Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2014

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 07:55, 29 August 2014 [1].


Sind sparrow[edit]

Nominator(s): —innotata 07:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is article is about a somewhat obscure bird, and I think it meets the FA criteria by covering most of what there is worth saying about this species. Shyamal also contributed a good bit, and thanks to him and J. M. Garg for the article being well illustrated with images and a distribution map. —innotata 07:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

There are places where I think the text might need polishing.
Description

  • "The Sind sparrow is very similar to the house sparrow, and both sexes resemble house sparrows, but it is slightly smaller and males and females each have features that distinguish them from the house sparrow." This is clunky with "house sparrow" used three times.
  • link mantle
    • Linked an article. Not the most useful one, but it's the best we have. —innotata 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The male has the crown and nape grey and the lower back and rump rufous." I would put the adjective before the noun: a grey crown...

Taxonomy

  • The first three sentences contain "described".
"Blyth's description was described" is not ideal, -> "Blyth's description was contained in"? Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant published, fixed. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and possible relation with" -> "and a possible relationship with"?

Behaviour

  • "during which two clutches are raised by most pairs" - perhaps put this at the end of the paragraph where you discuss that both the male and female contribute etc.
    • That explains the duration of the breeding season; most temperate birds only raise one brood per year. —innotata 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by this argument. Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only way to explain the typical duration of the breeding season, given what data exist; this doesn't have that much to do with discussing behavioral patterns during the raising of young. I supposed I could add it as a sentence at the end, but the information seems more helpful there. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nest has an entrance higher on the sides" - I don't understand this.

Aa77zz (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there any information published on the colour and size of the eggs?
    • I haven't found any yet. Most contemporary sources omit this information, and the Sind sparrow wasn't collected so much as other species in the 19th century—it wasn't in the British Museum when they published their catalogue of eggs I usually use as a reference. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some journal articles included in References and others in Works cited? Compare Whistler (1922) and Ticehurst (1922).
    • My preference is to put any very long works, in which it is useful to give the particular pages referenced, in 'Works cited', regardless of their type. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When using the journal template the output generated by series= keyword is confusing, consider putting "series=11th series" etc Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal preference (which you can obviously ignore) is to include the volume number of a book with the title - as with Summers-Smith (2009), rather than using the volume= keyword which gives an ugly bold number. Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rather not, where there's no title for the volume. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A small point - in a number of places it would be good if the text could be rejigged to avoid repetition (provided this doesn't introduce ambiguity):

  • "Discovered around 1840, this species went undetected for several decades after its discovery."
  • "some birds enter drier habitats as they disperse short distances from their breeding habitat,"
  • "and caring for the young, and usually raise two clutches of three to five young each breeding season."

Support - the article meets the criteria. Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn[edit]

  • "plumage features" As opposed to non-plumage feathers?
  • "Blyth's description was described in" ??
    • Oops, I meant published. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two species bred in the same areas without interbreeding" Would a more useful link not be to biological species concept?
    • Nah, there's a lot more to the biological species concept than sympatry, and sympatry is not exclusive to the biological species concept. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd be helpful if you mentioned what "Sind" refers to.
  • Any parasites or predators? Any cultural significance? Any word on how long they live? What do the eggs look like?
    • Probably not much, and it'll be hard to find. In detail: There may be information somewhere on parasites, and maybe individual listings of animals recorded eating this species (although it's hard to tell apart from the house sparrow, so maybe not). Information on eggs is hard to find, since the usual suspects didn't have any of its eggs. I expect there's no information at all on survival; nobody's done a study specifically on it, and if there even are banding records of lifespan (unlikely), they probably wouldn't tell much. As for cultural significance, supposedly it's the unofficial provincial bird of Sindh, but that's pretty tenuous, and I don't have a reference (once again it's hard to tell apart from the house sparrow, so there might not be much!).

Nice looking little article. I made some changes- please check them. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are mostly fine (File:PasserPyrrhonotusKeulemans.jpg is particularly pleasant). File:PasserPyrrhonotusMap.svg could do with a link to the file on which the map is based, and, ideally, a fuller citation. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —innotata 01:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

Nice work, A few nitpicks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hume and Ticehurst noted a resemblance to, and a possible relation with, the Dead Sea sparrow of the Middle East and Balochistan.[17][20] William Robert Ogilvie-Grant and Henry Ogg Forbes noted a resemblance to the Abd al-Kuri sparrow, endemic to the island of Abd al-Kuri, in their 1899 description of that species.[28] This was also noted by Guy M. Kirwan in a 2008 study.[29]
  • 'The Sind sparrow feeds mainly on the seeds of grasses and other plants such as Polygonum plebeium. They may...
  • I thought it was unlikely that the ggs were undescribed, so a couple of minutes searching found a referenced description of the eggs and the original
  • Support, all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN14, 28: page?
  • FN1 has an accessdate but FN36 does not - be consistent
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have gone through the entire text and most of the cited references. The content is excellent and referencing as rigorous as can be expected. Shyamal (talk) 08:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 07:57, 29 August 2014 [2].


Alsos Mission[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was extremely popular when it appeared on the front page as a DYK. I think it will prove equally popular as a TFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. The Germany subsection seems a bit long, but I don't really know how you'd subdivide it. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotcheck not done

  • "The cellar itself was not blown up, because this would have meant the destruction of the Church and Castle located above the cellar." - source?
    • Added by a German Wikipedian. Removed until I find a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hinsley et al: British Intelligence is a title, not a series; what is current presented as the title is the volume name
  • Mahoney: don't need spaces around dash in dates, don't need both "thesis" and "dissertation", and how does this meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found Mahoney on the shelf at the ADFA library. It was academically reviewed and is widely cited in the literature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. Here are my copyedits. Good work. --John (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your edits and your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haigerloