above in tangerine for my comments/actions. I look forward to your next batch of comments. --Smerus (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A few more:

• "Berlioz's overture Les francs-juges "the orchestration" Caps corrected
• "Meyerbeer's opera Robert le diable "I conside" Again corrected
• "professor of history" Your other mentions of professorships capitalise them, unless I am missing something. "Professor Surname", but " a professor of something", I think
• "called 'Green Books' of" Why single quotes? corrected
• "Meyerbeer's Robert le diable – an" Caps corrected
• "opera which musically" that? agreed
• "two features which characterized" Ditto agreed
• "at the keyboard -"every morning," Is that dash right? corrected
• "other 'modernists' sought" Why single quotes? corrected
• Your blockquote style is apparently inconsistent; also, is the wikilink in the second necessary? More generally- you seem to alternate on whether you capitalise the R of romantic[ism], and link it in several places. I try to put long quotes in blockquotes, shorter ones in text. I use R for Romanticism, but the quote here uses r. I have removed link
• "the String Octet (1825), the Overture A Midsummer Night's Dream (1826)" Similar worries to the above. sorted, I think
• Generally, the music section has a lot of names of songs etc., so I'm not going to comment on all of them; just, generally, I'm raising the question! I also note that you shouldn't be worried about including redlinks if any of these pieces are notable; some editors seem to have a real aversion to redlinks, and that is regrettable! I will write short articles about some of these pieces over the holiday period
• "These four works show an intuitive command of form, harmony, counterpoint, colour, and compositional technique, which justify claims frequently made that Mendelssohn's precocity exceeded even that of Mozart in its intellectual grasp." This doesn't feel very neutral cite clarified
• "well-known Wedding March, was" Why italics? corrected
• Songs Without Words is introduced several times corrected
• "and their overwhelming popularity has itself caused many critics to underrate their musical value" That doesn't feel very neutral cite clarified
• As example? ?
• "the domination of Christianity."[149]" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotes corrected
• "five settings of psalms for" Would that not be "The Psalms"? I'm not sure. rewritten
• "his version of Psalm 42" Again- a cryptic link.rewritten
• "song composition."[152] Many" Again, I'd put the period outside the quotes, but may be wrong. corrected
• Is extemporise jargon? I had to look it up! A dictionary word, could be used for speech and for music, not jargon i would say
• "as the 'classics') he" Why single quotes? rewritten
• "as well, of course, as" Editorialising! corrected
• "Such criticism of Mendelssohn for his very ability – which could be characterised negatively as facility" This feels like editorialising Heine's quote is a clear example of how criticism for ability "could be characterised negatively as facility"; the comment is therefore I believe a straightforward elaboration of the quote rather than editorializing
• "his popularity and his Jewish origins irked Wagner sufficiently to damn Mendelssohn with faint praise," This too. cite given
• "This was the start of a movement to downgrade Mendelssohn's status as a composer which lasted almost a century, the echoes of which still survive today in critiques of Mendelssohn's supposed mediocrity.[n 10]" This is definitely editorialising. Do you have a source for these claims? You cite an example, but we'd need a source identifying the trend; more than that, I'm not sure it could be uncritically presented in Wikipedia's neutral voice. I worry that the article could be read as coming from a particular perspective; one of the elements of that perspective might be to "rescue" Mendelssohn from "unfair" criticisms. See my comments at end. I've relegated this to a note and have rewritten
• "Some readers, however, have interpreted Nietzsche's characterization of Mendelssohn as a 'lovely incident' as condescending.[176]" Why single quotes? corrected
• "Mendelssohn's Wedding March from" Italics again corrected
• When you mention M's popularity in England, do you perhaps mean Britain? You switch to British further down the paragraph. corrected
• "Mendelssohn's sacred choral music, particularly the smaller-scale works, remains popular in the choral tradition of the Church of England." Reference?deleted
• "Such opinions are evidence of how a more nuanced appreciation of Mendelssohn's work has developed over the last 50 years, together with the publication of a number of biographies placing his achievements in context." This does not feel neutral. see my comments at end
• "All of Mendelssohn's oeuvre – including the most popular works such as the Violin Concerto and the Italian Symphony – has been explored more deeply, and prior concepts about the Victorian conventionality of the oratorio Elijah have been shed.[n 12] The frequently intense and dramatic world of Mendelssohn's chamber works has been more fully recognised. Virtually all of Mendelssohn's published works are now available on CD, and his works are frequently heard in the concert hall and on broadcasts.[198]" Again, this feels like editorialising; the neutrality is questionable, and the source is not clear, as examples are cited rather than scholars making a case for the view. see my comments at end

I think this article is a real achievement, and I personally enjoyed the passing references to various philosophers. In addition to a few writing questions I've raised, I think the neutrality towards the end of the article needs considering a little more closely; I think your perspective shines through a little at the end, which is probably more suited to a professional encyclopedia than a Wikipedia article! I may be wrong here (and may be wrong in a few of my suggestions above), but I do hope that my comments are useful regardless. (Also, please double-check my edits, but I can't see any being controversial.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks again for these further comments. On reading the last sections of the article again in the light of your notes I have sensed that editorialising could be construed in some places and have rewritten/edited accordingly, including addition of citations where appropriate.--Smerus (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Are you able to revisit this soon, Josh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Sorry to be a bore, but I'm not comfortable supporting promotion at present; the use of a non-free image is bothering me (and I don't want to butt heads with Nikkimaria by suggesting that it should be marked as PD!), while I still feel that there are some style problems that shouldn't be present in a FA: for example, quote marks on some blockquotes but not on others, inconsistent capitalisation of romanticism (and related words), and inconsistent capitalisation of professor. I also feel there's some that/which confusion and some odd commas, but they're perhaps not the biggest problems in the world. I do wonder, too, whether there's still a particular perspective that the article is coming from, but I'll leave that to other reviewers. To be clear: I do think that the article is very strong, but I'm not convinced it's quite where it needs to be; it is, obviously, much harder to write an article on such a major figure, and I have never attempted it, so there is naturally much to commend! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
      • And there are many very capable editors who know a great deal about these things who have already supported the article, so maybe I'm getting hung up on nothing. I would not think it at all improper if the FA coordinators chose to afford my worries little weight. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, I would make the following meta-comments:

• There is only one blockquote which includes quote marks at each end. This quote relays a conversation between Goethe and Zelter. It is not appropriate to remove the quote marks in these circumstances, as they are necessary to distinguish the speakers.
• I give romanticism with a lower case R where it is so used in quotes. My understanding is that it is not acceptable to repunctuate quotes - unless someone can indicate to me a WP guidance which says otherwise.
• On 'which' and 'that', I sometimes agree with you (in which cases I have changed the text) and sometimes don't. I hope you may agree to differ.
• Professor - I have made one further correction. I don't believe there are any further miscapitalizations in the article, but if they are feel free to correct them accordingly.
• On the issue of the picture - blowed if I understand the issues here, so I am always prepared to be guided by those who have more experience. I don't in fact comprehend how an image of a picture painted so long ago could possibly be construed as non-free, but I am not a copyright lawyer
• As mentioned above I have since your previous marks extensively rewritten and recast parts of the article where I feel editorialising could possibly be construed, with the intention of maintaining neutrality.

Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Point taken on the blockquotes; apologies for that mistake. On romanticism: I'm not talking about the quotes. I might be wrong (and I self-reverted) but I counted five instances with the lower-case r- this was one example of what felt like little imperfections that don't belong in a FA. And on the image: currently, it is included as a non-free image. It's usage must therefore meet the non-free content criteria. The present usage quite clearly does not. And I want to stress again that I am not opposing promotion. I just do not feel that I can support at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Image discussion

• Josh Milburn, it seems that we seriously differ now only about the image; specifically that you feel it does not meet the non-free content criteria. I have now gone through WP:NFCC and WP:FUR. I would be grateful if you could indicate where it fails the criteria, as whilst it may be clear to you it is not alas to me. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• It fails NFCC#8. Readers can surely have a full understanding of the topic without seeing a picture of M when he was young; we wouldn't be having this conversation if this was a living or recently deceased person, as no one would have thought to include a non-free image of the subject when young. Given the age of the image, there's also every chance that it fails NFCC#1. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Josh Milburn, I must disagree with your interpretation(s). NFCC#8 reads "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." As it as essential part of FM's story that he was a child genius, a picture of him as a child does indeed (in my opinion, if not in yours) significantly enhance the reader's sense of what is being discussed. The age of the image has nothing to do with NFCC#1, which deals with the use of alternatives, of which none are known to me or any other source I have examined. Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I did not really want to get into a back-and-forth about this issue, and that is one of the reasons that I did not explicitly oppose. I am not going to get into that back and forth now, but will suggest that this image from a 1906 book may be a suitable alternative. Nikki? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - the issue was we couldn't find an early publication, so that would solve that problem nicely. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Two points:

• Thanks for the alternative proposal, but it's an extremely poor and in fact rather crude interpretation of the original picture, and therefore not attractive or appropriateas an illustration to the article; but
• It was published in Boston in 1906. Can this be taken as evidence that the present article image was published in the US at that time. In which case we would have no problem with the original - or would we?

I have looked at a few other artworks illustrating FA articles. E.g.

• File:George Frideric Handel by Balthasar Denner.jpg is flagged as {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}, with the rubric "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details." No evidence is offered that the work was published or registered in the US before January 1, 1923.
• Same goes for File:Mozart family crop.jpg, and a number of others.

I wonder why, therefore, the original image used in the article (File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy 1821.jpg), which I changed on Nikkimaria's advice, can't be reinstated? --Smerus (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Not to get into an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but on a quick glance the sources provided for both of those images support publication and/or exhibition before 1923. (The "faithful reproductions" language refers to the fact that under US law, if you take a photo of a public-domain work, you don't get a copyright on the photo). If you contend that the image JM suggested is a copy of the original, then yes it can be taken as evidence, but if it's a reinterpretation then the issue is more complicated - see here. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, Josh Milburn, I believe one can very strongly contend that JM's image is a copy (albeit not a very good one) of the original of File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy 1821.jpg. There is no 'reinterpretation' of stance, expression or other significant detail: the complex hair waves are closely imitated, as is the neckline of the garment, and the background is blank as in the original. I have consequently retagged File:Mendelssohn Bartholdy 1821.jpg with {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-1923}}, and am reinstating it in the article. I hope this may be acceptable to all. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have no objection to this, but leave it to Nikki to "sign off". It may be worth spelling this out on the image page so there's no further disagreement if Nikki is happy. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, this needs to be detailed there. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done, as suggested. Many thanks to you both for helping to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion. All clear now (?) Ian Rose --Smerus (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations

Winter War

Nominator(s): Manelolo (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The Winter War, fought between Finland and Soviet Russia in 1939-1940 with the David barely holding onto its sovereignty against the Goliath. It was a FAC last time in 2009, closely missing promotion (after amazing article development by Peltimikko). Before that, it was approved as an A and a GA article. In 2010, its GA status was kept. I spent over 100 edits on it recently to 1) reformat the reflist correctly, 2) copyedit the whole article, 3) remove unverifiable information, 4) balance structuring, 5) address issues in last FA review etc. etc. Finland turned 100 years old a week ago which partly spurred my editing frenzy. Manelolo (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Holidays: Will be quiet until 2018 arrives, but will handle comments after that again! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Manelolo (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Generally suggest including more legends in map captions

Will work on it later this evening. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Done.

• Images with the PD-Finland50 tag should all include a US PD tag (some do, some don't) as well as information on the first publication of the image

Added US-PD to the one's missing it. First publication date would be when the archives were opened up and everything released to the public domain? Don't know the exact date, but assuming this was fairly quickly after the wars. If the pics are incompatible, an option is to replace them with definite CC BY 4.0 pics from here [8]. Shouldn't take more than a day. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, do you have a source indicating that the opening of the archive correlated with everything being released to the public domain? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Talvisota_7th_Army_1939.PNG: which of the rationales from the Russian tag is believed to apply? Same with File:Kirov1941-1.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Red Army Finnish flag Winter War.png and Red_army_party_convention_winter_war.png as well most likely? No. 3 "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication" would be my fair assessment of the rationale. Manelolo (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

In that case, when and where was first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I decided to boldly WP:TNT the picture situation since they would not clearly stand the test of time (or this review). I removed all the pictures with contentious licenses and started replacing them with higher quality CC BY 4.0 versions. Even found a couple of the ones already on the article. Will also search for Soviet pictures with a proper license. Apologies! I was completely oblivious to the outdated licensing and just concentrated on prose and refs. Manelolo (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, ping me when images are stable and I'll re-review. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, stable. Manelolo (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Like the new legends, but the XX/XXX etc is not visible at present size - suggest scaling up these maps

Thx Nikkimaria! Upscaled detailed maps by 2, overall maps by 1.5-1.75. Manelolo (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Image licensing now looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 21: Harvard error
• Ref 82: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
• Ref 90: lacks page number
• Ref 91: ditto
• Ref 104: ditto
• Ref 171: hyphen issue
• Ref 172: lacks p. number
• Ref 178: hyphen issue
• Ref 198: lacks p. number
• Ref 202: ditto

Either fixed or removed as unnecessary.

• English sources: I can't find citations to the following listed sources:

• Lieven
• Nenye
• Sandser
• Soviet Information Bureau 1948
• Tuuri

Moved to further reading or removed.

• Foreign sources:

*There are two instances in the sources of Leskinen and Juutilainen 1999 in the sources, but these don't seem to be differentiated in the citations Deleted the obsolete one.

*No citations to Manninen 2002 Moved to further reading.

*Why is the Krivosheyev book listed as a foreign source? The book seems to be in English. Good question, moved to English.

• General: There is inconsistency in showing publisher locations in the book sources. Either show all, or none.

All removed.

Other than the above, the sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx for the review, I think I have addressed all of your issues. Manelolo (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

Will take some time to read it trough! More comments will follow.

• and the nation had nearly solved its problems with extreme political movements.[46] – I don't like this sentence. First, it does not seem to be entirely neutral. Second, I do not feel well-informed here: The wording "solved" implies that the government did something actively to reject those movements, but what was it?

Hmm, amended to a bit more neutral/mellow. There were counter-actions by the government (surely, as with anything resembling a rebellion), but was trying to keep from it bloating.

• The new Bolshevik Russian government was insecure, – Insecure about what? I am not sure what this should tell me.

Amended to "fragile".

• The new Bolshevik Russian government was insecure, and civil war had broken out in Russia in November 1917. Thus, the Soviet Union (USSR) recognized the new Finnish government just three weeks after the Finnish declaration of independence.[51] – First, the wording "the Finnish declaration of independence" seems a bit repetitive here, as this declaration was just introduced. Reading flow would be nicer if at least "the Finnish" would be omitted. Second, can you really name the reasons why it was only three weeks? Wouldn't it be safer to write something like "Thus, the Soviet Union (USSR) abstained from military measures and recognized the new Finnish government just three weeks after the declaration"? To have "just three weeks" only as an additional fact?

Amended to a) reduce repetition & help flow b) explain that the recognition came so quickly because the Bolsheviks couldn't hold onto all of the former empire's ground

• which culminated in a failed coup attempt in 1932. Thereafter the ultra-nationalist Patriotic People's Movement had a minor presence—at most 14 seats out of 200 in the Finnish parliament. – I am not sure what the latter sentence is supposed to add to the big picture. What has the minor presence of the ultra-nationalist Movement to do with the failed coup attempt? Did the coup attempt increase or decrease this presence?

Hmm, tried to rephrase it a bit for logical continuity, see if its ok!

• You write relations between the two countries remained strained, but a few sentences later an almost identical sentence appears: However, relations between the two countries remained largely de minimis.

True, clunkier de minimis phrase removed.

• Link to the full reference of "Hallberg 2006" not working

Fixed with source review!

• From a Soviet point of view, the boundary with Finland reflected an internal border of the Russian Empire that was never thought to become an international boundary when drawn.[59] – Not sure, but this sentence appears quite strange to me. Of course, after they conquered Finland they never thought of giving it up again. This sentence seems a bit meaningless and could possibly be omitted. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

A late addition by another user. Since WP is a communal project, I did my best to keep it and integrated it into the sentence before it! See if better.

Thx for the review so far! I've tried to address your points! Manelolo (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. I now read the article thoroughly and also compared with the version of the German Wikipedia, which is already featured. I now feel that there is still quite a lot to do here. I will start with the "Background" section.

• these attempts ruined Russia's relations with the Finns – since Finland did not exist at the time, is "Finns" referring to Baltic Finns? If yes, please link it. Refers to Finns. Finland has existed since medieval times, though not as an independent state. Linked.
• The 1920s and early 1930s proved a politically unstable time in Finland. – This sounds like these unstable times only started in the 1920s. I think they were the direct result of the civil war, which divided the society. True, amended to "The period after the Civil War till the early 1930s" for extra accuracy.
• The whole fourth paragraph of "Politics in Finland" lists several details, but during my first read, I wasn't really able to interpret those, because context is lacking. And I think, for the context, there should be much more about the civil war, which was only very briefly mentioned previously. Wasn't it the civil war which devided the society into "reds" and "whites", and that the continuing rivalries after the vicotry of the "whites" were the origin of these political instabilities (and did also stressed the relations with the Soviet Union)? The article really should explain background like that. I would add 1) who was fighting who in the civil war, 2) what the outcome was of the civil war and 3) how the civil war affected the further development of the country. Addressed by adding a bit more detail per your suggestions.
• In 1918 and 1919, Finnish volunteer forces conducted two unsuccessful military incursions across the Soviet border, the Viena and Aunus expeditions. – Again, background is lacking. It would really add to the understanding of this war! What was the goal of these volunteer forces, why attacing the Soviet Union? You should mention Greater Finland in this context. Amended per suggestions.
• The whole background section seems a bit biased: It has a section "Politics of Finland", but very little from the Soviet point of view. Especially: What were the exact reasons for starting the war in the first place for the Soviet Union? In the case war is braking out, Stalin thought there would be 1) a direct thread to Leningrad due to pro-Finland separatists in Karelia, 2) Finland and the Balticum would allow invasion into Russia, both via land and via see, 3) Coastal defenses of Finland and the balkan states would restrict the Soviet fleet. (Carl van Dyke, 1997, p. 13 ff) True, amended headings accordingly to be less biased. I am hesitant to add much more this section since there is an actual Background of the Winter War article linked under the heading. But added slightly more to Stalin's ambitions and views (incl. Van Dyke's assertion), expanded paragraph from lede into the Shelling of Mainila subheading on Soviet conquest motivation and amended points here and there.
• The Soviet offer divided the Finnish government, but was eventually rejected. This seems to be lacking the reasons which lead to the rejection. The German article states: The Finnish secret service informed about the poor constitution of the red army, and this is why Finnish Foreign minister didn't believe the Soviets would start a war (Van Dyke, p. 19 ff). Added "but was eventually rejected with respect to the opinion of the public and Parliament." The claim by Van Dyke might be true for the foreign minister Eljas Erkko's opinion.
• Just after the start of the war, the Finnish government resigned and was replaced by a new government under Risto Ryti, because of misjudgement of the thread of war. This is also an important bit which is missing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Mentioned in the Start of the invasion and political operations subheading. Amended it a bit: "In a further reshuffling, Aimo Cajander's cabinet was replaced Risto Ryti and his cabinet, with Väinö Tanner as foreign minister, due to opposition to Cajander's pre-war politics."

Thx again Jens Lallensack! I think I have addressed all of your concerns. Manelolo (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kges1901

Good work on this article. One question:

• Next, the Red Army strengthened its artillery and deployed tanks and the 10th Rifle Division forward to the Taipale front. Could you verify that Trotter 2002 states this? The 10th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) did not fight in the war, but the Finnish 10th Division fought at Taipele. Kges1901 (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thx for the vigilant eye! Very true, it was the 150th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) that reinforced Taipale, must have been a typo. Manelolo (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Aftermath: However, not all of these reforms had been completed by the time Germans initiated Operation Barbarossa 15 months later The entire first paragraph of the Soviet section is missing a citation, and may be incomplete.Kges1901 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Cite had been accidentally deleted. Fetched it back from history. Manelolo (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed. Next year I may create some of those redlinked Soviet division articles. Kges1901 (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

• Reference no. 59 needs to be corrected. It states "p. 226]]". The right bracket needs to be removed. Done.
• Chapter "Soviet–Finnish relations and politics" is a lengthy text that spans a period from 1918 to 1922, without any citation until no. 56. It states "After Soviet involvement in the Finnish Civil War in 1918, no formal peace treaty was signed. In 1918 and 1919, Finnish volunteer forces conducted two unsuccessful military incursions across the Soviet border, the Viena and Aunus expeditions. In 1920, Finnish communists based in the USSR attempted to assassinate the former Finnish White Guard Commander-in-Chief, Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim. On 14 October 1920, Finland and Soviet Russia signed the Treaty of Tartu, confirming the new Finnish–Soviet border as the old border between the autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland and Imperial Russia proper. In addition, Finland received Petsamo, with its ice-free harbour on the Arctic Ocean. Despite the signing of the treaty, relations between the two countries remained strained". At least one or two references for these claims should be included.

Added two sources dealing specifically with that period.

• The maps are huge. I would shrink them by at least 20%.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, Nikkimaria suggested upscaling during image review so that the legends (XX, XXX etc) are visible which I agree helps someone who wants to follow the pics in detail while reading. Thus, I shrunk them by 10%.

Thx for the review! Your points addressed so far. Manelolo (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Chapter "Battles in Kainuu" has an image with a caption that says: "Soviet T-26 Model 1937 advancing aggressively, as described by the photographer, on the eastern side of Kollaa River during the battle of Kollaa". "Aggressively" is not a neutral word here. Who described it as such? If the author of the photograph called it as such, it should be in quotes. Amended as suggested.
• Chapter "Soviet Air Forces" states: "The largest bombing raid against the capital of Finland, Helsinki, occurred on the first day of the war. The capital was bombed only a few times thereafter. All in all, Finland lost five percent of total man-hour production time because of Soviet bombings, considered a low amount. Nevertheless, Soviet air attacks affected thousands of civilians, killing 957.[146]". This is unclear to me: did 957 civilians die from bombing raids in all of Finland or just in Helsinki alone? Amended to be absolute clear: all of Finland is meant.
• Several "red links" are visible in the article. Just to name a few: 155th Rifle Division, 104th Mountain Rifle Division, 123rd Rifle Division, 88th and 122nd Rifle Divisions. A couple of red links are OK, but since there are quite a few of them here, I would either write an article about them or simply unlink them.

Hmm, I was thinking the same, but then again Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Red_links & WP:RED suggest that red linking is a positive effect: "In prose, if it seems that the level of red linking is overlinking, remember that red links have been found to be a driving force that encourage contributions." The five you mentioned are the only red links in the whole article and a lot of Soviet divisions have an article for them, so I surmised that this is an ok level in terms of redlinking and being a driving force for article creation. Opinions?

• • OK, I agree on this one.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Chapter "Shelling of Mainila". Maybe you should add a link to false-flag operation for this incident?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Good point, amended as suggested. Manelolo (talk) 10:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Another thing I noticed: you need to include a "Casualties" section in the article. Casualties are currently only mentioned in the Infobox military conflict. These figures should be added in the "Aftermath" section in the text, as well.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

True, too obvious for me to realize! The casualties are pretty well estimated already in prose in the infobox notes, so won't be a hassle. I'll work on it next year, now off to holidays. Cheers! (added temporary exclamations to your msg as a reminder for now) Manelolo (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Added casualties to the Aftermath section within respective nation.

Thx 3E1I5S8B9RF7! All of your points have been addressed now. Manelolo (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Support
All my concerns have been addressed. I think this article meets the FA criteria. Great job.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: Nice work with this article. It looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• please check for consistency regarding English variation. I see "centre" (British English) but also "center" (US), and "favorite" (US) Done.
• per the above, "buildup" or "build-up"? Done.
• per the above, "mockup" or "mock-up"? Done.
• "The force was later divided into the 7th and 13th Army" --> "The force was later divided into the 7th and 13th Armies"? Done.
• "guerilla" --> "guerrilla" Done.
• In the Works consulted section is there an OCLC number that could be added for the Langdon-Davies work? Found and added!

Thx a lot AustralianRupert! All suggestions amended. Manelolo (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Family Trade

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I present Family Trade, a short-lived American reality series that aired eight episodes on the Game Show Network in 2013, chronicling the daily activities of a GMC/Ford used car dealership in Middlebury, Vermont that employs the barter system in many sales of their vehicles. I have no idea why I'm so fascinated with this show; it's probably due to my affinity for a similar show, Pawn Stars (speaking of which, if the show had aired on the History Channel instead, I'm fairly confident it would have had a longer run). I've spent a long time extensively researching this show as best I can (even snapping a photo of the G. Stone Motors dealership while passing through Middlebury this summer), and I now believe it is the most extensive summary of the show one can find on the Internet. Considering this is what the article looked like when I began my work, to quote Gardner Stone himself, "I'm proud of what we have built." I think this final step will help polish the article even further and bring forward any final improvements. As always, all feedback is welcomed and greatly appreciated. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this sentence (The dealership is operated by its founder, Gardner Stone, his son and daughter, Todd and Darcy, and General Manager Travis Romano.) in the lead, I would substitute “business” for “dealership” as the word “dealership” was used in the prior sentence.
• I would include information on the show’s critical reception in the lead, and possibly a short part on its ratings.
• In the “Format” section, please use Gardner’s full name on the first use and provide a short descriptive phrase to identify him to the reader as this is the first time you mention him in the body of the article.
• I am not sure about the following phrasing (to be made that might otherwise end up in vain), particularly the “otherwise end up in vain” part.
• For this sentence (The customers then negotiate the value of their items, usually with Gardner, but occasionally also with other members of the shop's staff.), I do not believe you need “then”.
• Provide a descriptive phrase to introduce Darcy and Travis when you first introduce them. Also, I would use Travis’ full name when you first reference him.
• I would identify that Eli Frankel is an executive from Lionsgate.
• I would change (ordering a pilot show) to (ordering a pilot episode).
• For this part (GSN then proceeded to order eight episodes of the series on August 9, 2012.), I do not think you need “then”.
• I would link Middlebury on its first use in the body of the article.

Great work with this article. My review is focused on the prose. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your review. I have addressed all your comments. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Very little to raise here. Ref 5: I imagine that "Addison County Independent" is a printed source and should therefore be italicised. Otherwise.sources look in good order and of the requisite reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I have amended this issue. Thank you for your review! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96

• Wikilink upfronts to Upfront (advertising) the first time it is mentioned
• "however, on February 1, GSN pushed the premiere date back a week to March 12." - I am assuming that no reasons were given for the change of debut, and if so, it should be clear
• Consider archiving the remaining sources that have not already been archived.

Overall the majority of the prose is easy to read and engaging. Just the minor issues from me. MWright96 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@MWright96: Archived the majority of the remaining links, fixed the two minor prose issues. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my queries Ben. Nothing else from me so I am more than happy to lend my support for this article to be promoted. Good work! MWright96 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Dragoon Saga

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Panzer Dragoon Saga, a 1998 role-playing game for the Sega Saturn. Saga is the most critically acclaimed Saturn game and appears on many lists of the best games of all time, but was released in very limited quantities and few people got to play it.

The article became a GA a couple of years ago. Since then, I've greatly expanded the Reception section, restructured the article a bit, and tightened up the references. Popcornduff (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll add comments as I go through.

• Not keen on "have effects including". How about something like "The dragon's "berserks" [...] can inflict powerful attacks, heal Edge, or boost..."?
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Since you only use the "BP" abbreviation once I'd drop it and spell out "berserk points" on the second occurrence.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Certain enemy attacks inflict status-changing affects: Unless I've misunderstood the sentence, I think this would be better as "Certain enemy attacks can change Edge's status: the "stun" status..."
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• After battles, the player earns a ranking: I think it would be better to have "battle" and "player" agree in number; probably "After a battle, the player..."
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• The plot section seems to just fade out. I assume the destruction of Grig Orig is the climax of the game as far as battles are concerned? Perhaps some signposting would make this clearer.
  • The final battle is: Edge and the dragon defeat the network's "anti-dragon" programs. Is this obscure?

    It's not clear to the uninformed reader that this is the climax of the plot. Perhaps if you end the paragraph after that sentence, and make it clear that what follows is abstract and without a clear resolution, as you say below, then that would be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    Forgive my being difficult about this, but I'm not sure what it is you're suggesting here. Do you think we should literally write something like "The following events are abstract and do not end with a clear resolution"? Because that would be inserting personal interpretation, a violation of Wikipedia plot summary rules. I think if you read the events as they're described and come away thinking "that sounds weird", then the summary is probably a pretty accurate reflection of events.

    Having said all that, I rewatched the final sequence and rewrote the article to hopefully made some things a bit clearer. I made the fourth wall breaking element more explicit, and I'd forgotten that the sequence pretty explicitly says why Azel is asking directions. I hope this makes things a bit more useful. Popcornduff (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    I think all I'm asking for is a clear indication that the defeat of the network's "anti-dragon" programs is the climactic battle. As someone who's never played the game, I read through the plot and took that sentence as indicating another step in the progress of the plot, expecting the plot to end in combat, as so often happens. Just adding "... in the game's final battle sequence" or something like that to that sentence would do it. I'm not a regular video game player, so perhaps my expectations aren't in sync with how games are actually plotted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

    I appreciate the difficulty of having to come up with arguments about this when you're not familiar with the subject matter, and I do take the point that this is exactly who we should be writing for.... but I can't see eye to eye with you on this, I'm afraid.

Is it important to know it's the final battle? I don't think it's the important takeaway here, when we're summarising the plot. It's not even that climactic - it's this very abstract, almost ambient sequence that doesn't have a lot to do with the rest of the game's battles. The actual important event here is that Edge disappears into Sestren. If other editors have other opinions I'm all ears though. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Not sure what you mean by "just seems to fade out". The end of the game is pretty abstract, and ends without a clear resolution... Popcornduff (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    That's what I meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm confused by the timeline in the first couple of sentences of the "Development" section. If it took two years, and was released in 1998, then they began work in 1996. They started development at the same time that the Panzer Dragoon II Zwei team began development, but that game was released in 1996. So Panzer Dragoon II Zwei was released the same year it began development? Not impossible, but surprising enough I wanted to verify I had it right.
  • Nice catch. I went back and checked the sources and they don't agree. Gamespot says two years, but an interview with the developers in the strategy guide says three. I'm assuming the developers know best, and that makes more sense, as you point out - plus I found some more detail to include about how they split the teams. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• Both subplots were cut for time.: a bit compressed -- this could mean lack of development time, or to eliminate a slow period of gameplay. I think it's the latter, but I'd suggest clarifying.
  • Done. I've reworked the entire Development section so you might want to reread the entire thing. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• In the graphics paragraph in the "Reception" section, Sega Saturn Magazine praises the '"stunning" visual effects', and Steve Key praises "some of the greatest visual effects on any home system". Could these comments be combined, so we get the statement first, and once only? Personally I think it's OK to drop the attributions into the footnotes unless they're important, but my main point here is the repetition.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• The music and sound also received praise, with Mielke likening it to the quality of Hollywood productions. Suggest "Mielke considered the music and sound to be of Hollywood production quality", or something similar; the first half of the current sentence is the paragraph topic, but I think Mielke's comment is strong enough that it can stand as the topic sentence without introduction.
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• The paragraph starting "Several critics..." has some repetitive sentence rhythms: "Key felt... Edge wrote:... Mielke concluded:".
  • I know what you mean but I don't know to fix this yet. The easy solution for this, I think, leads very quickly into purple prose. I'm already uncomfortable with the number of attribution verbs used, and I'm about to leave you a Talk page message about that "noted" you added, since I don't want to distract from the discussion here... Popcornduff (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    When we've resolved the "noted" point we can revisit this. I wouldn't hold up support over this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

    How about joining the Key and Edge quotes, which are both very positive, with some appropriate connective tissue? That would be easier with Key as the second quote, since Edge is a magazine and Key is a person. Maybe: 'Edge wrote: "It's a tragedy that the Saturn's standing will ensure Team Andromeda's adventure, with a radically different approach to FFVII, will enjoy a fraction of its rival's success", and Key was also impressed, arguing that if the game were released on PlayStation it would "fly off the shelves".' Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• and illustrated why the Saturn was seen as lacking compared to PlayStation: not very fluid. How about: "and illustrated the Saturn's shortcomings, compared to PlayStation"?
  • Done. Popcornduff (talk) 10:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Overall this is very clean, and I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support. Meant to come back to this a few days ago; this is FA quality now. I had a couple of remaining points under discussion but both were very minor and don't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bat

Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Dunkleosteus77

This article is about yet another major group of mammals: bats. They will make a nice addition to the FA list being the only mammals capable of flight. We have already got this article to GA status and John has done multiple copyedits. We now feel it is ready. LittleJerry (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Some of the images in the taxonomy diagrams are too small to be reasonable representations of the group they attempt to depict

Scaled them up, hope that's better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also suggest scaling up the bat wing and song acoustics diagrams

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Zalophus_californianus_J._Smit_(white_background).jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Rhinopoma_microphyllum.jpg, File:MystacinaTuberculataFord.jpg, File:Furipterus_horrens.jpg

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Big-eared-townsend-fledermaus.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Batlook2.jpg

Replaced link and removed image. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Craseonycteris_thonglongyai.JPG does not have a FUR for this article

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Pipistrellus.ogg: is a more specific source available?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• File:Bat_god,_Zapotec,_Period_III-A_-_Mesoamerican_objects_in_the_American_Museum_of_Natural_History_-_DSC06023.JPG: needs a tag explicitly indicating the status of the work pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I recently added File:Bristol.zoo.livfruitbat.arp.jpg File:Group_flying_dogs_hanging_in_tree_Sri_Lanka.JPG which was uploaded by the author. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pbsouthwood

Classification

• What date is the classification listed? 2011 classification is mentioned as not including things, but it is not clear if the list below is 2011 or something else.

if you're talking about the cladograms, I've added the dates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, clearer without that paragraph.

• Nycteridae are mentioned as not fitting in, then we are left wondering what happened to them.

Looks like an editor back in October realized there wasn't any mention of Nycteridae in the list and decided to make a note of it, but the family Nycteridae is not actually mentioned in the study so I just removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, clearer without that paragraph.

• Yinpterochiroptera also presumably currently deprecated? Also a bit unclear.

depends who you ask, some'd say bats are split into fruit bats and all other bats, and some'd say Yinpterochiroptera and Yangochiroptera as far's I can tell   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, clearer without that paragraph.

• Genetic evidence indicates that megabats originated during the early Eocene, and should be placed within the four major lines of microbats. (my emphasis) this does not appear to agree with the cladogram below which shows megabats as a sister clade to microbats. The paragraph below the cladogram explains a traditional subdivision which appears to match the cladogram better, so consider moving the paragraph below to above so the natural path of reading gets the explanation before being confused by an apparent contradiction.

Indeed. Rearranged the paragraphs and added a small cladogram (most of the details being the same) to show the Yin/Yang division. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That works for me.

• last para: This may have been used at first mainly for communicative purposes or to map out their surroundings in their gliding phase, only being used to forage on the ground for insects or among vegetation seems to be missing something.

I rearranged it, I'm not really sure what it's missing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Nor was I, the sentence structure seemed incomplete. What you have now works better.

Wings

• ref 45 {https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120411084133.htm) needs expansion.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine.

• The skin on the body of the bat, which has one layer of epidermis and dermis, as well as the presence of hair follicles, sweat glands and a fatty subcutaneous layer, is very different from the skin of the wing membrane. is the presence of useful here? It does not look right to me.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine.

Gas exchange

• OK

Internal systems

• No problems noticed. - OK

Echolocation

• Tiger moths: apparent contradiction between text and image caption. Text indicates aposematic signals, image states jammimg.

they can do both, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Better, but "Other" refers to tiger moths, and therefore excludes them, followed by including them again. Maybe replace other with "several", "some", or something else that is more neutral.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• It is not clear which reference supports the claim on jamming.

if these're the two in the tiger moth image, they both do   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was referring to the refs in body text, but image refs are fine. I had not noticed them at the time.

Vision

• no problems detected

Magnetic field

• it is thought they use a magnetite-based method for orientation may be overstating a hypothesis, based on the references cited.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine now.

Thermoregulation

• Compare section Wings 2nd paragraph: The skin on the body of the bat, which has one layer of epidermis and dermis, as well as hair follicles, sweat glands and a fatty subcutaneous layer, is very different from the skin of the wing membrane. with secton Thermoregulation 2nd paragraph: Unlike birds which have air sacs or other mammals which have sweat glands, bats have no means to cool themselves by evaporation, though they may use saliva to cool themselves in an emergency. These appear contradictory regarding sweat glands.

I'm torn because one ref says, "The body skin had an epidermis, a dermis with hair follicles and sweat glands and a fat-laden hypodermis," and the other says, "they have no system for evaporative cooling, either internal like the air sacs of birds, or external like the sweat glands of many other mammals." I assume it's because bats are mainly wings, which don't have sweat glands, so it's a rather inefficient means of staying cool, but I can't find anyone who actually says it straightforward   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That is a bit of a problem. Is one of the sources likely to be more reliable than the other about this specific detail, or might a third opinion be available somewhere? It is a clear contradiction, which is likely to be noticed by some proportion of readers, and while we need to avoid OR, we do need to avoid contradiction in a FA, particularly on a matter of observable fact.

I've looked through numerous sources, and for both megabats and microbats they discuss evaporative cooling in terms of saliva, panting, and wing-fanning, but not sweat. I've edited the text and added two more sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The contradiction seems to have gone, so a definite improvement.

Torpor

• The section may be improved by a short introductory sentence explaining torpor,

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK.

• How would bats use torpor to avoid predation?

added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK

Ecology

• How do bats construct tents by biting leaves?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Better.

Food and feeding

They can travel large distances, up to 800 kilometres (500 mi), in search of food. Over what kind of period?

No period is mentioned in source. LittleJerry (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the source give the impression it is diurnal or an overall foraging range, or something else. Diurnal seems unlikely.

Overall range. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth clarifying.

OK, rewritten and replaced source to talk about foraging range. Migration is discussed elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Predators, parasites and diseases

• Nipah Hendra viruses - Is that actually an accepted name? Not found by a google search.

Two different viruses: have added "and". They're both Henipaviruses as linked, and both carried by bats. Added ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine now.

• Bats are implicated in the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in China, since they serve as natural hosts for Coronaviruses, several from a single cave in Yunnan, one of which developed into the SARS virus. Is this several Coronaviruses from the same cave?

Yes. There are thousands of bats in a typical cave roost. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

OK.

References

• Makanya2017 - checked three instances - OK.

Done for now. Support for comprehensibility and usefulness. Tentative support in general. I intend to check in later in case there are large changes. Ping me if It looks like I am not paying attention. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Lingzhi

• I forget which script produces the "CS1 maint" errors for references (I could check), but at a glance I see 17 such in the refs, plus at least one other error.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

if it had something to do with the |date= parameter, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• mm, I found the warning script in [my common.css]. Sixteen errors are "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list "; one is "explicit use of et al". There may be other errors... I'll fix a few of them for you; I have a few moments right now....[later] OK, I fixed 2 or 3. You can see what I did. But thre's a more serious (but still quite fixable) problem below...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I can't check to see if it's all fixed but I think it's all fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, you've also used "cite web" but didn't provide a URL for "Vampire Bats – The Good, the Bad, and the Amazing"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wait, also, sometimes you use lastname/initials, but sometimes you give lastname/full first name. Is that because you intended to use the full name every time but your sources provided only initials, or because the formatting is inconsistent? If it's the latter, then the easiest fix of course would be to consistently use only initials.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  Why is it necessary to have only initials or only full names? One can only provide what is available, and insisting on consistency in this is equivalent to insisting on initials only for all FAs, as there is always the chance that a reference added later may only give initials. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Consistency is required, last time I checked. You can do it almost any f*cking way you want -- with very few exceptions, as for example when I threw a fit because one article had refs sorted by middle initial -- but you have to stay consistent with it. This is also the norm for publications out in the world. Some use full names (when available), and some use only initials. So if you use only initials, and someone adds a full name, you change it. That's why we have watchlists.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Last time I checked FA criteria, 2c: consistent citations referred to consistent formatting of inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing, and a link to Wikipedia:Citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. It is possible that there is something somewhere in policy or guidelines that states that a consensus decision has been made that FA requires the consistent use of full first name XOR initials, but if so I have never been able to find it, so I would appreciate if you could link me to that place. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
• you've already linked to it. Wiafa says consistently formatted using... Not formatted by consistently using. It means choose a style and use it consistently...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've formatted all the refs with initials only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Your interpretation? Or does it actually spell it out somewhere in an RfC or something? You see, that is not how I understand it, and I have previously looked for the same information without success. If there is no clarification available, it should probably go to RfC as it is obviously open to interpretation, and there are practical reasons why inflexibility is not ideal in this case. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• You can rfc or whatever you want, but it's always been that way. I suggest you try wt:fac before rfc, but hey, do whatever you want. I will not participate in it (links to various essays elided here)  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  I will do as you suggest and refer to wt:fac when I have finished searching through the archives of Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria which seems like the most logical place to start. One thing I can say from my researches so far is that it has not "always been that way", as originally there was no requirement for in-line references at all for FA. I probably won't bother to refer back to you until I find something one way or another as you do not appear to be interested. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

  I don't care how it turns out. Don't ping me. I will neither support nor oppose your article; WP:DGAF.... But as for "hasn't always been that way"... it is extremely possible (ver likely, even) that reviewers didn't check in some cases. So what you need for positive proof is not a case where no one flagged it; what you need is a case where it was explicitly noted as irrelevant.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I'll be back after a proper perusal, but from a quick first once-over it seems to me that though the article is in BrE, two Americanisms have crept into the main text: "center" in the second paragraph of "Wings", and "fetus" in "Mating". Back anon. Tim riley talk 21:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tim. Fixed those two. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

First batch of comments

Zoology, taxonomy and a lot of other ologies and onomies being beyond my ken, please treat these comments as being from a well-disposed layman, and excuse any howlers. Comments down to the end of "Taxonomy and evolution" section.

• Lead
  • "Bats are the second largest order of mammals" – is this the orthodox adjective for "orders"? Fine if so, but for a brief moment my thought was directed to the size of the mammals rather than the number of members. If "second largest" is the idiomatic form, then should it have a hyphen?
  • "20%" – the manual of style used to, and I think still does, ask us to spell out the term "per cent" (or "percent", if in AmE) in the text. Ditto for "70%" in the same para. See now comments in second batch, below.
  • "About 70% of bat species are insectivores, and most of the rest eat fruit." – slightly lopsided phrasing: if "insectivores" one might expect "frugivores" or, conversely, if one lot "eat fruit" then the other to "eat insects".

Said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • Last sentence of second para goes on a bit, with a repeated "and". It might read more smoothly if you broke it with a semicolon or full stop after "refuges". Possibly the latter, as there are rather a lot of semicolons in the text (more than 300) and one does begin to notice them after a while. (I speak as one who is prone to overusing them himself.)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "Bat dung has been mined as guano" – suggests that this no longer occurs. Is that so?
  • Last para of lead has three sentences in a row starting with the word "bat".

Changed one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Etymology
  • Citations 5 and 1 at the end are the wrong way round.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Classification
  • More percentages, as above, here and below.

• Fossil and molecular evidence
  • "Yinpterochiroptera includes … Yangochiroptera includes" – is there a convention that the use of a plural word is to be read as singular when applied to a suborder etc? Otherwise the two big words seem to want a plural verb.

Yes.

• • "debate continues as to the meaning" – I respectfully agree with Fowler that "as to" used as here is an undesirable (Fowler uses a stronger adjective) substitute for some simple preposition: "about", in this case. There is another "as to" later in the section, to which the same comments apply.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "fossil bat from the 52 million year old Green River Formation" – I get in a dither over hyphens, but I think this should have them in "52-million-year-old". I may be wrong.
  • "Onychonycteris likely alternated" – others (particularly younger editors) may disagree, but to me this is an Americanism, and "Onychonycteris probably alternated" would be the usual BrE.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "flew from tree to tree and spent most of its time climbing or hanging on the branches of trees" – do we need the last two words?

Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "support the claim that…"– I'd be cautious about the word "claim". It carries judgemental overtones. A neutral word such as "theory", "hypothesis" or even "statement" might be safer.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "target flying prey with echolocation" – can be read the wrong way at first reading: safer, perhaps, to change the preposition to "by".

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That's all for now. This is a tremendous article, but (unavoidably) hard for the lay person to take in at one go. More later. Tim riley talk 10:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Second and concluding batch from Tim

• Wings
  • "percent" as one word: I jotted down a comment that this should be BrE "per cent", but the further down the article I got, the more I thought the plain "%" symbol looked perfectly OK, particularly in a scientific article like this, and if I were the three nominators I'd be tempted to go with it throughout, and to hell with the MoS (which is only a general guideline, or so it avers.)

Thanks but I think we'll just settle for the MOS. LittleJerry (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

OK. I tried to rationalise %, percent and per cent for you, but you need to go through one by one and fix it. Tim riley talk

• • Something has gone awry with the third sentence, which has a bit of a citation sticking out of the end.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "The membranes are also delicate, tearing easily; but can regrow..." – semicolon should be just a comma here.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "The patagium is the wing membrane. The patagium is stretched" – perhaps replace the repeated "the patagium" with "it"?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "webbing between the digits which form into the wing membranes" – this is where the lay person (this one, at any rate) is at a loss. Is it the webbing or the digits forming into the wing membranes? If the latter, fine; if the former, the verb needs to be singular. If we're being ultra-purist, the grammarians and style manuals would have us write "that" rather than "which" for a "restrictive" (defining) clause such as this.

The webbing forms... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Internal systems
  • "Due to the restraints of the mammalian lungs" – it is an old-fashioned view, but in good BrE "due to" is not used as a compound preposition as "owing to" is. Besides, "because of" is plainer and better than either, both here and at later incidences.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "Carnivorous bats which consume large amounts of protein can output concentrated urine" – the point about restrictive clauses, above, is perhaps a bit pedantic, but here I think the meaning is unclear if it is not plainly either a restrictive or a non-restrictive clause. In short, do all carnivorous bats consume large amounts of protein and pee it out, in which case we need commas round the non-restrictive clause: "carnivorous bats, which consume large amounts of protein, can output concentrated urine", or is it only some of them, in which case it would be clearer to have "carnivorous bats that consume large amounts of protein can output concentrated urine"?

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "Bat calls are some of the most intense airborne animal sounds, and can range in intensity from between 60 and 140 decibels." You want either "from" (with "to", rather than "and") or "between" but not both. (I also wonder if, so soon after "most intense", you need "in intensity".)

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "helps to sharply focus not only echolocation signals, but also to passively listen..." – the not-only-but-also construction seems to have gone off the rails here. I think we need: "helps not only to sharply focus echolocation signals, but also to passively listen..."

I've used 'and'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Vision
  • "travelling between their roosting grounds and their feeding grounds" – I might omit the second "their".

Gone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Size
  • "It is also arguably the smallest extant species of mammal, next to the Etruscan shrew." This doesn't seem to me quite what the source says. As it stands the sentence appears to say that the bat is second to the shrew in the smalless stakes, but the source says it is the smaller of the two, though not the lighter. Have I got this wrong?

"Next to" is better wording since size can be defined by length or weight. LittleJerry (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Predators, parasites, and diseases
  • "The evidence is thought by some zoologists to be equivocal" – is it possible to give an indication of whether "some" means a few, many or even most?
  • "In 2014 ... species native to northern Mexico and the West had not yet been affected" – as 2018 is about to be at our throats I just wonder, do we know if anything has changed since 2014?

Updated. LittleJerry (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Social structure
  • "Some bats lead solitary lives, while others live in colonies of more than a million bats." – I really would omit the last word: it strikes a mildly absurd note. Nobody is going to imagine they live in colonies of whelks or hippos.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Life cycle
  • "this is likely due" – the "due" is used properly (according to my Old English prescription, that is) but I still boggle at the "likely". (I privately prefer the AmE "likely" to the BrE "probably" – shorter and crisper – but it doesn't, I think, belong in a BrE article.)

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Conservation
  • "all bats are protected under the Wildlife Protection Ordinance 1998; species such as the hairless bat ... are still eaten" – this looks a bit odd. I'm not sure the semicolon is an adequate understudy for a but, however, although or nonetheless here.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• • "About 100,000 tourists per year" – a very minor matter, but on the generally sound policy "prefer good English to bad Latin" I'd make this "100,000 tourists a year".

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That's my lot. I felt shockingly ignorant reading some of this impressive article, but I enjoyed it very much all the same, and I am quite a bit less ignorant now. I shall make it my New Year resolution never to use the phrase "blind as a bat" again. I'll look in in a day or so to, I hope and expect, add my support. – Tim riley talk 13:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of my quibbles, and certainly all of them that I think matter much, have been addressed, above, and I'm very happy to add my support for the elevation to FA of this fine article, which I think meets all the FA criteria. I've never been much interested in bats (unless made of willow) but I found this article absorbing – well done! Tim riley talk 21:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from FunkMonk

• I'll review this soon. One first thing I was wondering about is whether it should be mentioned in the culture section that bats have become part of the vampire myth? I see Dracula is mentioned, but isn't it more general than that? Maybe Casliber knows something about this, after working on the vampire FA. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it is mainly Dracula but worth looking over the sources again I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It is mainly Dracula, but he was presaged by Varney the Vampire complete with feasts of blood. Linked and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Seems the taxonomic history is glossed over, who defined the group, under what circumstances, and when and why were various revisions made?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and only an estimated 12% of the bat fossil record is complete at the genus level." Not sure what this means. Also, it is impossible to know how much of the fossil record is "complete", so it is at best a very vague estimate, which needs to be noted.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "formerly classified as the earliest known megachiropteran, is now considered to be a microchiropteran" This is of little interest to the reader unless you state why this change is significant.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• You should give ages for the fossils mentioned, otherwise their context and significance is unclear.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "reflected the view that these groups of bats had evolved independently of each other for a long time, from a common ancestor already capable of flight." This wording makes it seem like this view is outdated, though this does not seem to be the case?
• "form a single or monophyletic group" I'd replace "single" with "natural". A group can only be single, no?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "a conclusion supported by a 15-base-pair deletion in BRCA1 and a seven-base-pair deletion in PLCB4 present in all Yangochiroptera and absent in all Yinpterochiroptera" You don't go into this level of technical detail for the other DNA studies.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• You could state how long ago the varius geological ages mentioned were.

I don't see why they are relevant if the age of the fossils are stated. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that those have been added, it is fine. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• "One phylogenomic study showed that the two new proposed suborders were supported by analyses of thousands of genes" This is very weirdly written. Which DNA studies don't analyse thousands of genes?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In the 1980s, a hypothesis based on morphological evidence stated the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera." Seems strange this text comes so far down in the section, out of chronological order. This was obviously proposed before genetic testing was done, so it should be mentioned before.

It's mentioned here because this paragraph is on flight evolution. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "an intermediate fossil bat" Intermediate between what?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Fossil and molecular evidence" This section could simply be renamed "evolution".

See this conversation. LittleJerry (talk) 17:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see, there is nothing there that explains why the "Fossil and molecular evidence" section shouldn't be renamed evolution? Seems to be a more inclusive, less clunky name. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "paraphyly" Define.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• You mix UK and US English. You have both colour and color, for example, so this should be checked throughout.

Fixed colour. Others have pointed out UK vs US spellings which have been corrected. LittleJerry (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Bats are the only mammals that can truly fly" You should define what makes them true fliers.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Slow-motion and normal speed of Egyptian fruit bats flying" Add "footage" or "video".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• The digits and arms are parts of the wings, so it doesn't really make sense to have a section on wings that doesn't include them. Maybe make a section on wing-membranes, or more inclusively about the entire wing.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• The structure is a bit iffy when it comes to the "flight" and "wings" section as well. For example, why is the following text not in the flight section? "By folding the wings in toward their bodies on the upstroke, they save 35 percent energy during flight.[46] Bats save energy by drawing in their wings on the upstroke." Much more seems it should go into flight as well. I think you could move all info specifgically about flight to the flight section, and then rename the section "wing membranes".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think it could be explicitly mentioned that along with birds and pterosaurs, bats are the only vertebrate animals ever capable of powered flight.

Three out of the four flying animals are vertebrates, so the wording would be strange. LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean in the absolute sense or per taxon? In any case, the point is to show that only three groups of vertebrate animals are capable of flight, not how many of them/species of them that are flying at a given time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Bats being able to fly makes them unique among animals and living organisms in general, not just vertebrates. Saying bats are the "only" vertebrates that can fly would imply that there are many non-vertebrate animals can fly. In reality, only four groups can fly and three are vertebrates. LittleJerry (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• On that note, it may be interesting to note how the wings of these creatures have convergently developed, here is a relevant diagram:[9]

They are compared to birds in different places. LittleJerry (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "supports the leading edge" Add "of the wing".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "cervical vertebrae" Add that these are in the neck.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• " apoptosis only affects" Explain.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "This adaptation does not permit bats to reduce their wingspan as birds do," Do they? In what way?

I don't understand. It says they can't reduce their wingspan. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I mean the birds. What does it mean that they reduce their wing span? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

On the upstroke, birds partly fold their wings, reducing both the wingspan and the wing area, but leaving the wing stiff enough to resist bending and twisting, the feathers remaining as stiff airfoils; bats cannot do this because the membrane only functions as a wing when stretched between outstretched fingers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "spp." should not be in italics.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• You should specify which group of bat you're referring to in various section. For example, megabats don't useecholocation, yet you only say "bats" in the section on that feature, while you should specify "microbats".

I replaced the first "bat" in the section with "microbat". It is also established earlier that megabats can't echolocate. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's established, that's why it seems odd that you refer to microbats as just bats in that section, when what's written doesn't apply to megabats. But I guess it's better now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "that they are chemically protected" What does this mean?

That the bugs are poisonous I presume. Dunkleosteus77 would be better for this. LittleJerry (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Could be good to get this clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Added gloss: tiger moths are aposematic, meaning that they signal honestly that they are unprofitable as prey, in their case because they are sufficiently poisonous to taste foul and be rejected as food. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Almost all bats are nocturnal," Yet the article body indicates it depends on whether it is a microbat or a megabat?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "are homeothermic" Explain.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "use heterothermy" Likewise.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• " Among microbats, Myotis yumanensis, Tadarida brasiliensis and Antrozous pallidus" Elsewhere you use the common name first, and scientific name second. Why only scientific name here and some other places?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "cope with temperatures up to 45 Celsius by panting, salivating and licking their fur to promote evaporative cooling; this was sufficient to dissipate twice their metabolic heat production." Why change in tense?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "metabolism go down" Decrease would sound less awkward.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Some bats aestivate" Explain.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• It seems megabats roost in trees, but this is not mentioned here.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• The term "fruit bat" is never explained. is this a synonym of megabat?

Usually. I made some changes anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in the process of losing the ability to synthesise vitamin C" Why, what s the advantage?

I would think it is obvious since vitamins are important. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I ask, what is the benefit of losing the ability to use it? FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

A fact can be observed without the reason necessarily being explained, but all metabolic pathways have an energy cost, and if a substance is available in the diet, then that cost may not be worth paying in evolutionary terms. Genetic drift may also be a sufficient explanation here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "making them more prone to extinction than other types of bat" I think you could mention some extinct species of bats under conservation. I can think of the rougette, the Dusky flying fox, and the New Zealand greater short-tailed bat, for example.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "mortality rates of 90–100% have been observed in most caves" Most affected caves, I'd assume.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• "substantial sympatry" Explain.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "70% of the directed calls could be identified as to which bat made it" Perhaps good to note by who. Researchers, I assume, and not just by other bats.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Apart from the wings, there is very little physical description. Are all bats furry? What is their range of colouration? What about the shape of their heads, ears and noses? Seems some have long tails and some have short tails?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "leave behind a mating plug" Explain how this works.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• It seems many sections are microbat-centric. For example under "Reproduction and life history" there is little to nothing about megabats.

It mentions both tropical and temperate reproduction times. Also microbats are the vast majority of species. Megabats are mentioned if they differ from the rest in significant ways. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The oldest recorded bat is a 41-year-old male Brandt's bat." This bat will not live forever. Better to state something like "the oldest recorded bat was a 41-year-old male Brandt's bat identified in 2016" or some such.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Bats may be attracted to these structures, perhaps seeking roosts, increasing the death rate." Wind turbines are not mentioned in the previous sentence, so it might be good to repeat, as it is unclear what "these structures" refers to.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "a winged bat cryptid known as Popobawa" The source doesn't refer to it as a "cryptid", which is not exactly a neutral term.

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Seems rabies spread to humans from bats and "attacks" by vampire bats could be mentioned under human interactions.

We grouped all these things to appear on one place only. Since humans are part of the ecosystem, all such interactions could appear twice, which is undesirable, so we've restricted the 'humans' section to conservation and cultural significance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Other mammals said to fly, such as flying squirrels, gliding possums, and colugos, can only glide for short distances." Only stated in intro. Also, this is way too much specific detail for the intro, should be moved to the article body.

Removed from lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Bats are less efficient flyers than birds" Only seems to be stated in the intro.

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), and comprise about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide" Only stated in intro.

Also now in Classification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the less specialised and largely fruit-eating megabats," You don't mention this "specialised/less specialised" dichotomy in the article body.

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "About 70% of bat species are insectivores" Only stated in intro.

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "zoologists wonder whether bats have these behaviours" Very flowery. Just say that it is uncertain if these behaviours are for this.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Bats are economically important" Only stated in intro.

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The largest bats are a few species of Pteropus (fruit bats or flying foxes) and the giant golden-crowned flying fox, Acerodon jubatus" The latter one should also be mentioned in the size section, then.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - the article looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I've done the first column. The rest will follow shortly

• Refs 4 and 5: The true source is Liddell and Scott's dictionary. Perseus Digital merely provides the online vehicle.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 15: Page range inconsistency

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 23: Wouldn't an "et al" do, in place of this mega-list of contributors? (To a lesser extent, this issue arises with with other refs)

seeing as it's already there, I don't see why it should be taken down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 27: Retrieval date missing

I put today's date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 32: template error

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 46: returning "page you have requested cannot be found."

removed url since it has a PMC   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 47: The pdf link doesn't seem to be working

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 49: ISBN should be in consistent (13-digit) format. It's 978-3-642-39333-4

thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 56: Publisher is National Geographic rather than website address

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 66: Can you clarify the publisher, and add retrieval date

fixed 23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 

• Ref 90: Publisher given as "JRank". To which organisation does this refer, and where is this mentioned iun the source?

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 100: The title is "The Art and Science of Bats". "Smithsonian" is the publisher.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

More sources

– and here it is:

• Ref 111: p. range inconsistent

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 112: ditto

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 113: the title is incorrect

Its a species page. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 119: yields message "sorry, no such page" – as does 126

Removed urls. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 131: link not working - repeated timeouts

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 132: the 13-digit ISBN is 978-0-8018-3970-2

This appears to be ref 138's ISBN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 138: you should standardise ISBN format in line with the others

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 140: the link appears to go to a different page

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 141: the website has been redesigned. link should go to the current location of the article

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 142: retrieval date missing

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 148: not formatted properly, and error in access date

Added access date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 157: publisher and retrieval date required

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 159: ditto

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 161: See my note on ref 23. The point is, this is use of space to no useful purpose, which clutters an already crowded sources section. It's not a clincher, but anything that can improve the presentation of the article without harming its substance should be done.

The paper has 4 named authors which seems not unreasonable nowadays. In physics and medicine, with far longer lists, there is certainly an issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 170: Retrieval date required

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 172: ditto

All refs around this no. seem to be ok now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 176: p. range inconsistency

(now #178) Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 188: publisher missing

(now #189) Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 203: "Fox7" is publisher. The author is RaeAnn Christensen

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 204: "Bat Conservation International" is the publisher, not "Web.archive.org" which is a means of access. The title here is equivocal – as this is the organisation's home page, perhaps "All about bats" would serve?

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 205 and 206 both link to the same site, although the ref details are different.

Merged and updated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 207: Publisher missing

Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 208, 209, 210: inappropriate italicisation of publisher

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 214: "retrieved" → "Retrieved"

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 216: Gives message "Sorry, your request cannot be accepted"

Set deadurl to true, the archiveurl is there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 219 & 222: inappropriate italicisation of publisher

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 224: ISBN missing

ISBN added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 226: Format is irregular (cite template not used), p. no and isbn missing. As this is the fourth citation of a string, you might not be losing anything if you dropped it.

Dropped. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 238: Template error

Title, trans-title added.Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 241: inappropriate italicisation of publisher

Journal is auto-formatted in italics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

And that's it. When replying, if a ref number has changed since this review it would be helpful if, in any note, you quote the revised number. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, okay now? LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Breeders Tour 2014

Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This is about an impromptu tour that the Breeders went on three years ago to practice some then-unrecorded new material. It has been recently peer reviewed. I've thoroughly researched the topic, and believe the resulting article is a representative survey of available sources and is comprehensive in covering all the relevant details out there about this short tour. I look forward to your comments. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (comprised thirteen concerts in central and western United States), do you think it would be beneficial to link for Central United States and Western United States?
• For this part (The tour received good reviews from critics), I would link critics to music criticism.
• For this part (and the title track from the Safari EP), please provide a link for EP.

Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Aoba. Thank you very much for your comments. I have linked "Music criticism" and "Extended play" as you suggested. I feel wiki-linking each of "Central United States" and "Western United States" would be too much—for one thing, there are already quite a few links in the first sentences of the lead. But if you feel strongly these are better, I’d be happy to discuss. Let me know what you think. Thank you again! Moisejp (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments, and I agree with your response regarding "Central United States" and "Western United States". I support this for promotion on the basis of prose. Hope you have a wonderful day or night. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Aoba!Moisejp (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources comment review

Before I complete a sources review I'd like clarification on one point. Fifty sources ("references") are listed, but there are only 38 separate citations, which indicates that 12 of the sources are not cited and shouldn't be listed as references. Is this the case? Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Brianboulton. Thank you very much for offering to do the source review. The other 12 sources are in Notes 1 to 4. Thank you again! Moisejp (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• Please note that the Gavin Ryan book does not have an ISBN number. See here for more details [[10]]. Moisejp (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Brianboulton. I was wondering if you're still interested in doing the source review. If not, I'll request one on the FAC talk page. No worries either way, thanks, and have a nice day! Moisejp (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I appear to have overlooked this, for which I sincerely apologise. On the matter of the 12 sources in the Notes, is there a particular reason why they are not formatted as citations in the normal way? I will begin my proper sources check right now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Brian, no worries at all. I had fewer than 3 supports until just now, so there would have been no chance of promotion anyway. About the Notes section, I use {{<ref group=a>}}{{/ref>}} for formatting, and I can't put another {{<ref>}} inside this to link to the Footnotes section. That's why I have done the footnotes in the Notes section as I have. I believe I'm being consistent within the Notes section itself at least. But if there is another way you recommend I format this that would be consistent between both the main text and the Notes section, I'd be happy to consider it. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I use {{refn | |group= n}} for Notes, which allows for standard citation within each note. This would work. My few remaining sources points are listed below:

• I don't think "Breeders Digest" is a print source, so shouldn't be italicised
• Bernot: source contains the wrong link
• Petrusich: "Spin" no longer runs a print version, so the name should not be italicised
• Phillips: Essentially the same issue with "Blurt"
• Rogers: Same with "Vegas Seven"

Otherwise the sources appear of appropriate quality and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Brianboulton. Thanks again for your sources review. I've fixed the link for Bernot, and reformatted the Notes section like you asked (I looked at your article Claudio Monteverdi to see exactly how you did it). I also de-italicized the non-print magazines. But I was wondering, could you tell me in MOS where it says that non-print magazines shouldn't be italicized. I thought I vaguely remembered seeing the opposite, that all magazines (print or online) should be italicized, but now when I look I can't seem to find anything about it either way. I'd just like to be confident going forward that I'm doing it right. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have time at present for an MoS search - maybe someone else will. It's been the practice at FAC for as long as I've been around, which is quite a while. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Support by Sturmvogel_66

• No DABs or overlinking
• External links OK, with the usual problems of Google Book links.
• Image is properly licensed.
• Looks fine to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support! Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

John

WP:RECEPTION needs to be applied. I also don't like "of that year". --John (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi John, thank you so much for taking time to look at the article and give feedback! I've changed the opening sentence from "September of that year" to "September 2014". This is what it originally was, but I was worried this sounded repetitive because 2014 is already mentioned earlier in the sentence. In the next few days, I'll work on aligning with RECEPTION. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• John, I've reworked the Reception section—let me know what you think. While before the order was strictly chronological, I've now split up the reviews into "high praise" and "praise with reservations" categories. I've also reduced the quotations and tried to vary the sentence structure even more than it was before. The four quotations I kept in the section were ones I find especially flavourful (first two) or harder to paraphrase well (last two). If these changes aren't what you had in mind, let me know, and I'm happy to take another stab at it. Thanks again! Moisejp (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• Hi John, could I ask if you're satisfied with my changes, and whether there are any other changes you'd like to see? Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nudge. I am travelling with limited Internet access. I will try to look at this in the next 24 hours. Sorry. --John (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• John, no worries, my friend. If you happen to need a few more days or however long, that's cool too. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per my peer review. FrB.TG (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you again very much for your suggestions during the peer review, and your support. Moisejp (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hours of Mary of Burgundy

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Late 15th century book of hours commissioned by a lineage given to a mournful outlook. Following the death of her father, Charles the Bold, Mary of Burgundy became the wealthiest woman in Europe. Opinion shifts as to weather it was commissioned to mark his death or the agreement of her marriage to Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor. The opening 54 pages align to the rarefied and extremely bleak Black books of hours grouping, suggesting it was at first intended to mourn her father and later became a doury. Ceoil (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• The source link used for most of the images is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not found anything on the wayback machine, and the images are are not replaceable from other sources. What are the options here; withdrawal? Id prefer that to removing all the 500 year old pd reproductions. Ceoil (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not possible to find any other source that includes these images? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, done now; replace most, and removed a small few. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Lingzhi:
• I would prefer to see "Kren & Mckendrick" formatting style used in the refs rather than "Kren; McKendrick". Use of the semicolon in the latter could easily be mistaken for two separate references.
• In refs, does "Ingo" refer to Ingo Walther (Walther, Ingo)?
• Missing ref for " Jenni; Thoss"
• In Sources but not Notes: Campbell. Stokstad. Wiek.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Have worked through these. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

I intend to review the content, but I'm dealing with sources first.

• The references in the footnotes would be better formatted consistently with the rest, e.g.<ref>Kren, 21</ref> rather than "See Kren, 21"
• Refs 5 and 37: page ranges should have ndashes not hyphens, per MoS
• The language of foreign sources should be stated (Ulrike & Thoss)
• The format of the Miller book is unclear and/or incomplete. Is this the book in question? "H. Miller" appears to be the publisher rather than the author/translator.
• location missing from the Woods book

Otherwise, sources look in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. These have now been resolved. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "It was probably commissioned for Mary of Burgundy, then the wealthiest women in contemporary Europe" - what does contemporary Europe refer to? It's not linked or anything, so I don't follow
• "Its production began around 1470" - Can't begin "around a date", I'd prefer "about" here instead or "circa".
• "The book has been described as "undoubtedly...among the most important works of art made in the late middle ages...a milestone in the history of art and one of the most precious objects of the late middle ages".[3]" - Shouldn't you bracket the ellipses [...]? Minor nitpick I suppose
• "and believed intended to mark Charles' death at the Battle of Nancy on 5 January 1477" - something about two verbs next to each other perturbs me
• "The book of mourning theory" - I get what you're going for here, but I'd tweak it a bit since this reads like a discursive theory rather than a theory about the book itself
• " Traditionally, pearls represent purity, a transparent veil signifies virtue, while red carnations were often used as symbols of love.[" - I'd add an "and" after purity
• "Most attention is given to the innovative images" - I'd watch the passive voice here
• "The text is preoccupied with the rituals of the only a, the litany and the rites of intercessory prayer." - the only a?
• "seemingly viewed through a contemporary windowsill" - I'd drop the adverb

Always such a pleasure to read your work, Ceoil. This is a well-written and engaging account. Once these comments are addressed, I'll be happy to support. ceranthor 15:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ceranthor, working through these, most are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Support ceranthor 00:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comment from Tim riley

• Commission
  • First line – here we have the possessive form Charles' – American style; later we have Charles's – British style. Best to stick with one or the other.
  • "the most wealthy heiress" – I think "the wealthiest heiress" would be a more usual construction. Likewise with "the most wealthy nobility" later in the section.
• Attribution
  • "to carry some of the lettering" – missing an "out", I think.
  • "van Lathem is attributed" – is it correct to use the lower-case "v" at the start of a sentence?
• Design
  • "the rituals of the only a, the litany" – something has gone off the rails here, and I can't work out what the intended meaning was.
  • "are painting in such a way" – are painted in such a way? And this sentence veers from plural to singular rather confusingly: we need "the marginalia and drolleries … were sprinkled"; and "in a three dimensional manner that suggests…"
• Miniatures
  • "viewed through a contemporary windowsill" – I don't think one can see through a windowsill ("a ledge or shelf forming the bottom part of a window frame" – OED). Just "window" is wanted here, I think.
  • "innovator in bring about" - innovator in bringing about?
• Virgin and Child
  • "what seems to be the words" – perhaps "what seem to be the words"
  • "She is positioned an intimate" – missing an "in" I'd guess.
  • "shutted by boards" – shuttered by boards?
  • "without the usual intersession of saint" – I think we need "intercession" here, and perhaps an indefinite article before "saint".
  • "the figures scale and plasticity" – seems to be missing a possessive apostrophe: figures'.
  • "which as a very small panel painting, is yet" – I'd either lose the comma or add one to open the subordinate clause after "which".
  • "The figure's distance" – plural possessive figures' needed here, I think.
  • "that they are rendering" – that they are rendered?

I hope these points are helpful. – Tim riley talk 18:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tim, yes very helpful, and resolved now I think. Thanks very much for the review. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The subject is so far out of my ken that I am diffident about expressing an opinion, but I mustn't sit on the fence: so, from an absolutely lay viewpoint I thought it clear, comprehensive and well and widely sourced. And of course beautifully illustrated. I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course, and I add my support. Tim riley talk 15:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, for the review and edits. Ceoil (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

Nice article generally. I've done some touches. Points:

• at the start it might be good to use some form of "luxury", the technical term for this sort of lavishly illustrated book. Perhaps "is a luxury book of hours completed in Flanders".

• Done Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• "No records survive as to its commission, but it was probably intended for private devotion." - seems unnecessary caution, as it was certainly "intended for private devotion", plus a bit of showing off to intimates.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• "It was probably commissioned for Mary of Burgundy,..." - maybe work in the alternative, or say it was certainly for one of the Habsburg/Valois family. I can't see any mention of heraldry in the book, btw, beyond "recurring pairs of gold armorial shields". What arms are on them, if any?
• "where the gold and sliver lettering is etched on black tainted parchment" - not etching surely? Just written in the normal way? Or another technique, like gilding? Black books of hours is not very clear on this.
• "Given their novel visual appeal, they were probably more expensive and highly prized than more conventional books of hours, ..." - more unnecessary caution, I'd have thought, given the text is in gold and silver.

• yes, have clarified on this. The boasting bit is yet to go it. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• "14 initialised initials" - what they? Not historiated initials?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The text is preoccupied with the litany and the rites of intercessory prayer." - there's a better way to put this.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Obsecro te Domina sancta maria, a common biblical passage in contemporary illuminated manuscript illustrations of donors venerating the Virgin and Child" is not "biblical", but a "popular prayer of indulgence" - see here - I think always found in a prominent location in books of hours, I forget exactly where. Would be good to tie that down - I can help if needed. It is the place in the text next to which any donor portrait is likely to be found, which you don't exactly say, or not clearly .

• Done Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The window before her has two doors, shuttered by boards adorned with stained glass." Phrasing - windows don't have "doors" I think, and these aren't shutters, are they? The glass seems plain, of the round "bottle" or "bulls-eye" type beloved of mock-Tudor.

• Have removed stained. And shutters. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Does anybody say anything about the carpet? An interesting, apparently non-Oriental, design.

  Yes I am interested in this too. Unfortunately, so far the only book I've found that mentions cost €350, and doesn't deliver to Ireland. Ceoil (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor, acquired the book around 1580." - ie at the age of about 13. Presumably it was given him as a personal prayer book when he reached a suitable age, from the family collection. Does anybody say this? How do we know? Is there an inscription?
• Our article on the Austrian National Library is not highly clear, but it seems that in the 1720s it was still the Imperial Library, at best semi-nationalized, and housed in the Hofburg Palace. In other words the book always passed within the Habsburgs until their collections were donated to the Austrian nation, with a brief period as Napoleonic loot. If possible from the sources, this point should be made more clear. At present it sounds rather as if Matthias & later the library picked it up from bookstalls or something.
• More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the observations and edits John. Am traveling ATM, but will be able to get to these over the coming days. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No ruish at all! Me too - all the best for the holidays, Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Withypool Stone Circle

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of only three late prehistoric stone circles located in the southwestern English county of Somerset. It has been a GA since March and is probably as comprehensive as it can possibly be until archaeologists carry out further excavation of the site. Having brought another stone circle article—Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas—to FA status in April, I would like to try and achieve the same success with this article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Usernameunique

Looks good, and specific comments/suggestions are below; feel free to disregard stylistic points if you disagree, of course. Two general points:

1. The significance of the site seems split between "Context," where you offer general suggested ideas for the reason being stone circles, and "Investigation," where you give Gray's suggestion that this one was used for cremations.

I kept Gray's suggestion apart because it does not seem to have gained any further support from later archaeological commentators; thus I thought it best to present it where it is rather than as part of the wider archaeological discussions of what stone circles were all about. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

1. "Investigation" feels somewhat incomplete. It only covers up to 1909/1925, yet it is clear that there have been investigations at least up to 1989.

I've added an additional sentence mentioning Fowler's fieldwork in the 1980s. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

"In diameter it measures 36.4 metres (119 feet, 6 inches) across."

"across" is redundant.

Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Location

"with some sources referring to it as Withypool Hill Stone Circle."

How about "and is sometimes referred to as Withypool Hill Stone Circle."

Doing so would switch the prose from active voice to passive voice. Personally, I'm not really fussed about that but there are definitely editors who urge us to use active voice wherever possible, deeming it more engaging for readers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The site is at a height of 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level."

How about "The site is 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level."

Good idea. Will change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"two and three-quarter miles south/south-west of Exford."

Every other measurement in the paragraph is converted, why not this one?

Quite right. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"east-southeast ... south/south-west"

Two inconsistencies: 1) east-southeast is separated by a hyphen, and south/south-west by a slash, and 2) southeast doesn't have a hyphen, while south-west does (there are many more examples with the hyphen later on in the article).

I've ensured that everything is standardised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"a range of different Bronze Age round barrows, or tumuli"

Are you using "round barrows" and "tumuli" are the same thing (if so, do you really need to use both terms?), or that both are visible (if so, use "and" instead of "or")?

These terms are synonymous and I was trying to convey that. Do you think that there is a better way to convey that? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "a range of different Broze Age round barrows, a type of tumulus..." What's confusing about the current wording is that seemingly synonymous terms link to different articles about different (but very similar) things.

Agreed; I've altered the prose to your suggested variant. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"although this can no longer be seen from Withypool Stone Circle itself."

Why not?

The barrow has been eroded to such an extent that it no longer sticks out of the top of the hill. I have amended the prose accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The three Brightworthy Barrows ..."

This feels like a lot of red links. Are you thinking of creating articles on them?

Perhaps one day. They certainly all warrant articles, but I'm not sure that I have the time in the near future to go and create articles for all the different barrows on Exmoor. It would be a very time consuming process. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Also visible from the circle is a scatter of over thirty stones on the Westwater Allotment"

What is the significance of this?

It gives a description of the environment surrounding the stone circle; it is probably of importance for individuals interested in the phenomenology of the site? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Westwater Allotment/Withypool Common

What are these?

The names of particular fields in the area. Do you think that this needs to be made more specific? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Context

"While the transition from the Early Neolithic to the Late Neolithic—which took place with the transition from the fourth to the third millennium BCE—witnessed much economic and technological continuity..."

The part within dashes feels a bit repetitive. What about something like "While the transition from the Early Neolithic to the Late Neolithic in the fourth and third millennia BCE..."

A good alternative. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"and were instead replaced by circular monuments"

I don't think you need "instead." Also, "had been" might be better than "were."

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"These include earthen henges, timber circles, and stone circles. These latter circles..."

Consecutive sentences beginning with "These."

Changed the latter to "Such". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"These stone circles typically show very little evidence of human visitation during the period immediately following their creation. This suggests that they were not sites used for rituals that left archaeologically visible evidence,"

This is somewhat circular, seemingly boiling down to 'These stone circles show little evidence of human visitation. This suggests that archaeologists did not find visible evidence there.'

I see your point but am not really sure how to go about making changes. I wanted to keep the statement of observation apart from the statement of interpretation, although granted they can seem a bit repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggested"

Perhaps "suggests"?

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"There are only two known prehistoric stone circles located on Exmoor: Withypool and Porlock Stone Circle. The archaeologist Leslie Grinsell noted that there was a circular stone monument on Almsworthy Common that was "probably" also the remains of a stone circle, although P. J. D. Way argued that it was a rectilinear stone setting, perhaps a series of parallel stone rows."

What about the possible one mentioned in the last sentence under "Location"?

I think that the issue is one of archaeological acceptance and recognition. There are only two sites in Exmoor that archaeologists unanimously recognise as having been stone circles. There are perhaps other examples which someone has suggested might be a stone circle, but here is no real consensus on that. Do you think that the wording could be amended to explain this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Who is P. J. D. Way, another archaeologist? Do you really need to introduce each person who offers a theory, or is it enough to state what the theory is?

Generally, I find it best to attribute specific theories to the individuals who proposed them, where that is possible. Way was another archaeologist, and I have made that clear in the text now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Archaeologists have attributed these circles to the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age"

"dated" would be more precise than "attributed"

Should it be "Age" or "Ages"?

I've changed "attributed" to "dated" but I think it should remain "Age" rather than "Ages". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The creation of these different monument types might explain why so few stone circles were apparently created here."

Perhaps "might also explain", since you gave another explanation (bad rock) in the preceding paragraph.

Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Description

"Plan of the site as it existed in 1905 (after Gale 1906)"

Presumably you mean Gray 1906?

Do you really need in-text attribution, or would a footnote do (the "after Gale 1906" could be added to the image page instead)? If you prefer it in-text, what about using {{harvnb|Gray|1906}}?

You're right, this is not only wrong, but also unnecessary. I've removed it from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Conversely, the following year Burl..."

This is the first time you mention Burl, so perhaps a first name is warranted (but see comment above about including archaeologists' names).

Good idea; I've added some text introducing him. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The stones themselves are small; on average they measure 0.1 metres (4 inches) in height, 0.3 metre (one foot) in width, and 0.1 metres (4 inches) thick."

.1 meter seems small enough that you might consider giving it in centimeters instead.

Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Investigation

"The site was first rediscovered in 1898"

I don't think you need "first." How about "The site was accidentally rediscovered in 1898..."?

Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"His horse stumbled against one of the stones, and on further investigation he located other stones within the bracken."

The horse located the other stones?

Changed "he" to "Hamilton". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "stumbled on" rather than "stumbled against"

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"He proffered the suggestion that the circle had been the site of cremations,"

How about just "He suggested"

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"In August 1909, Gray returned to the site for the first time in nine years."

But you just said that Gray went in August 1905, i.e., four years before August 1909.

I've had a good rummage, and unfortunately I cannot find the photocopy that I had of this source. Accordingly, I cannot at present check the information against the source to see if I made a mistake. What I will do is to simply remove "for the first time in nine years" altogether, which should deal with the problem at hand. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"He noted that the circle was in largely the same condition as before, but that the ling and whortleberry bushes around the site were more stunted than they had previously been."

Is the part about the ling and whortleberry bushes relevant? --Usernameunique (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a major point by any stretch of the imagination, but as the Reliable Source mentions it then we might as well do so too (or at least that was my thinking on the issue). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses and edits Midnightblueowl, and I agree with most of your comments. I've made a response to one comment above (tumuli/round barrows). Additionally, there are three minor points above that you did not respond to (see "This is somewhat circular...", "What about the possible one...", and "But you just said that Gray went in August 1905..."), and the two broader points at the top (numbered 1 and 2). But I look forward to seeing you address these points, and to supporting your nomination afterwards. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, thanks for responding to the two main points. Of the three issues withstanding, the most important is the apparent error about Gray returning to the site for the first time in nine years (also pointed out by J Milburn). There's also the line about there being "only two known prehistoric stone circles located on Exmoor" when in "Location" you suggest a possible third one, and, to a lesser extent, the somewhat circular sentence in "Context". --Usernameunique (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Usernameunique; many thanks for your attention and your patience. I had some difficulty with these additional points (in one case I could not find my copy of the source, in others I'm just not sure that I have a good answer to your query), although I have nevertheless responded to each of them. Take a look an let me know what you think. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, Midnightblueowl. Is this the source you need? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

On clicking that link, I am reaching a page that states "This item is not available online ( Limited - search only) due to copyright restrictions". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, it works for me; perhaps access varies by country. Email me and I'll pass it along. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Ceoil

• The site was rediscovered in 1898 - excavated?

• As far as I can see, it has never actually been excavated, so "rediscovered" is (I think) the most appropriate term here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Is "rediscovered the term used in the literature? It can see from the photographs that its quite buried and not obviously a stone circle. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• The site is 381 meters (1250 feet) above sea level.[3] - this to me is a random factoid, as is that it is 670.25 meters (733 yards) east/south-east of Portford Bridge - would remove.

• The reliable sources provide it, so in general I would be inclined to retain it. I can appreciate the view that it seems a little random, although it does perhaps convey interesting information about the landscape in which it is situated - i.e. we are dealing with quite a high up position in the land. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Fine. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Delighted to see "The Modern Antiquarian" in external links. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support - my minor quibbles notwithstanding. Ceoil (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look....

• The village of Withypool is mentioned in the lead but not in the body. As well that first sentence is a bit repetitive - hard to do anything about but how about something like, "Withypool Stone Circle, also known as Withypool Hill Stone Circle, is a stone circle located within the Exmoor moorland in the south-western English county of Somerset. . Lying [distance and direction] from the village of Withypool, ..."

• There has been some tweaking to the lede, to incorporate mention of Exmoor within the opening sentence rather than in a second, standalone sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• A range of different Bronze Age round barrows, a type of tumuli - shouldn't "tumuli" be singular here?

• I think that it should be plural, surely? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Weird - I'd naturally say (for example) "the robin and seagull are types of bird (singular)" maybe that's a regional/variant thing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's what I was thinking too. With identical structure, "a range of different seagulls, a type of bird" sounds completely right and "a range of different seagulls, a type of birds" sounds completely wrong. Not sure what rule of grammar to point to, though. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• In every other instance I have tried substituting, it would be singular, and "a type of tumulus" sounds right. "Type" is singular, so the noun that follows should be singular too: "this type of tumulus" but "these types of tumuli". Simon Burchell (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise looking good WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

Looks pretty good. Points:

• Lead para 2: "Although there were a large number of monuments construction in Exmoor during the Bronze Age, ..." needs something

• This has since been rewritten as "Although many monuments were built in Exmoor during the Bronze Age". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• "This scarcity of large stones may explain why Neolithic and Bronze Age communities used small stones, termed "miniliths", ... This suggests that larger stones would have been available had the sites' builders desired, and that the use of miniliths was therefore deliberate." - perhaps one of the sources makes the point that miniliths might be all that a mini-workforce could handle?

• I don't think there was anything of that nature in the reliable sources, although it is certainly an interesting thought! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The stones themselves are small; on average they measure 10 centimetres (4 inches) in height, 30 centimetres (one foot) in width, and 10 centimetres (4 inches) thick.[5] The largest stands approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) above the ground..." Somewhat confusing - "height" seems to be taken from their current orientation, and so on. Is the 0.5 m a height? Might be better to clarify this, or just give all dimensions & explain the old + new positions clearly. Height + width + "thick" is odd - one would expect "length" or "depth" to make up the trio, but as I say, it might be best to abandon oriented terms.

• I've changed "stands approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) above the ground" to "protrudes approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) from the ground". I have also changed "thick" to "in depth". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the effort to read and review this one, Johnbod! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support all points covered. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Simon Burchell

Scanning through now, but at first view looks in fine shape.

• I see Bronze Age is linked, but I think British Bronze Age should also be linked from an appropriate place. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• A link to Bronze Age Britain makes a lot of sense. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• In Context, "particularly in southern and eastern England" should probably read "particularly in what is now southern and eastern England", since England did not exist then. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• The Historic England list entry number (1021261) ought to be worked into the article somewhere. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've added a sentence mentioning this fact at the end of the "Investigation" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• There is a little additional information available from the list entry "Details" section, such as depressions left where stones used to be, and this should also be included. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've added a short sentence about the depressions to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the footnotes, nos 23 and 36 are differently formatted from the rest, presumably because they are websites. I would list them in the bibliography (which you could rename as References), with the published repeated as author unless an individual author is identified on the website. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Simon, it is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Very pleased to see this nominated here. I thought of you on Boxing Day when I had a short hike up to Birkrigg stone circle.

• "Its diameter measures 36.4 metres" Its diameter is 36.4 metres, surely?

• I've gone with "It is 36.4 metres (119 feet, 6 inches) in diameter", which I think is probably the best way to phrase things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• "used small stones, termed "miniliths", in the two" I might be wrong, but is this not an example of quoting words-as-words? If so, italics should be used.

• Sure thing. Switching from quote marks to italicisation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The largest stands approximately 0.5 metres (1.6 feet) above the ground" Would "0.5 metres (1 foot 7 inches)" not be consistent with your other measurements?

• Indeed it would. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• "a sample was taken from one stone and under examination revealed to be a hard, pale grey" was revealed?

• Good idea. Added a "was". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Do we know anything about Archibald Hamilton? "Archibald Hamilton, a local vicar" (or whatever) might be nice.

• The only information available in Gray is "Mr. Archibald Hamilton, of the Western Circuit". That's not very helpful, unfortunately, and I'm not sure that there is much that we can add to the article on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Fernacre and Stannon stone circle" These two names, along with the title of this article, seem to suggest three different naming styles for stone circles on Wikipedia. This may reflect different norms for different circles.

• You're referring to the capitalisation of "stone circle", right? I'll make sure that there is some standardisation here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Gray accompanied Hamilton on a visit to the site in August 1905 ... In August 1909, Gray returned to the site for the first time in nine years" ??

• I can't find my photocopy of this source, but I will just remove the "for the first time in nine years" until such a time as I can re-consult the original article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Have there been subsequent surveys of the site since Gray's? I assume so. Perhaps you could consider something like "The circle has been surveyed on several subsequent occasions, including...". Just a thought. I assume it's never been excavated? If you have a source, it'd be worth mentioning!

• Unfortunately, there's been virtually no investigation of the site in the past century (nearby Porlock Stone Circle has only been investigated very recently, in the past few years). I have nevertheless added an additional sentence discussing Fowler's brief fieldwork, which included the site. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Should Gillings 2015 not be Gillings 2015a?

• Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Very nice! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time and attention, Josh - I hope that you enjoyed Birkrigg! There are a couple of points I need to double check against the sources but aside from that I have responded to every point you have raised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Support. It's a shorter article, but I think that is appropriate for the topic, and have no objections to this being promoted. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• I know this is difficult, but can we aim for an opening sentence that isn't essentially "Withypool Stone Circle is a stone circle near Withypool"? The reader can guess that from the title.

• I disagree on this point. Some stone circles (like this one) are named after a local settlement, but others (like Stonehenge, Boscawen-Un, Devil's Quoits etc) are not. Thus, the present wording indicates that this particular stone circle is named for a nearby settlement while also simply giving a useful description of its location, which anyone wishing to visit the site would surely want to know. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• likely religious sites, with the stones Don't use "with" to join two clauses like that

• Is there a specific policy on this issue? I've never come across this before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Around thirty small gritstones remain, which may once have held around one hundred" What may once have held 100?

• The prose has been altered to "Around thirty small gritstones remain, although there may originally have been around 100". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• south-western slope of Withypool Hill,[1] with some sources referring to it "with" again

• Changed to "and". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• 4.43 kilometres (two and three-quarter miles) Do we need to-the-metre precision? And why are we mixing numerals and figures?

• It has been altered so that it is now all numerals. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• 0.5m (1.6 feet) long, with two reported "with"

• Changed to "and". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a realistic prospect of those red links turning blue in the near future?

• I'm hoping to getting around to creating them in the not too distant future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Where is Almsworthy Common on relation to Withypool? Especially important because it's red link.

• I have created an article on Almsworthy Common so that we no longer have a redlink problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Why the quote marks on "probably"? And whose opinion is that?

• It is Leslie Grinsell's, who is mentioned in that same sentence. I wanted to use quote marks around "probably" to emphasise that it was his opinion. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• However, in contrast to the two known Exmoor circles "However" is frowned upon at FAC, and you don't need both that and "in contrast to"

• I have removed the "However". Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• western sides of the ring, with the stones perhaps "with"

• I've changed this to "the northern and western sides of the ring; the stones perhaps in these areas may have been removed for use as road metal." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• His horse stumbled on one of the stones, and on further investigation located other stones The horse discovered other stones?

• This is a sentence that has been changed a few times during the FAC process by various editors. I've switched it back to "His horse stumbled on one of the stones, and on further investigation he located other stones within the bracken." Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• been the site of cremations, with the cremated human remains "with" again

• I'm really not sure how else to rephrase this one, to be honest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Same question as Josh: have there been any other surveys or investigations since 1909?

• I've added a sentence about Fowler's fieldwork during the 1980s. Beyond that, there seems to have been very little research conducted into this site. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting little article. Nice work on quite an obscure subject. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read through the article, HJ Mitchell. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Revival (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an American comic book series that ran for 47 issues before ending earlier this year. The plot is a twist on the zombie genre. It became a GA in June and has been mostly stable since then. Most of the recent changes were suggestions from the previous two FACs. The first one failed because some sources were challenged. I was encouraged to work with the oppose before re-nominating. I provided detailed explanations of each challenged source here and invited the opposer to discuss. They have never responded. The second FAC did not attract enough comments to pass. Third time's the charm, right? Pinging previous commenters @Aoba47: @1989: @Ian Rose: @Ealdgyth: @Slightlymad: Argento Surfer (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For the first sentence in the lead (Revival is a horror-science fiction comics series described by its creators as "a rural noir”.), I would specify who the “creators” are (i.e. Tim Seeley and Mike Norton) in order to avoid potential confusion.
• I am not certain about the following sentence (Set in central Wisconsin, Revival follows the aftermath of one day when the dead came back to life and the ensuing intrigue.). I am not sure if that “of one day” part is absolutely necessary as the phrase could be shortened to (Revival follows the aftermath of the dead coming back to life). Also these two parts (the aftermath) and (the ensuing intrigue) seems to be talking about the same thing so it seems a little too repetitive. If these two ideas are different, then it needs to be further unpacked.
• For this part (, but touches on religious, moral and social themes), I would change it to (, while touching on religious, moral and social themes) as I am not sure if the “but” construction is the best approach for this context.
• Are you using the Oxford comma in this article? You do use it in this instance (with art by Mike Norton, coloring by Mark Englert, and covers by Jenny Frison) but not in this other instance (but touches on religious, moral and social themes).
• For this sentence (Although the conclusion was determined from the beginning, the exact length of the series was determined by sales.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “determined”.
• This is more of a nitpick, but I would change the ALT text for the main infobox image. I think it would be more valuable to provide a brief physical description of the character rather than just say the character’s name. If a reader has not read this before, then just saying “Em” may not be that helpful in the end.
• This is more of a clarification question. For this sentence (Everyone who died within a few miles of Wausau, Wisconsin, on January 1 returns to life on January 2.), does the comic provide a year for these dates?
• I am a little confused by this part (It is led by Detective Dana Cypress). First, you identified Dana as a police officer in the lead. Second, I am not sure if “Detective” needs to be capitalized or not.
• I am not sure about this sentence (The revivers are now immortal and heal from all wounds.). Something about the “now” reads a little weird to me, and I am not sure if it is needed.
• I would introduce the concept of “Revival Day” in the first sentence just to make it clear what it means.
• Do you think it would be more helpful to move the image in the “Plot summary” section to the top so it would be closer to the part in which the “creeps”/“glowing men” are first introduced.
• In this section, you refer to some characters by their first names “Dana” and “Em” and others by their last names “Majak” and “Holt”. It is not a major issue for me, but I wanted to point it out to you.
• Should Revival Day be in quotation marks? There are a few instances where it is in quotation marks, and a few instances where it is not in quotation marks.
• I was a little confused by this sentence (He also considered using her in Hack/Slash, but that version eventually became Acid Angel.), particularly this section (but that version eventually became Acid Angel). Could you possibly explain what you mean by this?
• Please link White Noise in the following sentence ( They were inspired by Don DeLillo's novel White Noise, which follows people trying to escape an approaching cloud but no one knows what it actually is.).
• “The Walking Dead” is linked multiple times in the article.

Great work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• • I have made the requested changes. I prefer to refer to characters by last name, but used "Dana" and "Em" in this case because they share a last name. If you find this distracting, I do not oppose using first names for everyone. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thank you for addressing my comments. As for the point on names, I understand what you mean now and I think that it makes the most sense. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I support this for promotion, and good luck this time around with this article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC? Either way, have a great day and I look forward to working with you in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Refs 3, 19, 25: What makes "Bleeding Cool" a high quality, reliable source?
• Ref 18: The link seems to go to the wrong page – I can't locate the source title there.
• Ref 35: What makes "SKTCHD" a high quality, reliable source?
• Ref 47: Ditto "Comic Crusaders" – it advertises itself as "by fans for fans"
• Ref 63: Why the italics (see 4, 46, 55)? Also, the retrieval date format should be consistent with all the others.

Note: questioning a source's reliability does not mean I'm assuming it's unreliable. I just need more information. Subject to the above queries, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton:
  • Bleeding Cool has been referenced by reliable sources like Comics Beat, Newsarama, Multiversity, and The Week (magazine) [11].
  • That's...bizarre. CBR seems to have deleted it. I have replaced it with a new link to Multiversity.
  • SKTCHD writer David Harper is regularly referenced by other reliable sources.
  • Comic Crusaders is a review site with editorial oversight. The reference is paired with another from Newsarama to show that multiple reviewers felt it stood out among other zombie comics at the time. I'm ok with removing it if need be.
  • Two of the italic references were due to templates. I have corrected them. The last one is italic because it's actually a print source, not a website like all the others. I can change it too, if you think that would be best. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I accept what you say re Bleeding Cool and SKTCHD. On Comic Crusaders it might be wise to remove it, since the relevant text is covered, but I'll leave that to you. All other matters OK Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I have removed Comic Crusaders. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments from Moise

Hi Argento, just working my way through the article.

Production:

• “Although Frison was planned to create the covers from the beginning, Norton provided the design for the cover of the first issue”: Here “was planned to” feels a little awkward to me. Is there another way to word this? Moisejp (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Does "Although the team planned for Frison to create the covers from the beginning..." work better? I have already made the edit. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• That looks great, thanks.

Lead:

• "In late 2012, Seeley and Norton were approached by more than one major network to develop Revival into a television series. The deal fell through when ABC Studios announced they were moving forward with a different property that dealt with similar themes." This doesn't seem precise. The deal with ABC fell through at this time, but presumably discussions with NBC did not result in anything due to other circumstances.
  • I have rewritten this to be more precise. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Plot summary:

• "Meanwhile, various townspeople begin to see glowing ghost-like figures in the surrounding woods (referred to as "creeps" in writer Tim Seeley’s scripts)." I wasn't sure why you mentioned about them being referred to as creeps in scripts, when elsewhere in the article they are always called glowing men.
  • I kept the phrase in the first instance and in the image caption, but updated later references to "creeps" Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Production:

• It says that in 2015 they were planning 48 issues, but elsewhere we learn they stopped at 47. Is there information available about why they stopped one short?
  • There is not. I assume the extra issue wasn't needed when Seeley actually wrote out the scripts, but I haven't been able to find a source that addresses the discrepancy. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviews:

• The section is mostly very good, but the second paragraph seems a bit repetitive, and could use more variety in sentence structure.
  • I have tweaked this paragraph. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Those may be all my comments. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It looks good. I really enjoyed reading this. Moisejp (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Beginning the image review. I'm trying to follow User:Nikkimaria/Passing an image review and am working my way through all the components. To begin:

• File:Creep meets Em.png is currently set at 250px but apparently hardcoding the size is not good, and using upright= is better. On my computer upright=1.4 seems to be about the same size as what it is currently.
• The infobox image has alt text, but File:Creep meets Em.png currently does not seem to.
• File:Creep meets Em.png is near the beginning of the article, but are there any other free images you can find that are relevant that would help break up the text and create visual interest? I randomly clicked on the link for Craig Thompson and think the images of him could be possible candidates, although I don't know if there are better ones out there. Moisejp (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• The sizing issue was corrected by User:Curly Turkey (Thanks buddy!)
• I added alt text to the creep image per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images#Captions and nearby text.
• I added images of the writer and artist (from their articles) to the early inspiration section and an image of the minimate toy to the end of the publication section. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Argento. I'm not an expert image reviewer, but I wonder whether the third non-free image that you have uploaded (File:Em Cypress Minimate.png) is warranted. When I do music-related articles, the only non-free image I ever use is the album/single cover, but I can understand for comic-related articles, using maybe one non-free image to show the style of art makes sense. But is it common among recently(-ish) promoted comic-related articles to have as many as three non-free images? The image of the minimate seems possibly superfluous, and not crucial to the reader's understanding of the comic as a whole. But I'm happy to be convinced if you make a good argument for why it's valid or there is a strong precedent for doing such. If in doubt, would it be better to replace the minimate with another free-image artist such as Craig Thompson (I'm not fixated on him, by the way—it's just his name falls in a pretty good place in the article where an image could go)?

Also, if you do keep the minimate image, there is a notice on the page that says "This non-free media file should be replaced with a smaller version"—you would need to fix that. Additionally, I'm a little confused that at the bottom of the Non-free rationale for the image, it says "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license..." Is this correct? It sounds possibly contradictory, unless the meaning is actually completely different. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done two previous comic FA articles. Archie vs. Predator is ~20k and has one non-free image, The Fade Out is ~28k and has two. This one is ~38k. I'd be fine with removing it - I only added it because I thought you were asking for more images.

I chose it because it seemed like a good place for another image (pretty close to Craig Thompson), and because I thought it would be a good visual aid for readers who aren't familiar with what a minimate is. The rationale was one of the options when I was uploading. This is the first time I've worked with this type of image, so it's quite possible it was done incorrectly.

I think good alternatives would be Craig Thompson's alternate cover or an interior image of Dana and Ramin. I've been looking for one, but haven't found a suitable one yet. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hmm, your point that readers may well not know what a minimate is, and thus is a good visual aid, is convincing (I didn't know what it was). Since there are no exact specifications for how many non-free images are allowed, only general ones, I think three is not pushing the limit too much more than two. Let's leave it in for now and see if any other editors jump in and disagree. Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• I see User:Theo's Little Bot reduced the size of the image, so that problem is solved. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• I've added a sentence to the Purpose of use description to hopefully make the non-free image rationale stronger. Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I did a couple more minor tweaks and am now satisfied the images are all in order. Moisejp (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson was one of the most prominent Americans in the early 19th century. As a young lawyer from Tennessee, he helped the territory gain statehood and served briefly in both houses of Congress. He later became a Federal judge and commander of the state militia. During the War of 1812, Jackson led an army that defeated first the Red Stick Indians and later the British at New Orleans, securing the American frontier and granting the country one of its greatest military victories at the time. His controversial invasion of Spanish Florida in 1818 was done without explicit orders, but the end result was the acquisition of that territory by the United States. From 1829 until 1837, Jackson served as president. He led a popular movement consisting largely of poor workers and farmers against what he saw as undemocratic control of government by the elites. Jackson replaced officeholders, preserved the union during the Nullification Crisis, waged a successful war against the Second Bank of the United States, secured favorable agreements with foreign countries, instigated the forced removal of thousands of American Indians, supported slavery, and recognized the Republic of Texas. Amongst historians and the general public, Jackson is extremely divisive. His reputation has fluctuated considerably, and scholarly assessments of his life and presidency in particular are remarkably varied. Display name 99 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

image review

• Suggest scaling up the Indian Removal Act map, Democratic cartoon, and Panic of 1837 images

I scaled up the Indian Removal Act and Panic of 1837 images, but decided against doing the same for the Democratic cartoon. That's mainly because it aligns so well with the 1832 election map. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Flag_of_Tennessee.svg could do with half as many copyright tags

I got rid of two of them. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Andrew_Jackson_bust.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson_Tomb.jpg

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks like there are some template issues - the former is now showing a USGov tag for the photo, which doesn't seem to mesh with the original information? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Must have put that in there by accident. It's out now. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:Andrew_Jackson_Portrait.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Andrew_Jackson,_by_Ralph_Eleaser_Whiteside_Earl,_c._1788_-_1838.png, File:WilliamCRives.png, File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, File:Isaac_Brock_portrait_1,_from_The_Story_of_Isaac_Brock_(1908)-2.png

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

For File:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg, is there an earlier publication to support the new tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed the tag. The photographer is unknown. The source cited is a book from 2000. I have no publication date earlier than that. But everything's cited, so I don't think there should be a problem. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the life+70 tag currently in place, we do need an additional tag indicating the work's status in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:JacksonAssassinationAttempt.jpg: source links are dead, tagged as lacking author info

Added new link. Regrettably could not find author info. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:USS_Porpoise_(1836).jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag

Added new link and tag. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• File:US_$20_Series_2006_Obverse.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info, and can you confirm it meets point 1 of the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with this one. I can't find a URL that shows a bill with the same serial number. The "author" is obviously just the US Treasury Department. Not sure what else can be done here. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay. The immediate source is a user-generated scan, and the original source is a design from the Treasury - we just need to write that out, with details (eg. which design version) to make things explicit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have responded to all of your above points. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

Initial comment: There's an awful lot to trawl through here, which will take some time. Meanwhile, a couple of general points could be dealt with:

• Format: Five columns for the citations is too many – it squashes the information unnecessarily. I'd recommend reduce to three, or four at most.
• Many (if not all) of your page ranges show hyphens. These should be converted to ndashes.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll be back with a more detailed report when I've gone through the list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Nit: It's just setting the width of the columns (I have 9 columns across), it'll be as many columns as your resolution can support. That said, 15em is a little tight, so I just amped it up a tad to 22em. SnowFire (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI: I'm a college freshman and finals are starting to hit this week. So please give me some time with coming up with responses and implementing recommended changes. Display name 99 (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thank you for your review. Your comments have been addressed. Do you think you can get to the rest of the review anytime soon? Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at it now. Expect comments in a day or so Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Detailed sources comments

Here are my comments from my first pass of the source section:

• Although you say you've replaced the hyphens in page ranges with ndashes, you've not done this thoroughly – there are many hyphens still present.

Done Hoppyh (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Try 143, 148, 236 Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. These weren't there at the time, and I have to remember to put dashes in the correct format when adding new sources. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 17: how is this a high quality, reliable source?

The biographical info on Remini I have reviewed indicates he is a widely published, award winning academic on Jackson and other presidents. Hoppyh (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hoppyh, he was referring to something else. The citation numbers got changed up a bit after he did his initial review. What was previously citation 17 came from an online source that I ended up removing. But thanks for your help on the article. Display name 99 (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Hoppyh (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 20: appears identical to the source in ref 3

Looks ok. Hoppyh (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I replaced one of these sources. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 25: These genealogy websites are not generally considered as reliable. Try to find anopther source.

I think this is now #24 and I believe we can remove the sentence which utilizes this ref. Thoughts? Hoppyh (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I decided to keep the sentence-it's important contextually. But I did get a new source. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 36: page range requires pp. not p. (There may be others similiar, take a careful look)

Done. All look good. Hoppyh (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 39: This looks on the face of it to be a university source, but on examination it seems to be a student project. Read this. I thus have doubts about its quality and reliability

Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 43: I don't see any reference to "The Andrew Jackson Foundation" which you name as publisher

Changed to "The Hermitage." Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 91: appears identical to 31

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 117: The publisher appears to be "ThoughtCo". I don't know where "About Education" comes from

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 139 and 140: Titles not represented in the source

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 147: What makes this a high quality, reliable source?

Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 149: Link not working

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 153: needs subscription template added

Added journal template. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 160: A page number is required - the book has 1,928 pages

Removed. Unable to find relevant information in source. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 162: Needs publisher. Not "Books.google" which is merely the online facilitator. Who published the book?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 164: Not working. I get "The Andrew Jackson site has been retired from pbs.org."

Source replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 177: Syrett needs a "p." A publisher is required for "President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832"

Syrett removed. Not needed. Publisher added. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 180: p. range format inconsistency

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 181: Website blocked - "potentially dangerous content"

Not sure what to say here. I tried it and did just fine. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's 174 now. I'm still getting the "website blocked" message, but the archive link now takes me to the source, so perhaps it's some local temporary hitch. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 203: Publisher details missing

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 213: Not working: "404 File not found"

Click on where it says "Archived." Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Now 206: that's not good enough, you should use the working url as your main link. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 218: Not working – repeated timeouts

It works for me. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Now 211: I'm still getting timeouts on the main link, although the archive link works. See my comment re 206. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 219: Who publishes this?

A website is given. That should be enough. They don't all have clear publishers. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

If you don't know the publisher you shouldn't use the site, as you can't confirm its reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Now 214. At the bottom of the site, the name "Robert S. Summers" appears. Summers is a respected law professor. Also, the only thing that this source is used to cite is cabinet information-names, years, positions, etc. All that information is verified in a host of other sources. But none of them that I've seen sum it all up in one place like this one. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 224: "James" Catron?

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 243: Page reference missing

Added. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 250: Page reference missing

Source replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 253: Why is "Masonic Research identified as publisher? I can't see nay reference to it.

Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 254: The format seems wrong in terms of title and publisher

Can you explain a bit more? Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Now 247: someone has dealt with this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 255: Publisher details missing

Publisher added. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 263: Publisher details missing

Removed per terrible formatting and the fact that another source seemed to take care of the information. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 264: provides insufficient detail

Removed along with text in question. Unable to verify. Display name 99 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 265 and 267: Similar format issues to 254

I can't say I see the problem here either. Display name 99 (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

What was 265 seems to have been removed or replaced. What was 267 is now 257. Author's name is in the wrong format (should be surname first); the title should be "2-cent Green Andrew Jackson", and the publisher should be "National Postal Museum, Smithsonian Institution". "Arago" is the database name, not the publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 268: publisher details should not be abbreviated.

This source has been removed. Display name 99 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

• More generally: there are issues relating to italicization. Some of these appear to arise from the frequent confusion of website name ("work") with the publisher, i.e. the owner of the website. However, before tackling this, I advise you to tackle the lengthy list of specific queries, above. Give me a ping when you think you're through.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I have responded to all of the points you have made. Thank you for your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've indicated inline the few points where there are still issues outstanding. On the italicization issue there still seems to be work required. In general, a publisher should be italicized if the item arises from a print sourse , e.g. the title of a newspaper or journal, but not otherwise. Thus "Northern Ireland Tourist Board", "State Library of North Carolina", "Yale Law School" etc should not be italicized. There are other similar cases that need adjusting. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton, I've removed italics from those sources as well as some others. Let me know how it looks. If there's still work that needs to be done in this regard, please either let me know or fix it yourself. Display name 99 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've given a great deal of time to this review, and "fix it yourself" strikes me as a little brusque, even rude. It's your responsibility to get your sources right, not mine, and this needs to be done with appropriate care. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Well wow; that was uncalled for. You seem to have taken the position that I was somehow ordering you to make certain edits to the article. Obviously not the case. If you feel like cleaning up pieces of it here and there, you're welcome to. Otherwise, please tell me where improvement is needed so that I can do the work of fixing it and getting this article to FA quality. That's all that I said. By the way, simply saying "Not good enough" in your response above might also be interpreted as brusque or rude. Now, Brianboulton, do the italics look fine, or is more work needed? Thank you for your assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Having spent eight hours – yes, I mean eight hours – on this review, checking every reference at least once, not to mention having to manoeuvre around various ref number changes, etc, I feel somewhat inclined to take umbrage at comments such as "fix it yourself". OK, I accept you didn't mean it to sound ungracious. I'm finished here – as things stand, I'm happy to sign the sources off, and any final tinkering can be done by you after the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl

Good to see all the hard work that has gone on here.

Lede:

• I really think that mention of Jackson's leadership of the Democratic Party needs to be mentioned in that very first paragraph. It is of great importance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about that. There are a lot of crucial things that Jackson did which aren't mentioned in the first paragraph or even today. Besides, the Democratic Party of today looks almost nothing like the Democratic Party of the 1820s or 1830s. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• Probably a tad too long. It currently stands at 25 lines long (at least in my browser), which is one line longer than FA-rated political biographies of equal (if not greater) importance like Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin. To that end I would recommend trying to get that second paragraph trimmed back a little bit. For instance, we could get rid of material like "(now part of Tennessee)". Other areas of prose could be condensed: "he was appointed a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court, serving from 1798 until 1804" could easily become "he served as a justice on the Tennessee Supreme Court from 1798 to 1804". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I cut down on it using a couple of the suggestions you mentioned along with some others. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Born in the Waxhaws, Jackson" - perhaps a tad more on his ethnic background here; "Born in the Waxhaws to Scots-Irish migrants, Jackson"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "slaveowning" - "slave-owning"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been able to determine if one is more proper than the other. Therefore, I left it alone. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "winning a major victory at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend" could easily become "winning the Battle of Horseshoe Bend". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• De-link Spain. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Country names are usually left un-linked in articles. It's a sort of convention (although when it was decided I really do not know). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• "In reaction to the alleged "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Henry Clay and the ambitious agenda of President Adams" feels a bit clunky. How about "Reacting against Adams' alleged "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay,". Shorter and more succinct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

It's shorter because it removes the part about Adams's agenda. If you can find a way to increase brevity without changing content or meaning, that would be excellent. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

But is there much point mentioning Adams' agenda if no further explanation is given at this juncture anyway? We could just refer to Jackson's opposition to Adams without going into any further detail. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The end of the lead is to do no more than summarize and at times simply allude to things that are discussed below in greater detail. Details aren't always necessary. Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• " thoroughly dismantled the Bank" - perhaps scrap "thoroughly"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it works well. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• "dispossessed the Indians" - probably best to avoid the use of "Indians" in the lede (unless referring to something like the Indian Removal Act) given the disputed nature of the term. "Natives" would do just as well and lacks many of the problems of "Indians". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I think they're both fine. I know a guy who met a "Native American." The "Native American" allegedly that people like him should be referred to as "American Indians" because, in his view, anybody born in the U.S. is a "Native American." I don't think it matters. You can't please everybody. Display name 99 (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

It's true that it is impossible to please anybody, but it is a huge issue of debate and is unlikely to go away any time soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• "as an advocate for the causes of democracy and the common man" works just as well as "as an advocate for democracy and the common man". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, thank you for taking the time to do this review. I have responded to your comments above. I have not chosen to implement all of the reforms that you have suggested. However, I did manage to cut the lead down in size by a little bit. Display name 99 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, do you think you could please continue with the review? Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. Apologies for the delay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education:

• "from present day Northern Ireland two years earlier" - I'm wondering if it's better to just say "from northern Ireland" or something like that. Perhaps "British-controlled Ireland"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it matters. Just personal taste. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Waxhaws is linked twice. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Whups. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• That third paragraph could really do with further, more specialist citations, ideally from biographical studies of Jackson. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I added one from Remini. I don't want to expand it too much with citations from other sources. That's mainly because it's an obscure question to which we will never surely know the answer that in the grand scheme of things is not all that important. I think we have enough there now. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think that we will need more specific citation than simply The Washington Post, to be honest. That is an RS, but when sources produced by academic historians are available, we really should be using them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Midnightblueowl, checking once more to remind you of this review. Display name 99 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Display name. I don't intend to oppose this article, and admire the considerable amount of good work that has gone into getting it to the stage that it is presently at, although I still have misgivings, particularly with regard to sourcing. Andrew Jackson is a major figure in American political history and large numbers of scholars have written about him, and yet at various points this article relies solely on Remini 1977, or cites press sources rather than academic works. I would really like to see a much denser use of academic sourcing, as for instance can be seen at the Nelson Mandela article. Despite these concerns, I certainly wish you well with the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm doubtful this will change your mind, but I will leave a few comments here anyway, more for the FA coordinators and future reviewers than anyone else. Press sources are used mainly in the Legacy section, which is customary, especially regarding monuments and such. Some articles are used elsewhere, and these typically come from well-established scholars. There is an article from H.W. Brands, a Jackson biographer, that's cited twice, and another from Mark Cheatham, a professional historian, that's also used.

Regarding the perceived partiality towards Remini that exists in the early part of the article, I do not believe it is quite as extreme as the editor indicated. For instance, the entire Dickinson affair is cited to the Brands biography. Remini isn't even included until the 11th citation. Nevertheless, there were some spots in which I realized that I could diversify the citations by including references to other works. Therefore, I did add in some citations to other books about Jackson, namely the ones written by Snelling, Parton (Volume 1), Brands, and Meacham. It is important to remember that Remini's work, being three volumes, is more detailed than the single-volume 21st century biographies written by Brands, Wilentz, and Meacham, and thus can easily be cited more. That's basically all I have to say. This article passed a detailed source review, so hopefully this won't emerge again as a major problem. Display name 99 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I'll be doing a full review, but a couple of initial comments from near the end.

• I'd question the description of Richard Mentor Johnson as unpopular. Possibly among some. "Controversial" might be a better term. "Rumpsey Dumpsey" always had considerable support, especially in the West, and with the Whig candidates in 1840 masquerading as "regular guys", Johnson did fill a need there. Yes he had the biracial mistresses and daughters, but most people didn't know that. They liked him as an Indian fighter and "Colonel Johnson shot Tecumsey".

OK. I changed it. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• More could be said about Jackson's role in getting Polk the nomination. It was Jackson who told Polk, after Van Buren's letter opposing the annexation of Texas, that he could be elected president.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I expanded this article's discussion of the 1844 election, including the incident which you just mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in whether you capitalize the "The" in "The Hermitage".--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I tried not to capitalize it except at the start of sentences and in citations. I found one instance where I had deviated from this and fixed it. If you see any other cases of the "The" being capitalized aside from the exceptions which I just mentioned, please feel free to fix them. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Andrew and Robert were eventually captured by the British in 1781" I might cut "eventually"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "After a time," I would substitute "Later that year,"

Done.

• "After nursing Andrew back to health, Elizabeth volunteered to nurse prisoners of war on board two ships in the Charleston harbor, where there had been an outbreak of cholera. I might toss an "American" in front of "prisoners" (assuming) and similarly "British" before ships.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "n 1781 he worked for a time in a saddle-maker's shop.[19] ... He taught school and worked for a time as a saddle-maker." Is this a duplicate?

Yes. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I might use pipes to read law and admission to the bar

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "before the petition for divorce was ever made." "even" for "ever"?

I think "ever" works fine. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

""In 1794, Jackson formed a business with fellow lawyer and planter John Overton, overtly buying and selling land which had been reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw.[26] Theirs was a frank avowal; they, like many of their contemporaries, would deal with lands within Indian territory. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened to claim by North Carolinians all of the Indian lands in that state's transmontane west." I might rephrase as"In 1794, Jackson formed a partnership with fellow lawyer John Overton (you haven't mentioned Jackson being a planter yet), dealing in claims for reserved by treaty for the Cherokee and Chickasaw tribes. Like many of their contemporaries, they dealt in such claims although the land was in Indian country. Most of the transactions involved grants made under the 'land grab' act of 1783 that briefly opened Indian lands west of the Appalachians within North Carolina to claim by that state's residents."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suspect the one-paragraph subsection could be combined with the one following. Possibly "Tennessee politician and land speculator"?

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "and one of the most powerful men in the state. Jackson became attorney general in 1791," Some clarity is needed. Tennessee wasn't a state yet.

Correct. Changed to "territory." Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "At that time, most men were members of the militia." "white men", surely.

Added "free" in front of "men." Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson had also presented Roane with evidence against Sevier of land fraud. : Possibly end "with evidence of land fraud against Sevier."

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "making him among the planter elite." possibly "placing him among the planter elite".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Wilkinson ordered Jackson to halt in Natchez, now part of the Mississippi Territory," possibly "then" for "now"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "February 6 ordering him dismiss his forces" likely a missing word

I did not omit anything. Take away "dated February 6" and you get "sent him a letter ordering." I think it works. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Probably you need a "to" before "dismiss", is what I meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "However, he also promised to, instead of dismissing the troops without provisions in Natchez, march them back to Nashville.[6" I would move the "to" next to "march"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in a street brawl with Jesse and his brother, Thomas." I'd advise changing "Jesse" to Benton. I'd make a bigger deal out of who his brother was, given THB's prominence later on.

I didn't say anything about this there, but I did add a mention THB when discussing Jackson's return to the Senate. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I see Thomas was his aide-de-camp. I might mention that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt, can you provide a source for this? I just looked in Remini and couldn't find anything about this. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's in the Benton article, sourced to Meacham's bio of Jackson.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Added. For some reason, I thought you were saying that JB was the aide-to-camp. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• " perpetrated the Fort Mims massacre" I might say what it happened at this point in the paragraph, not several sentences later.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "After arriving in New Orleans on December 1,[80] " been a while since you mentioned the year.

Added year. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• " Their deaths were not revealed until the Coffin Handbills were circulated during his 1828 presidential campaign" I might say "publicized" or "well-known" since obviously the New Orleans authorities knew.

DOne. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Finishing the pre-presidency:

• "who happened to be Speaker of the House," You mention this earlier in the section. I would either cut or tie it up better, for example, "who as Speaker presided over the election"

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Some mention of how Jackson conducted the 1824 campaign, even if to say he pretended he wasn't running, would be good.

I expanded significantly on Jackson's 1824 campaign. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Adams's presidency floundered, as his ambitious agenda faced defeat in a new era of mass politics. Critics led by Jackson attacked Adams's policies as a dangerous expansion of Federal power." I think this ignores the fact that many embittered Jackson supporters were basically against anything Adams proposed.

I added an opening sentence to the section on the 1828 election about the general opposition to Adams and how early it began. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• "A series of pamphlets known as the Coffin Handbills were published to attack Jackson. One revealed that he had ordered the execution of six soldiers at New Orleans." You do mention this above, and this reads like you hadn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• In your preliminary paragraph on the presidency, it might be worth mentioning that the franchise was considerably expanded among white males in the 1830s.

Most white men could vote by the 1820s. That was what helped Jackson get elected. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Salacious rumors held that Peggy, as a barmaid in her father's tavern," As I understand it, the tavern was more a hotel/boardinghouse, where Sec. Eaton resided at some point, as was usual due to high Washington real estate prices. I might also refer to her here as "Peggy Eaton".

Taverns were boarding houses, but many of them served alcohol. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "it was alleged that she and her husband and engaged in an adulterous affair" I think there's a grammatical error, "and" (second usage) should be "had"

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Same paragraph, some inconsistency in capitalizing "cabinet". It might help the reader if you mentioned that the Eaton affair prevented Jackson calling Cabinet meetings for, as I recall, months.

I have removed instances where I found it capitalized. Do you have a source for the statement about the meetings? Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "be Minister to England" probably better, "Minister to Britain". It might be useful, in mentioning Van Buren's "recovery", to mention his nomination and election as Vice President.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• It might be worth a mention that the Cherokees took the position that they were a nation, not part of the US or Georgia.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "very hostile white environment in the Old South to Oklahoma probably saved their very existence." I would not use "very" in two different senses in the same sentence. Also, the dashes late in the paragraph don't seem to be the right ones.

I rephrased this and replace the dash, hopefully with the proper one. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson's Postmaster Barry" He was the Postmaster General.

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the Postal Service" since you are capitalizing, it was at the time the Post Office Department. You use this phrase multiple times.

Replaced. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson's tenure in office saw a variety of other reforms as well." This implies that the reform mentioned in the previous paragraph, that is, abolition of the Electoral College, took place.

Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Southern planters, who sold their cotton on the world market, strongly opposed this tariff, which they saw as favoring northern interests." The selling of cotton doesn't help explain why they opposed the tariff. There was, after all, no tax on exports.

Added clarifying sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• The Washington Globe I don't believe the "The" is italicized.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "in February 1836, American reparations were paid." This sounds like the Americans were paying. Incidentally, I'm a bit dubious at the idea of "the French people" demanding things of Jackson. Is their government meant or did people get up petitions?

Removed the word "American." The French people were outraged by Jackson's remarks and basically refused to allow their government to pay until Jackson had apologized. Clarified in the text. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson was unsuccessful in opening trade with China and Japan. He was unsuccessful at thwarting Great Britain's presence and power in South America." I don't like the repeat of "was unsuccessful".

Rephrased. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I might expand a bit in explaining the anti-Masonic movement.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I would split the paragraph in which you introduce the Second Bank.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Jackson himself made numerous popular public appearances on his return trip from Tennessee to Washington D.C. Jackson won the election decisively by a landslide" I would cut "popular" and "decisively" and add a comma after "Washington".

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "the Anti-Masonic Party folded" well, as a presidential player, yes, but it did persist in Pennsylvania for years after that and likely neighboring states as well.

Good point. Replaced with "eventually declined." Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• In the description of Jackson removing the deposits from the Second Bank, likely the term pet bank should be used and linked at some relevant point.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The result was high demand for specie, which many banks could not meet in exchange for their notes, causing the Panic of 1837" I'm not sure you'll find universal agreement that this was the only cause of the Panic, though undoubtedly it contributed.

Replaced with "contributed to." Display name 99 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The incident became a part of Jacksonian mythos." I would say for the last two words, "Jackson's legend".

I don't see any improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Legend is a term more commonly used in this connection, so the reader will understand it more quickly, imho.

I understand your argument, but "mythology" and other similar-sounding words are used regularly, and therefore I doubt the reader will have any ambiguity about what this means. Furthermore, simply saying that we use a word more does not indicate that it is always better. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "U.S. Postal system" I would lower case the Postal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 14:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• "he pocketed Adams' expedition plans. " I'm not sure pocketed, in that sense, is really common in American English.

I don't know if its American or British, but it makes sense. I haven't heard English spoken anywhere outside the U.S. and a couple brief trips to Canada, and I'm still familiar with the phrase. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "One brig ship, USS Porpoise, later used in the expedition; having been laid down, built, and commissioned by Secretary Dickerson in May 1836, circumnavigated the world, explored and mapped the Southern Ocean, confirming the existence of the Antarctica continent.[232]" the semicolon should not be there, as what goes before cannot stand as a sentence. Also, it sounds like Dickerson laid it down, built it, and commissioned it. There should also be an "and" before "explored" in my view.

I have rephrased both parts. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "by money backed by gold and silver" I would simply say "with gold and silver" because that is the only money that would have been accepted.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• You italicize Specie Circular at least once.

I found one instance and removed the italics. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "His next two appointees-Henry Baldwin and James Moore Wayne-disagreed with Jackson on some points but were viewed poorly even by Jackson's enemies." I don't think those are the proper dashes, and "viewed poorly" is not a phrase I'm familiar with in AmEng.

My response is the same as with the pocketing issue. I've hopefully managed to fix the dashes. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Taney served as Chief Justice until 1864, presiding over a court that upheld many of the precedents set by the Marshall Court." Um, maybe so, but I think what should be mentioned here is the Dred Scott decision. It overshadows Taney's Chief Justiceship.

Added a sentence mentioning the decision. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• "When a letter from Calhoun to British Ambassador Richard Pakenham linking annexation to slavery was made public, anti-annexation sentiment exploded in the North and the bill failed to be ratified." I think all you need for the purposes of Jackson's article is that the treaty failed to be ratified.

The Calhoun thing is crucial. The Pakenham letter increased anti-annexation sentiment in the north by seeming to make the issue of Texas annexation all about slavery. As a result, Van Buren, a northerner, felt pressured into opposing annexation. Therefore, Jackson could not support him. Some historians actually think the whole thing was a ploy by Calhoun to deny his enemy Van Buren the nomination. If so, it worked. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• "moved into" not sure what this is saying.

Changed to "decided to write." Display name 99 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "A bill of annexation was finally signed by Tyler on March 1, 1845, and then ratified.[263]" ratified?

I got the timeline messed up. It was passed in February and signed on March 1. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• You link Andrew Jackson Donelson in consecutive paragraphs*.

I can't find where. I link to him in the second-to-last paragraph of "Later life and death," but can't find where in either of the two adjacent paragraphs I link to him. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• There's some question as to whether Jackson ever made the Clay/Calhoun comment, see here.

I'm not sure the source you cited is reliable. I did expand on this subject by including what Parton (and others) quote Jackson as saying on his deathbed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not certain where the Sellars quote ends. There's no cite after the quotation mark, and the next two sentences sound something like a quote.

I put a cite after the quotation mark. The rest is essentially a summary of Sellars' overall argument. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• On the money, I would cut the "Series" and the years. The design has appeared on more recent series of currency, I see it on a Series 2013 $20.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "criticise" Criticize.

Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think the legacy section is fairly thin. The de Tocqueville quote is very long and I'm not sure what it says about Jackson's legacy. Beyond that, there's just a handful of quotes. Usually, president articles talk about, among other things, how they are ranked by historians.

Added a summary of what various 20th century writers say about him, and summarized more content from a Brands article already cited. Also, I moved a one-paragraph historiography of Jackson's Indian policies into this section from elsewhere in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• "In 1838, Jackson became a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Nashville.[274]" Given that the source I referred you to on Clay/Calhoun says Jackson was converted Presbyterianism by a clergyman, I wonder what was he for the first seventy years of his life?

I added a clarifying sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'm hoping to have all of this responded to by the end of the weekend. In the meantime, here's what I've got. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Should only be a few things left. Display name 99 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Wehwalt, thank you for your thorough review. I've responded to everything. If there are any potential areas of improvement remaining, please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Appears to meet the criteria. Nicely done on an important figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

ZETA (fusion reactor)

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am re-FACing this article. It stalled out after two supports about a month ago. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Sources review

• Ref 27: Publisher?

It's a patent, I don't think it has a publisher, per se.

I tweaked that footnote to make the nature of the reference more clear. XOR'easter (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 50: Needs ndash in page range, not hyphen

Looks like XOR did this edit.

• Ref 109: Is the source here the book, in which case a page reference should be given? If the source is this online article, this should be clarified and the ISBN removed.

Good point, I have changed this to a web ref.

• Ref 118: The source seems devoid of information that supports the text

The cite is connected to his win on the JCM for the the ballooning transformation and more broadly his work in fusion. The body mentions "played a major part in developing the "ballooning transformation" for toroidal plasmas".

• Ref 121: I'm getting repeated timeouts here

I tried three times, once last night and twice this morning, with no problem. It's archive.org, I'm not sure it will ever be speedy, but I suspect your problem is because your local server hadn't accessed it recently and didn't have it cached. It might work fine now.

The original link timed out for me, so I changed it to the archive.org copy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sources: The Hill book is wrongly titled.

I cut and pasted the title from the Google page, can you be more specific? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I made that fix here (somehow, "atomic" had become "nuclear"). XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Other than these points, sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've started addressing these points. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by IP

What's a "shot?" You use this in quotes three times. Use a real word, please. I think, from starting to read the article, some of the jargon is used incorrectly, shortened phrases that slightly change meaning, mixing up somewhat close technical words. I found the article tricky to read because of this. I started editing, but there's too much. I enjoy reading FAs. I would not read this. --2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@2600:387:6:803:0:0:0:C2: I added an explanation of "shot". Can you be more specific on the others? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support from John

I already reviewed this and the issues I raised have been fixed. Nice article. Support. --John (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment by XOR'easter

There are two redlinks, colliding beam fusion and ballooning transformation, which create a slight impression that the coverage is not comprehensive. The former is not so bad, because the name is rather self-explanatory, but the latter is awkward:

Taylor went on to study the ballooning transformation, solving a mystery found in high-performance toroidal machines.

This is the kind of vague sentence I'm used to seeing in forgettably sub-par science popularizations. Scientist solves mystery, film at 11. If this sentence could be reworked to be a little more specific about what the "ballooning transformation" is, that would be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The Shawshank Redemption

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Much like it's central character, after over 20 years of being imprisoned in sub-GA status, The Shawshank Redemption has acquired a rock hammer (me) to dig a tunnel to GAdom, and now we just need a Red to help us escape, crawl through a tunnel of shit (FA nomination process) and come out clean on the other side as a Featured article. Which one of you will be Red to this article's Andy? Which of you will be Warden Norton only to be overcome by hope? TL;DR, think this article is pretty good, would appreciate input. Thanks in advance. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but I strongly suggest you go through the references before someone reviews them, as there are quite a few formatting errors and inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I've taken a quick look and I've addressed what I can find. Was there anything specific you noticed or is there a tool to help point things out? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, there are issues with the use of |publisher= vs |work=/|newspaper= - publications like the Los Angeles Times should use the latter. Also, should use a timecode to specify where we can find specific facts cited to a video, and citations to multiple pages should use pp. rather than p. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok I will have a look after work. The publisher v work thing never seems to be consistently applied across articles, since sometimes I have no issue on FA noms and sometimes I do. With the references being websites and publishers routinely changing, I considered the paper to be the publisher of the information, but I can fix these. I thought all time codes were present but I'll take a look at these to. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria:, I've tried to address the issues. After reading through Template: Cite web, I learned that the preference is to use the "website" parameter and that "publisher" becomes largely redundant when doing that. It seemed to make more sense since they are websites being cited so I've changed them over. Hopefully that is the right thing to do. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

That's considerably better, although a few things have moved that shouldn't have (a good check is to see if the article about the source italicizes it - if no, the citations probably shouldn't). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I've taken another pass Nikkimaria, it's quite hard. Like I switched Rotten Tomatoes from "website" to "work" but that still italicizes it, but reading template: web cite, the publisher would be fandango not Rotten Tomatoes, so there's no field I could use to not italicize it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I just want to comment that with this article on my watch list (and having contributed to it before), DWB has done an amazing job over the last few months elevating it from its prior state to bring it here. I'm not saying its flawless (see other comments), but I'm pretty confident this meets the key FAC aspects, and should more help be needed, I'll try to throw my hat in. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

Initial comments after skimming and doing some minor copy edits:

• Why is some of the cast bullet listed, while the rest are listed in paragraph form?
• The Music subsection contains two paragraphs and an image that are marked out as hidden comments. Why?
• "Andy's incarceration between 1946 and 1966 (1947 and 1975 in the novel), largely overlaps with Nixon's presidency which ended in disgrace." The 1946-66 range doesn't overlap Nixon's presidency at all; 1947-75 overlaps it completely, but that is the novel, not the subject of this article.
• "Despite its poor box office returns, The Shawshank Redemption opened to generally positive reviews." The mention of "poor box office" is repetitive since it is mentioned multiple times in the previous section. Also, most reviews are released before box office returns are known, so positive reviews do not happen "despite" the box office.
• I spotted various phrasings that seem odd for an encyclopedia article; for example: "earning a spell", "the like of which", "male-centric".

Will attempt a more thorough reading/review later. --RL0919 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• The bulleted cast are the people billing as starring roles per the poster and infobox. The rest are in paragraph form to avoid a long list of minor roles.
• That was information present in the article before I started work on it but couldn't find a source for it, I've removed it.
• If I change it to partially and mention the novel largely overlaps would that make a difference? It's from a book on the film, and it's suggesting a basis for the character of Warden Norton, so i think it's inclusion in some form would be useful, but I get what you're saying.
• thanks for the advice, I've rewrote this.
• I've tried to rectify the ones you've noted let me know if you find any more. I think "male-centric" is a reasonable word though? Could change to male-orientated maybe.
• Thanks for taking the time to review this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• @RL0919:, just checking if you know I responded to you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 3: content behind paywall, therefore needs subscription template
• Ref 21: The source article is from The Observer, not The Guardian
• Refs 33 and 45 appear to be identical
• Ref 93: There's no need to replicate the capitals, which look shouty and out-of-place here.
• Ref 121: Ref shows a different title from the source.

Otherwise, sources seem thoroughly prepared, consistently formatted, and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Brian. I've added the subscription template for Ref 3, removed duplicate reference 45, sorted the CAPS on ref 93 and deadurl'd ref 121, seems they replaced it with a more up to date version. For Ref 21, it says the Observer but when I click the Observe link it brings me to the Guardian website with the Observer as a subsection. Searching the review brings me back to the original link, so I don't know if it should remain the Guardian or the Guardian would be the publisher and The Observer would be the work. Any advice? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

If you use "work= The Observer" rather than "website= The Guardian", you'll get the necessary italicisation without disturbing anything else. This could be done generally for all those cases where the original source was a newspaper or journal. Brianboulton (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Display name 99

FYI: I hardly do any edits to film-related articles.Idon't watch a lot of movies, but I've always enjoyed this one. Overall, the article looks pretty good. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Frank Medrano plays Fat Ass, one of Andy's fellow new inmates who is beaten to death by Hadley..." beaten to death? I just watched the scene again. Hadley beats him severely, and tells one of the guards to "take that tub of shit down to the infirmary." I watched his chest and could see that, even after the beating stopped, he was still breathing. Are you sure about this? Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• "Andy's incarceration between 1946 and 1966 (1947 and 1975 in the novel), occurs alongside Nixon's presidency which ended in disgrace." Nixon was president from 1969 to 1974. I can't say I see the correlation. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
• "The scene featured Freeman throwing and catching a baseball with another inmate throughout it." I suggest combining this sentence with the one before it. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to provide your feedback. As for your points:

• He dies in the infirmary from his injuries, it's mentioned in the diner scene the following day. Unless you mean that he didn't die there and then from the beatings?
• The line is drawing a comparison between Nixon and Norton, but you're the second person to bring this up so I've just removed it.
• Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support-Looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by AmericanAir88

• In "Legacy" Why is "As of 2017..." before the 2013 late August statement. Wouldn't it be better to end a section talking about the present? AmericanAir88 (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Done. There's been a lot of reorganising going on so it slipped through the cracks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Very well written. Heres your ticket to Zihuatanejo.

Comments from Aoba47

• For the first sentence of the lead, I would include the year in which King’s novella was released.
• I am little confused by the following sentence “As of 2017, the film is still broadcast regularly, and is popular in several countries, with audience members and celebrities citing its themes.”, specifically the “with audience members and celebrities citing its themes”. Citing the themes as what? How do these two groups cite the themes?
• I would include ALT text for the images. The infobox one and the ones in the body of the article.
• I would include the year in which King’s novella The Body was released.
• I think that it would be more beneficial to move the images of Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman to the “Casting” subsection as that is where the actors are discussed the most. This part is up to personal preference to so feel free to disagree, as it is just a suggestion.
• For this part (When Robbins was cast he insisted), please add a comma after “cast”.
• For this part (behind sex-comedy Exit to Eden ($3 million), and just ahead of Quiz Show ($2.1 million), which was in its fifth week at the cinemas.), I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of “Quiz Show” just to be consistent within the sentence.
• For this sentence (The film closed in late November 1994, after 10 weeks with an approximate total gross of $16 million.), I would replace “The film” with “The Shawshank Redemption” as you have mentioned two other films in the previous sentence.
• For this part (by its tenth anniversary in 2004 he was still earning six-figure residual payments), add a comma after “2004”.
• For the “Lasting reception” subsection, is there any particular reason for the separation of the second and third paragraphs?
• How is the “Lasting reception” subsection different from the “Legacy” section? Couldn’t the information from the subsection be merged into the section?
• Could you expand on this part (The film was adapted into a 2015 stage play in the United Kingdom.), such as who wrote the play, the actors that originated the role, and its critical reception/commercial performance?

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Planet of the Apes

Nominator(s): Cúchullain ^t/c 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the film and media franchise Planet of the Apes, which has included a number of historically significant films since the 1960s. I've substantially rewritten it over the course of 3 years using all of major sources I've been able to identify, most importantly the two book-length treatments. I believe it covers the topic comprehensively, without going into excessive detail on the individual installments, and at long last think the prose and content are FA caliber.Cúchullain ^t/c 23:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 69 - Rotten Tomatoes: the format here is different from what you show for 165, 167, 169 and others. Citations to the same source should be formatted consistently.

• Fixed (I believe). This is a part of the article that I don't think needs to even exist, so I never paid it much attention. Let me know if I missed any.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 71: Same point, re Box Office Mojo – compare this with refs 158 to 162

• Fixed - again, let me know if I missed anything.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 77: What makes this a reliable source?

• We discussed it at WP:RSN here (the site in question used to named badassdigest.com). The consensus seemed to be that it was acceptable based on the author. However, it could be removed as it doesn't cover anything that isn't in the (much stronger) Linder and Fordham & Bond sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 83: Is the source /Film, as here, or SlashFilm, per ref 99?

• Good question. No clue. I changed all references to /Film as that's where the Wikipedia article is located.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 86: Harvard error

• Fixed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 92, 93 and others: Another inconsistency: until this point, with online sources, you have formatted both website and publisher. Here, and in several other cases, you show only the website. You need to be consistent - the publisher should always be shown.

• Good catch. I added publisher for all the ones I found, but as usual, let me know if I missed something.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 110: unformatted url

• Fixed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 111: dead link ("All Game is no more...")

• Fixed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 116, 117 and 119 all seem to link to the wrong site

• 117 was mislinked, but it looks like 116 and 119 are pointing to the right place (different IGN reviews).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 122 shows a different title from the source - is this the correct link?

• It seems to be the right article, but it looks like the title has changed. I updated it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 132: What makes this a reliable source?

• Discussions on WP:RSN seem to point to it being reliable for film criticism. Jim Emerson was the publisher of the site and a film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times.[12]--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 163: Dead, gives 404 message

• Fixed. It didn't support the info anyway.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Refs 166, 168, 170, 172 and 174 are all unformatted urls

• I'd rather just delete this section, but in the meantime I've updated the references.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 178: lacks publisher and retrieval date

• Fixed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• In your list of sources, you don't need to give retrieval dates for google links. The book itself is the source.

• Removed.---Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Brianboulton. I believe I've fixed all the issues you've identified.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

No idea why this has sat here for a month with no input. I don't have time to do a detailed review right now but hopefully will later in the week. Just from a quick look, the lead seems a little sparse for an article of this length, and you're misusing "between" in between 1970 and 1973 ("between" implies after 1970 but before 73; suggest replacing it with "from" and "to"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ Mitchell. I've changed "between" to "from". The intro is brief, but I never could think of anything else that the article covers that should be in the intro, but I'll of course incorporate anything else that's suggested.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You could expand on the themes in the third lead para eg The films are apocalyptic and dystopian, and portray the era's tensions...' Ceoil (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I've also been wanting to review this for a while, but I'm not familiar with the series beyond the first film and the most recent ones, so I wanted to wait until someone more familiar with the series had finished a review. Feel free to ping me when it happens, I don't think this nomination should be archived. I know a King Kong/Planet of the Apes crossover comic either exists or is in the works[13], perhaps worth a mention... FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I can add that to the comics section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've got time for a proper look through now:

• However, Boulle rejected the science fiction label for his work "However" is frowned upon at FAC and is a widely misused word. I count nine uses of it here, which is certainly too many in ~6k words of prose. Normally such a strong contradiction isn't necessary and "but" or "though" or "nonetheless" works better.
• Fox greenlit another film "Greenlit" is a bit informal and chatty for an encyclopaedia; maybe go with "approved" or "commissioned"?
• Might be worth explaining "development hell" very briefly in the prose rather than relying on the link.
• Notably, executive Dylan Sellers insisted Telling a reader that something is notable in Wikipedia's voice is arguably editorialising
• received mixed reviews, with critics generally believing Using "with" to join two clauses like that is sloppy, though it's a very common prose flaw
• release for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC in fall 2017 MOS:SEASON; also, as we're almost at the end of 2017, is there an update on this?

I'm only really looking at the prose, but I'm not fining a lot to criticise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Harry, I'll make those changes tomorrow. Got delayed by the holidays.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

These are all done. "Howevers" are reduced to 1 or 2 uses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

Read this through over x-mass, found it very well written. Minor commtents to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

While the article is excellent overall, and more than comprehensive on the various canonical spin offs, I think the thematic overview is lacking. In particular, I was looking to read more about how it built up its vision of a post nuclear holocaust, the films being overwhelmingly dystopian, and how that vision evolved over time. The current revision seems to skim over this unifying aspect, and would be fascinated to see more on this. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Note I am leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing, I can take another stab at it. I've been reviewing the sources I have, and while they discuss the themes pretty comprehensively, I'm not finding a lot that talk about the post-apocalyptic or dystopian aspects per se (as opposed, to, say, the Cold War theme). But I'll keep looking through my sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Please include ALT text for the image in the infobox. All of the images in the article actually need ALT text so please add these parts.
• For the “La Planète des Singes” section, do you think that it would be better to use the image of the first edition of book, which is used in the article on the book itself). This is more of a stylistic preference so it is really up to you, but I am just curious on why you use an image of the first American edition rather than the first edition of the book overall.
• I would put a short descriptive phrase in front of Xan Fielding to identify him for an uninformed reader.
• I am not certain about the phrasing in this sentence (John Chambers created the innovative makeup effects.) Who considers the makeup “innovative”? I think so attribution here would be helpful to prevent potential POV issues.
*For this part (In fall 1968 the producers hired), add a comma after “fall 1968”.
• I would add a short descriptive phrase in front of Frederick S. Clarke.
• Caesar is linked multiple times in the body of the article.
• For the “War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)” subsection, I would suggest combining the second paragraph with the first as I do not see a reason for such a short (i.e. one sentence) paragraph.
• Do you think that the “War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)” subsection could be expanded? It seems rather short compared to the other subsections.
• I would update this sentence (Titled Planet of the Apes: Last Frontier, the game is set for release for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC in fall 2017.), as I think that the game has been released, at least according to the article on the game.
• Could you possibly expand on these sentences (Several critics have written that the reboot films downplay the original series' subject matter of race, generally arguing that this is to their detriment. Others, however, write that the films incorporate racial in subtler ways.). It seems like a rather short paragraph, and it would be helpful to expand on these ideas if possible.

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful start to the new year. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Tommy Phillips

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Another one of my inaugural Hockey Hall of Fame inductees, and probably my last as its getting difficult to find enough material to create FA-quality articles (and length; this one is a little over 1600 words). It passed GA recently, and I found some more things to add to it and get it more comprehensive. Unfortunately there is hardly anything on Phillips after his retirement from hockey, except for his sudden death. Otherwise I think it should be alright. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:TomPhillipsIceHockey.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg, File:KenoraThistles1907January.jpg. Note that since these are on Commons, if they were first published in Canada we also need to account for their Canadian status, not just US.
• File:KenoraThistles19051906.jpg: BackCheck link is dead, and if author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I updated the information regarding KenoraThistles19051906.jpg; the link to Library and Archives Canada states its copyright is expired. I sent emails to the physical owners of the Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg and KenoraThistles1907January.jpg images (TomPhillipsIceHockey.jpg is a derivative of the latter, so unless I'm mistaken it is under the same status?) I will continue to confirm when they were first published, though they were promotional images that would have been reproduced in newspapers across Canada; I just don't have access to a newspaper archive to prove this. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I've since gotten an email response regarding Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg from the owner of the image (the Lake of the Museum), confirming that it is in the public domain. What would be the most appropriate way to edit the image to reflect this then? (Still waiting on the Hockey Hall of Fame, who owns the KenoraThistles1907January.jpg copy, to reply, though I suspect it will be similar). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

What exactly did they say? Did they specify where and why the image was PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was nothing more than a confirmation that the image is in the public domain. I sent a follow-up in hopes of more detail, though I'm not sure that will happen. Any update I'll note here, of course. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Follow-up email only noted that the image is roughly from 1901–1902, and nothing else more. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've been in contact with the LOTW Museum, and they have said that the two images in question are both in the public domain, and while they can't confirm an initial publication date, they have been reproduced enough that there is no longer any concerns about their status. So I'm wondering what would be the best way to note their license on Wikimedia in that regard? Kaiser matias (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the earliest publication we can find for each of these images, and would Canadian copyright have applied to all of them? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) As noted, it is going to be a challenge to find that, without combing through some local newspaper archive in northern Ontario (and I'm about as far away from there as possible). However I have the relevant information from the museum, and have updated the license to reflect that even if they may be copyrighted (which they are almost certainly not), the museum is the current owner of them and has their reference number provided, and allows them to be freely used and distributed. I hope this will satisfy any issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand it will be challenging to find the first publication - my question for the moment is, what is the earliest publication we do know of? Depending on when that was, it might be possible to sidestep the issue, if we can safely assume that first publication was Canadian. However, as newspaper photos, it's unlikely that the museums holding them are the copyright owners if copyright subsists. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The earliest I can reliably say without much trouble would be the Coleman book used as a reference in the article, The Trail of the Stanley Cup, which was published in 1964. That is obviously too late to confirm its public domain status, though there would be earlier publications, I just don't have the actual publication at the time. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, is there a copyright notice in that book, or any credit information for the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing more than credit to the Hockey Hall of Fame. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

After some searching, I found some evidence that confirm the images to their era: regarding KenoraThistles1907January.jpg, an auction of a postcard with the image dated to January 1907 exists. There was a similar auction from the same group for Rat_Portage_Thistles_1900.jpg, though it fails to note an exact year, only stating it is from the era. This may be the most definitive proof available regarding the publication of the images in question, as there is not likely to be much else from then. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like they're not postcards but actually original photos, based on the description? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(outdent) That could be possible, though I of course can't confirm that. Though would that make a difference, considering they still fall under the time frame for public domain?

And on a related note, I have finally gotten a reply from the Hockey Hall of Fame. They confirmed the images are in the public domain, but were unable to give a date for their first publication. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It would, because postcards are considered published while a photo by itself may or may not, and we want to know whether {{PD-URAA}} or {{PD-US-unpublished}} applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I see. There is other images from the same auction site (see this for example) that confirm it was used as a postcard, but they don't have a date on the card itself. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:, as noted below here, would it be possible to argue fair use for at least the main image? As noted, there is no objection from any of the major stakeholders of the image (the Hockey Hall of Fame, or the Lake of the Woods Museum), so is that an acceptable means for this? Kaiser matias (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

By main image, do you mean the one in the infobox? You'd be able to argue fair use if you can't find any image of him that is definitely free, using {{non-free biog-pic}}. However, if you can demonstrate a postcard publication from that era, it would probably now be free. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't the above-linked images show that they come from that era? That seems fairly definitive in that regard. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on the information I've provided, I feel it shows that the images were published in 1907, and thus have had the licenses on them updated to reflect this fact. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

File:KenoraThistles1907January.jpg is fine as a 1907 postcard, and File:TomPhillipsIceHockey.jpg as derivative of same. For the other images, the situation is less clear - the site you've linked for the 1900 image is a photo not a postcard. Do you have links for those demonstrating publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've been unable to find anything more solid for the 1900 image, as seen above. However as that is less important than the 1907 one (which is the image most associated with Phillips), I'll remove it. That should (finally) solve this. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

All right, should now be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• Note 33: Harvard error
• References: There appears to be no citation to "Hockey Hall of Fame"

Subject to these points, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed both of these. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose Comments by Finetooth

Lead

• ¶2 His younger brother, Russell, also played for the Thistles and was a member of the team when they won the Stanley Cup." – Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any mention of Russell Phillips in the main text.

Added something.

Early life

• ¶1 "...James took up a job in Western Ontario..." – I think you can safely delete "up" or change "took up" to the more formal "accepted".

Done

• ¶2 "...championship of the Manitoba and Northwest Hockey Association..." – Should this be the Manitoba and Northwestern Hockey Association? If so, link Manitoba and Northwestern Hockey Association (MNWHA) and abbreviate here on first use in the main text.
• ¶2 A further problem with the MNWHA here and in the "Career statistics" section is that the date (1903) in the MNWHA article and the dates (1899–1902) given in this article don't match. It might be a junior, intermediate, senior complication. Can you clarify?

That is the problem for the above note too. I initially thought they were the same league, but it was not unusual for league's to use either identical or nearly identical names at the time. As the article only notes the 1903–04 season (and unfortunately the link is deadd), I'm inclined to believe it is different, and thus don't want to link it. It would certainly be better to have a linked article for the respective league here, but that just isn't possible at the time.

But you have already linked it in the "Career statistics" section, where it creates the same confusion for readers who click through to read about the league. Suggestion: Delete the MNWHA link (which is not dead) from "Career statistics" but add a note explaining that early hockey leagues sometimes used overlapping names (or whatever is the case). You'll need to cite a reliable source or sources for this note, which will head off the possibility that without the note other editors will later add the misleading link to the MNWHA article. I think you could put the note between a pair of ref tags inserted after MNWHA the first time it appears in the article in the "Early life" section. Does that make sense? Finetooth (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• ¶2 "By 1899–00 Phillips had joined the senior Thistles team, and would be named captain the following season, when they won the senior league championship." – The dates don't match here either. The MNWHA article (which may be incorrect) says the Thistles played for only one year, when it lost the championship to Ottawa in 1903.

Removed the link in the stats section, and added a note to the reference for the league within the text.

See above. As Phillips had already moved to Montreal by 1903, he definitely was not around for that championship series, which is corroborated by various sources.

• ¶4 "though Phillips had the most assists and penalty minutes" – Link to assist (ice hockey) and penalty (ice hockey) here on first use?

Done

Kenora and Ottawa

• ¶1 "Rat Portage changed its name from to Kenora in 1905." – Unclear. Does this mean the city or the team or both?

Clarified

• ¶1 "one of the best players in Canada, compared to Frank McGee of the Senators" – I think this is the first time in the article that "Senators" appears. For clarity, explain here or above that it refers to the Ottawa team.

Done

• ¶2 "In the Thistles' successful Stanley Cup challenge against the Montreal Wanderers in January 1907...". – Clarification? I think you need to explain what a Stanley Cup challenge is in general. Perhaps a link to List of Stanley Cup challenge games, which has an explanation? Or a brief in-text explanation? Or both?

Added some details and context to it, and reworded that whole section slightly. It should be clearer now.

Western Canada and later life

• ¶1 "played with Edmonton" – Link the Edmonton team here on first use?

Done

• ¶1 "met their team in Winnipeg" – Link to the city of Winnipeg article here?

Done

Career statistics

• Since all the abbreviations but GP are linked to explanations, link GP to Games played as well?

Done

General

• Concise alt text would be nice even though not required.

Added some alt text, though should probably be looked over as I'm not great at it.

Thanks. I fiddled with them a bit, mostly compressing to make them more concise, and I repaired the alt parameter (alt= rather than alt_image=) in the infobox. Please tweak further if you think any of my changes are unhelpful. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• No problem with dead URLs.
• No problem with disambiguation links.
• No problem with overlinks.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Addressed everything here. Would appreciate a look at the alt text, it's not a strength of mine. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

All looks fine except the MNWHA confusion, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Think I have that addressed now in a decent manner. Kaiser matias (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. All looks good. Switching to support on prose. Finetooth (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Interesting little article. I came up with a handful of minor nit-picks, which are as follows:

• "and with the Kenora Thistles in January 1907, whom he captained." The last bit of the sentence relates to the team, not the year, so this should really be "Thistles, whom he captained, in January 1907."
• Western Canada and later life: "and prior to the 1909 season played with Edmonton of the Alberta Amateur Hockey Association." Since he wouldn't have played with them before the season, try changing it to "joined Edmonton" or similar.
• "played in the first game against the Montreal Wanderers, which Edmonton lost 7–3, but broke his ankle in the game and was forced to miss the second game". For tighter writing, try removing "in the game" after the ankle break. It's pretty obvious from the surrounding text that it happened in the first game.
  • Looking at this, I think the wrong "in the game" was removed. I was thinking that it should be "played in the first game against the Montreal Wanderers, which Edmonton lost 7–3, but broke his ankle and was forced to miss the second game". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixed that; also corrected the score, which seems to have been copied from the first game. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• "He played the 1909–10 with the local team". Should the first "the" be "in" instead"?
• Minor point, but the bit from the lead about the first Hall of Fame class having nine inductees isn't repeated in the body from what I can tell.
• Finally, some (attempted) words of wisdom: If you're having a lot of trouble with the image licensing, you're probably better off just removing them from the article, or possibly making a fair-use case for the lead photo. Images aren't required by the FA criteria, and to me it's more important to get a thumbs-up for the licensing than it is to fight hard for any particular image. If reviewers see issues in this department, they'll often just pass over an article regardless of its other merits. I don't want that to happen here, as I find the page to be worthy of more attention. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed everything here. As for the images, I'll note it above, and see what Nikkimaria says, as she has far more knowledge of that than I do. Thanks for the suggestion. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Provisional support – All of my concerns have been addressed. Once the photo issue is worked out, please consider this a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

* Note to Coordinators I'm going to be on vacation until January 1, so if there are any comments left between now and then, that is why I'm not answering them. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

• "whom he captained". Shouldn't that be "which he captained"?

Changed

• "in 1903 ... in January 1907." Why give the month for one championship, but not for the other?

Usually it would just be the year. However in 1907 the Cup was won initially by Kenora, who lost it in a series held two months later. As such the two 1907 champions are always listed with the month they won as well.

• I would add a sentence near the end about his retirement/lumber company/death.

Done

Early life

• "James, who". How about "James Phillips," to avoid referring to him by his first name?

Done

• "He had previously been married, with a son and two daughters." The second clause looks grammatically off. How about "He had a son and two daughters from a previous marriage."? If you want to avoid the "[name of person}/he/he" to lead off three successive sentences, you could change the next sentence so that it begins with "On April 30, 1877".

Done

• "James accepted job". Missing "a".

Done

• "was born in 1888;". Not sure the semicolon is necessary. For whatever it's worth I generally try to use only one per paragraph. Interestingly, every paragraph in the article either has two (5 paragraphs) or zero (7) semicolons.

Removed that one. I do have a habit of overusing them, it's true, so glad to be called out on it.

• "As a young child Phillips ... Northwest Hockey Association." Perhaps break in two.

Split it up.

• "for his endurance; in an era ... entire game: a posthumous newspaper". Sorry to make another point about punctuation, but also not a fan of having both a semicolon and a colon in one sentence.

Modified it to just one colon, should be better.

• "play for an entire 60 at full speed". Consider adding "[minutes]" after "60".

Done

• "Originally a forward when he joined the senior Thistles". "Originally" is redundant.

Removed

• "for 1900–01". Should either be "in 1900–01," or "for [or during] the 1900–01 season".

Fixed

• "Phillips also earned praise for his defensive efforts, in particular his ability to stop Tony Gingras." Three things: "ability" doesn't quite mesh with "efforts," Tony Gingras should be given some context ("to stop Tony Gingras, one of Winnipeg's leading scorers" or whatever), and (minor suggestion) "in particular" could be "particularly".

Reworded

• "The Marlboros lost the series, though Phillips had the most assists and penalty minutes". "though" doesn't feel quite right when it's followed by both a plus (lots of assists) and a minus (most minutes as a forced spectator).

Added the qualifier "as well as," though if that can be improved further I'll do so.

Kenora and Ottawa

• "two behind Billy McGimsie." Maybe "less than" instead of "behind". "behind" feels better when you use it two paragraphs later, since there you're saying "behind the leaders".

Done

• "which allowed them to". Minor suggestion, but maybe "allowing them to".

Changed

• "'nine of out ten people will reply that either Frank McGee or Tom Phillips is' the best player in the country." What's the full quotation from the source?

I can't get access to the Jenish book now, but a search for the quote turns up a 1906 Winnipeg Tribune article, which I believe is the source for Jenish: "Who Is the best hockey player In Canada? asks the Montreal Herald. Nine out of ten people will reply that either Frank McGee or Tom Phillips is."

• "Phillips scored the first two goals, then added another three goals". You could delete the second "goals" if you want to.
• "scored the first goal of the game, along with a further two goals". The hat trick is more significant than the first goal. How about "scored three goals [possibly linked to Hat-trick#Hockey], including the game's first..."

Changed

• "Ottawa won the game 5–4 to retain the Cup." Did you already say somewhere that Ottawa had won the previous season as well? If not, "to take the Cup for the second year running." or something similar would be more appropriate.

I added a mention earlier, where it says the Thistles earned the right to play for it.

• "which allowed them the right to challenge for the Cup again." The link feels random here, and would be better used for the same phrase in the preceding paragraph.

Moved

• "The following season". This paragraph confuses me. You say they had to wait a year for the challenge, but it looks like you then start talking about the next season, without ever saying what happened with the previous, postponed, challenge. Was it played? Did Phillips play in it? Who won? I'd also clarify that "The following season" means the 1905–06 season.

Clarified it.

• "Phillips led the league in both goals and points, with eighteen." Should be "eighteen of each." Looking at his stats, how did he manage to go his first eight (recorded) years without an assist?

Assists were either not awarded, or rarely done, in the early years of hockey. As such I removed the reference to points, as it's redundant. I expound on this down regarding the statistics table.

• "However, there was an early spring that year". How about "There was an early spring that year, however, ..."?

Done

• "In the 1907 season". The season didn't span two years?

Honestly I'm not sure, as at the time it could start as early as November or late as January; but for consistency I added the second year.

• "A rematch two months". How about "A #-game rematch two months", to give some context for his stats.

Added that

• "Ottawa sportsmen." Who do you mean?

I don't have Kitchen's book with me to confirm, but I suspect it would be financial backers of the sports teams. Either way it seems trivial here, so I removed it.

• "He finished the season with twenty-six, two goals behind". This should be "with twenty-six goals, two behind".

Fixed

Western Canada and later life

• "The Edmonton hockey team". How about "The Edmonton Hockey Club" so their full name is somewhere.

Added it to the preceding sentence, as its linked already.

• "the rest came from the east". Feels weird to have something that could be a standalone sentence as a clause here. How about "with the rest coming from the east."?

Changed

• "but broke his ankle". Any fallout from this? Is what he did while recovering known?

Alas no, player profiles were almost nonexistent from the era, and that this much is known is quite a bit even.

• "retired at the end of the season". Could be "again retired", or "retired for a second time" or the like.

Fixed

Career statistics

• Are the "—" stats just not known?

They are for the most part yes. Statistics in the early years are notoriously poor, and often times only included games played and goals scored. For whatever reason there is no consensus on using either a "0" or "–" in place of missing (or incomplete) stats, so the result is a patchwork, especially regarding things like assists and penalties. However the numbers given are copied from the Diamond book, which retains the most comprehensive stats of early-era players, in all its mangled mess, and as much as I'd like to make it all uniform, it would go against the source.

Overall

• I really like this article. Most of what is above is minor and discretionary; there's only one sentence (about Tony Gingras) and one paragraph (about the early spring) that gave me trouble, but those are easily fixable. The other semi-significant thing is the lack of a line in the lead about his after-hockey years. Loved this line, by the way: "This required the approval of the other university clubs, which agreed on the condition that Phillips end his McGill career, which he did." --Usernameunique (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Addressed everything above. I also agree that there is a serious lack about his post-playing career, but unfortunately there just wasn't an interest at the time in former hockey players, so no one bothered to write about his life after that; even articles from the time of his death simply say he worked in the lumber industry, which is a shame. If there's anything more to fix, just let me know, I'll get to it soon as possible. Kaiser matias (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex Owumi

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a professional basketball player best known for his unique experience playing basketball for Muammar Gaddafi shortly before the outbreak of the Libyan Civil War in 2011. Originally from Nigeria, Owumi played basketball with a number of community colleges before joining Alcorn State. Before Libya, his career spanned both Europe and North America. It took a wrong turn when Owumi signed with Lirija in Macedonia, where he endured poor facilities, racism, and occasional violence at games. In a search for a new team, he took a lucrative offer in Libya with Al-Nasr, a team he later realized was owned and funded by Gaddafi's family. One day, when violence from the budding war finally broke out, Owumi found himself trapped in Mutassim Gaddafi's apartment and witnessing horrors in the streets below. He stayed in the building for weeks, struggling to survive. Eventually, he would escape to Egypt with a teammate and was held under harsh conditions at a refugee camp, before winning a championship with a team in Alexandria. For the last many years, Owumi has been playing with teams in the British Basketball League (BBL) and has been suffering from PTSD.

I believe this article should be considered for featured article status because it is comprehensive, including as much relevant information as possible. It also took extensive efforts to get this article where it is, and it was very recently promoted to GA. If it is featured, many more people will know what in my opinion is a fascinating story. If there are any issues you have with parts of the article, feel free to state them below. TempleM (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Brief general comment

Thanks for your work on this article, and well done in bringing it to its present standard. I get a little worried, however, when an article is nominated here one day after its promotion to GA. The standard required for FA is significantly higher, particularly in terms of prose and sourcing, and it is generally wise to spend a little time considering what needs to be done to scale this extra height.

• Although I haven't carried out a detailed review, I found the prose in places problematic: rather choppy, not flowing well, and with some slightly odd formulations, e.g. "His parents and siblings were chiefs of his village, located just outside Lagos, and he was a prince"; "Owumi joined Monroe Community College in Rochester, New York, driven there by head coach Jerry Burns..." – "driven" in what sense? You sometimes adopt sports journalese, for example when you say he "grabbed" eight rebounds, or confuse readers with sentences such as "The team eventually defeated the Quebec Kebs, behind 13 points and five rebounds..." – what does "behind" indicate here? There are various ambiguities in the prose, and a tendency to overuse cliché phrases such as "due to". I've quoted just a few examples of prose issues; what I feel the article needs is a very thorough copyedit, bearing in mind that the FA criteria require the prose to be of a professional standard.

• There are other issues relating to sources, which I will raise in a separate review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: True, the choppy prose has been an issue in my previous basketball biographies that were promoted to FA as well. Would you suggest anyone to help copyedit the article? And about the sources, I assume one of your concerns is that I rely on Owumi's book for a lot of information. Would that raise any problems? TempleM (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest you leave a request for a copyedit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. You could also enquire among editors who've worked on previous basketball biographies. The extent to which you've used Owumi's book as a source could be one of the concerns I'll raise when I do a sources review in a day or two, but I haven't looked at this issue yet. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Brianboulton: Will you look into this anytime soon? By the way, my copy edit request has been accepted and the article is being copy edited. TempleM (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
• Copy editing has been completed. Would appreciate a second look. TempleM (talk) 02:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments – I was asked by the nominator to have a look at the article and perform copy-edits. While I was able to make a few positive changes to the lead, I didn't make it much farther yet. However, I have some general thoughts based on what I've seen so far.

• The bit about him being a prince is fascinating, and I wonder if more can be said about it. Maybe adding some detail would help fix the prose issue that Brian mentioned above.
• The "driven there by head coach Jerry Burns and his staff" part is confusing to read, for the same reason Brian mentioned. It's unclear whether it means that they physically drove him there, or if they just pushed for him to enroll. Unfortunately, I can't really fix this one since it's sourced to the book.
• Speaking of the book, I highly recommend that you add page numbers to your book cites, since Brian will ask for them anyway. Might as well get it out of the way now. The book is heavily used with almost 40 cites to it, but I haven't analyzed its usage too much, as I figure Brian will do so in his source review.
• I won't do a full source review as one has already been promised, but you should go ahead and replace the Daily Express (ref 61) now, as that is a highly unreliable source. It's considered even less reliable than the Daily Mail, which had its usage strongly discouraged in an RFC earlier this year.
• As for the writing, the main issue I see later in the article is proseline. There are a ton of sentences that start "In XXXX" or similar, and a bunch starting with "He". More than anything else, fixing a bunch of these sentences will make the prose seem more professional. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: I have added more information about him being a prince and I have fixed the Jerry Burns part. I have also deleted the sentences that cite the Daily Express, as they are not overly significant. By the way, you can see a large majority of the book online so that you can check for accuracy. For the writing, would you be able to fix those sentences or do you want someone else to do that? And how exactly do you cite page numbers to the book citations? Do I add all the page numbers on the original citation? TempleM (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• All right, I've finished running through the article. I'm not the world's greatest copy-editor, but managed to clean up some of the issues affecting the article. I fixed a few of the sentence beginnings, but not all of them; just moving words around does more good than one might think. While editing, I became confused by the second sentence cited to ref 81. Is this a reader review? If so, I can't see a scenario where it would be significant enough to include, not to mention that the source wouldn't be considered sufficiently high-quality to use in this context. If there are no reviews from reliable sources available, don't feel compelled to use a weak source; in that case, just mentioning that he wrote the book would be good enough. As for the book cites, the typical method is to place the full book cite in its own section (Bibliography and Sources are usual section titles), and use short cites in-text. One common format for this is Author last name(s) (year), p. xx. (pp. for multi-page cites). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: I have deleted the sentence you brought up about the book review because it wasn't very high-quality. I have also added citations with page numbers for the book. TempleM (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Hoping to provide comments for this later today. ceranthor 15:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Originally from Lagos, Owumi moved to Boston, Massachusetts as a child. He played football and basketball from an early age and at college level." - missing a "the" before college
• "Owumi played his final two seasons at Alcorn State." - since Alcorn State isn't well known, I'd add "in in Lorman, Mississippi"
• "He moved to France and played his rookie season with fr:AL Roche-la-Molière where he was named most valuable player of the league." - Can you re-format to hide that it's a French wiki article? Or just remove the link?
• "After a brief spell in the Premier Basketball League (PBL) with the Manchester Millrats, " - Should probably clarify what this is
• "After a brief spell in the Premier Basketball League (PBL) with the Manchester Millrats, he signed with KK Lirija in Macedonia. He left the team at the end of the season" - when did all this take place timewise?
• "He then moved to England and began playing in the British Basketball League (BBL) joining the Worcester Wolves, with whom he won a league title, the London Lions, and then the Surrey Scorchers." - the "with whom..." bit might be better as a parenthetical
• "As an author, he has written three books, including an autobiography focusing on his time in Libya." - as an author is redundant
• "He shot hoops" - seems a bit informal
• "They then settled in Boston after his father joined the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.[10]" - in what capacity? faculty?
• "A two-star recruit," - which means what?
• "However, Owumi was unable to attract enough interest from the team, which drafted J. R. Giddens instead." - why instead? why couldn't they have drafted both? please clarify
• " Premier Basketball League (PBL) for the preseason.[47] " - clarify what it is here too
• "After then considering a path into the NBA Development League," - same note as above
• "Owumi signed with the French club fr:AL Roche-la-MolièreMolière of the Nationale Masculine 1 (NM1) for the 2009–10 season,[45][49][50] " - formatting errors
• "During the season, he was benched without pay for a number of games for missing practice.[52]" - any knowledge of why he missed?
• "In the fall of 2010, he tried out for the Georgia Gwizzlies of the American Basketball Association (ABA), but did not have a future with the team.[45]" - any idea why not? super vague
• "in the top Libyan league, and arrived in the country.[61] " - last bit is clunky; reword
• "He also saw people, including his teammates, gathering ammunition and weapons to prepare for the revolution.[66]" - clarify what you mean with 'the revolution'
• ' he wrote his autobiography Qaddafi's Point Guard: The Incredible Story of a Professional Basketball Player Trapped in Libya's Civil War with Daniel Paisner, a New York Times bestselling author who had written for Whoopi Goldberg and Denzel Washington[61][115] [72]" - punctuation?

These are my notes from a first pass. Sorry for the delay! This article, while well-written, doesn't seem quite ready for FA yet, imo. ceranthor 04:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Ceranthor: I have addressed the issues you brought up. Only exception is with the Georgia Gwizzlies part, because there is no additional information available about his time with that team. "Two-star recruit" indicates how highly a player was rated by recruiting websites, so I do not feel like that needs editing. TempleM (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Featured article review (FAR) This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Palpatine

Notified: WikiProject Star Wars

I am nominating this featured article for review because... many people have edited over a period of time that may have deteriorated the quality of the article, that is why I believe that this article should be reassessed.

Hi Eltomas, can you clarify which of the FA criteria you feel are not met, and could you please notify relevant WikiProjects and editors? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well it feels like it's poorly written and doesn't really have that much detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltomas2003 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to co-opt the FAR or anything, but I've also got my concerns about the article. I've brought this up on the Star War WikiProject before, but off-the-bat two(-ish) of my main concerns as far as FA goes:

• It's not comprehensive. I don't seriously expect an article on a character as widely-appearing as Palpatine to list in detail his every appearance in tie-in media. However, the only video game mentioned is the just released Battlefront II; it would surprise me if this was Palpatine's only notable appearance in the medium. The article's Legends "literature" section hasn't really changed that much since 2006, which while obviously not inherently a problem, leaves me wondering if any gaps have emerged. More importantly, I find the "In popular culture" section pretty shallow. Now, for its contents, that should probably be renamed "Cultural impact" -- but that's simple to change. My more drastic concerns: currently the article simply mentions two instances of Palpatine being referenced in politics, and one FOX editorial briefly mentioning the comparisons he's been involved with. Fine enough, but the lead is arguing that Palpatine's "become a widely recognized popular culture symbol of evil, sinister deception, dictatorship, tyranny, and the subversion of democracy". Has the article proved so? There's also a minor dab of analysis in there two about dualism, but it's really not built on or supported with talks from other sources, so it really just ends up highlighting a gap. I understand that some of historical comparisons are discussed and mentioned in the Characteristics section, but I really feel there should be more to talk about here. Palpatine is not an obscure figure, and I expect more to back up his status as an American icon, etc.
• It's poorly structured and kind of unfocused. More minor, it's sectioned kind of weirdly: Rebels and The Clone Wars have their own subsections, while the "Prequel trilogy" is pretty sprawling. The infobox is so dense with different portrayals that it's not really useful as an infobox. (I'd be open to limiting it to just McDiarmid and maybe Eaton/Revill, but there are others that could be worth including.) More importantly, I wonder if we really need to give Palpatine's appearance in Tartakovsky's Clone Wars such depth. A TV miniseries is probably more in the public eye than a lot of Star Wars books, but we don't really need to recap it completely and currently it's got an image drawing attention to it -- a fair use image that I'm concerned isn't properly justified.

I haven't really thoroughly combed through the article, but my gut instinct is that it probably doesn't really deserve its FA status by current standards. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Millionth One: I think I agree that it needs some work. I think given that concerns have been raised in the past we will let the FAR process proceed. I can see the Character creation section needs some inline cites and possibly some expansion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• A lot of paragraphs seem to end without citations, maybe it is ok for summaries of various media, but other sections also lack them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Cortana (Halo)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it falls considerably short of FA standards, and personally I wouldn't pass it through GA in its current condition. I raised issue regarding it at WikiProject Video games and the two people who replied there both expressed concerns about the article. The original FA nominator, David Fuchs, has also been made aware of the listing via a discussion on the article's talk page. A commentator at Project video games raised concerns was about the plot length. I think the article has too many fictional in-universe details. For example, why do we need to know that Master Chief wears 'MJOLNIR battle armor', and what does MJOLNIR even mean? There's a lot of details about Cortana's appearance in the first novel; why aren't subsequent appearances given the same level of detail? Cortana appears to play a minor role in Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, but this isn't mentioned at all. There's a lot of literature set in the Halo universe, and I'm not convinced this article summarises all her appearances in them adequately. In the 'Character design' there's very little on the characters initial design. Several things are introduced in the article without any background information; her voice actress appears out of nowhere (how did she land the job?). What is '343 Industries'? Who are the Forerunners? I'm most concerned about the reception section though. It begins with the characters reception from the third game, rather than initial reception, and there's no coverage of the character from academic sources/journals even though plenty of these sources exist. There's an embarrassing quote farm with poor prose that focuses heavily on the character's sex appeal (Examples: "Part of Cortana's appeal has lain in her good looks ... [she is] the sixth most "disturbingly sexual game character"). There are several sources that fall considerably short of a 'high-quality' standard. There's a fair amount of inconsistency in reference formatting and even several bare URLs and a couple unreferenced sentences. The article was passed in 2008 when I can only presume standards were lower; I'd argue by today's standards it fails on FA criteria 1a, 1b and 1c. Freikorp (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to square your concerns about plot length when you're asking for more descriptions of minor appearances. As for your comments about coverage and references, perhaps you could link these plentiful sources? Otherwise the comment is less than helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• I mentioned somebody else had concerns about plot length just to give an indication on what others have said; my concerns about under-detail are entirely confined to the 'In other media' section.
• This thesis comments on Cortana's technically nude appearance: [14]
• This academic source comments on both Master Chief and Cortana's lack of sexuality: [15]
• This one comments on Cortana's dialogue and emotional support: [16]
• This thesis gives a very brief comment on her body type in comparison to other female video game characters [17]
• This thesis comments on Cortana's personality, dialogue and flirtation with Master Chief: [18]
• This thesis talks about Cortana's physical appearance and her relationship with Master Chief: [19]
• This thesis questions why Cortana's appearance is sexualised and comments on the gender stereotyping between Cortana and Master Chief. It cites Cortana as an example of a character "drawn and designed to appeal to heteronormative standards of beauty, even when it does not make sense within the context of the game ... as a computer program Cortana could have taken any form but the game elected to make her adhere to the heteronormative ideal of an attractive, shapely woman. The interviews suggest this may be because of the lack of female representation behind the scenes and the lack of support and encouragement for women to join in the industry." [20]
• Here's an interesting source about Cortana's nudity: [21] Anita Sarkeesian cites the source and the issue in one of her articles: [22]. Here's another quote from Sarkeesian about Cortana: [23]

I'm sure you can find more. If you don't have access to any of those sources I can email them to you. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll look a bit more into the authors, but none of those theses strike me as reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Chandralekha (1948 film)

Notified: Ssven2, Numerounovedant. Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been substantially reworked after one abundantly used source, which was later discovered to be a non-RS, was removed. Now I want to re-evaluate the article and see that it is still FA-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Could you please notify some relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've notified two users as seen above. I doubt if the users will respond to my request at the Indian cinema task force since they rarely respond to messages. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Close without FARC: I have given a good look at the article and it still does seem to meet the standards for FA. Only one query: The critical reception can be improved by describing what the critics say in our own words instead of simply stating "xx said xx". Otherwise, I can't find much fault with the article.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ssven2, thank you for your comments. I'll be travelling from tomorrow till 14 Sept, so I hope someone will respond to further comments in my place. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Sven. I have amended the bold title as we do not usually declare keep or remove in the review stage. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Close without FARC: I think there should not have been an FARC in first place. The article is very much of FA-standard and I think it deserves that bronze star.Krish | Talk 08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant–Hey Kailash, I am sorry it took me so long to get here, but now that I've gone through the article, I do have some concerns.

• The Critical response, as rightly pointed out by Ssven2 can use a lot of paraphrasing because as it stands now it's just one long direct quote after the other, especially in the first paragraph. The second fares a little better in this aspect, but again, the way the sentences have been frames is repetitive. The section could use some copy-edits.
• Although I am not sure if there any rule regarding the references being placed at the end of the sentence, I prefer it that way. When put in he middle of a sentence it really breaks the flow for, but that could just be me. Also, when two or more references are being used in a sentence make sure that they are placed in a chronological order.
• I'll offer some very minor c.e. for the relatively trivial issues.

Also, here i go appreciating the sheer magnitude of one of your articles again. It's amazing how you're able to dig up the resources and come up with such comprehensive articles one after the other. All the refs. looks good, great work. Let me know if you any queries regarding my concerns, and then I can probably come up with a declaration. Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 06:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I request that this FAR be closed, with the decision to keep the article as FA. All the reviewers have voted in favour of keeping it as a FA. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Hurricane Mitch

Notified: Hurricanehink, Titoxd, WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest, and as such most heavily decayed and neglected FAs of the Tropical Cyclone project. This one has been a contendor under discussion by the project for years now – it's time to finally cut the knot. The article simply does not reflect the mounts of literature and data available, while much of the information it does contain is unverifiable, as mentioned by SandyGeorgia back in 2015. More specific subsections that need attention:

• Lead - A bit sparse for the deadliest modern hurricane ever. Should more adequately reflect the severity and destruction of the storm.
• Preparations - This section does not properly cover the scope of this storm; a Category 5 stalling and approaching Central America is bound to create more upheaval and media attention than is currently reflected. Moreover, a bit of discussion and context would be helpful: If there were preparations and evacuations, why the high number of deaths, still? Did local authorities fail to anticipate the unprecedented severity of this storm or did residents not heed the warnings? I am sure there have been studies on this.
• Impact - The only country that has been covered reasonably well is Honduras, and that one has a subarticle. There are no Spanish language sources for a predominantly Latin American phenomenon, nor are there links to journal articles or important books on the storm.
• Aftermath - Same as above. No mention of the homeless, no real context given to the scope of the devastation, no sense of global response sketched, and the discussion of the recovery phase is lacking. A quick search on Google Scholar reveals a plethora of journal articles mentioning its effects on numerous areas, from ecology to psychology, while a scan of Google Books gives numerous high-quality, important accounts of the storm, its impact, and its implications.

Overall, then, my biggest issues are with 1 b. comprehensive and 1 c. well-researched, due to the omission of crucial book, journal and Spanish-language sources and insufficient verifiability of the sources currently used. Auree ^★★ 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section focused on coverage, both in terms of content and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Houston

Notified: Example user, WikiProject Houston, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Texas

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

• There are statements failing verification from citations. Please see section on History, and section on Crime, as two examples.
• There is much outdated material. Some material could be replaced with new data; other material should be retained and supplemented with new data. Another editor placed a request to update the Transportation section in 2016, but there has been little change since last year.
• There is unsourced material in the History section.
• {{{1}}}The History section is not comprehensive. There is a main article History of Houston, but this has been largely unsourced for years. I recommend as a part of improving the Houston article to improve its context within Wikipedia relative to several important Houston-related articles. This would allow the main article to be comprehensive, but offering greater detail indirectly through links to related articles.
• Some parts of the article have become a Christmas tree, with Houston's appearance on various rankings. Could these be updated or culled? Some segments reads like spare parts thrown together. Sometimes people just have a little factoid to post, and that is their contribution. Editing these segments to better unify the narrative would help.

These are several categories of issues with the Houston article, and this I compiled from a fairly cursory reading. As I continue to check citations, this list could grow.

However, I hope this is not too negative. There must have been a great effort and good work by many various editors to bring this article to FA back in 2007. This is more than ten years later and it appears that the article needs a comprehensive effort. For those Houstonians who are are still cleaning up after Harvey, or helping others doing the same, there could be nothing more important. But not everyone interested in improving the Houston article currently lives in the region. Thank you for reading, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Total area and land area The citation from 2009 cites a land area of a bit over 599 miles while the text reads 667 miles, which is given elsewhere as the total area.

• Has the total area and land area increased since 2009?
• What is the correct source for these figures?
• Geography nerds: what is the correct denominator for population density: land area or total area? (Since people don't usually live on the water.)

In any case, the article and the citation disagree.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead section has old links Some citations link to articles from 2010, 2011, and 2012. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Land purchase, founding of Houston A statement in the History section is incorrect:

• The sale of land from the Parrotts to the Allens did not occur on August 30. It was August 26, 1836
• August 30, 1836 is the date that the Allen brothers first advertised their land scheme.
• The Parrotts did not sell 1.5 leagues (6,642 acres) to the Allens. They sold a half league (2,214 acres).
• The Parrotts did not sell land to the Allens in consideration of over $9,000. They sold it for $5,000.
• Two days prior, on August 24, 1836, the Allens did buy one league (4,428 acres) for $4,428 from the estate of John Austin's brother. There is no indication that the Allens had plans for developing this land. This is difficult to source (original research) because this ended up being a convoluted transaction, and many writers try to simplify the story by combining the two transactions. Sometimes writers combined the two transactions incorrectly.

Second, when Houstonians claim that the city was founded August 30, 1836, the significance of this date is the famous advertisement that the Allen placed. For some reason, people attempt to attach other events to this date.

Sports: claim fails verification "It is the only MLB team to have won pennants in both modern leagues." The Astros just won their first AL pennant last month, but the sentence is followed by a citation to a web site last retrieved in 2013. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: area Perhaps there is are editors who have already vetted these numbers and who are still on Wikipedia. I know it is tempting for other editors to change one of the numbers in a way that renders the other number correct. Confession: A few years ago, I think I changed a total population number without changing the density number, for example. I apologize to those who were trying to keep the page in good order. In any case, these current numbers are inconsistent:

Area

• City      667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 599.6 elsewhere.)
• Land   639.1 sq mi (1,642.1 km2)
• Water 667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 27-ish elsewhere.)
• Metro 10,062 sq mi (26,060 km2)

Once these correct numbers are reintroduced, I would agree to monitor them for unhelpful edits. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Geography statement fails verification
Houston#Geography:

"The Piney Woods are north of Houston. Most of Houston is located on the gulf coastal plain, and its vegetation is classified as temperate grassland and forest. Much of the city was built on forested land, marshes, swamp, or prairie which resembles the Deep South, and are all still visible in surrounding areas. The flatness of the local terrain, when combined with urban sprawl, has made flooding a recurring problem for the city."

Here is the archived link from the citation.

If I have read this correctly, this links to dry paper on the modeling of measurement of storm events, without any characterization of regional features or analysis of flooding. I agree with some of the statements, but this is not what the linked source talks about.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get some more opinions on the state of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Blyth, Northumberland

Notified: Dbam, WikiProject United Kingdom

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the demographics and education sections need updating. Some unreferenced additions noted. Not too much work but not none either, and enough to warrant a formal review. I placed a request months ago with no response. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

No action - issues remain outstanding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Summer of '42

Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject United States

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it poses major problems primarily with regard to citation, sources, coverage, and prose which is far from the professional writing standard expected of FAs. The plot section—which has 914 words—is well over the 700 word required per WP:FILMPLOT, and isn't exactly well-written as there are some excessive scene-by-scene breakdowns, especially the opening paragraph. (Who in the world begins a plot summary with 'The film opens'?). The reception section is rather underdeveloped since it includes not a single review from critics (not even a report from Rotten Tomatoes!) which could back its claim of a "critically-acclaimed" production, and its theatrical run is not adequately reported. Finally, the sequels, soundtrack, and cultural impact sections have some unsourced statements, and two coverage are missing: a theme/analysis section, given the film's intriguing subject matter, and a home media section for its VHS, DVD, Blu-ray releases. I don't find this article's FA status particularly appetizing for these reasons and it's really unfortunate. Slightlymad 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Well, someone kindly added a Rotten Tomatoes review. Still needs trimming of plot and buffing of reception section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Mount Tambora

Notified: ONUnicorn, Meursault2004, JarrahTree, Materialscientist, GeoWriter, Anthony Appleyard, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Volcanoes

Review section

First time I am doing this. I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet 1a and 1c of the FA criteria anymore; there is a large amount of unsourced material and choppy paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me take a look at your comments and improve the article. We will discuss this on the talk page of the article further. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section focused on sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

this one should be ok with some light copy editing and a few cites. Will report back before year end. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)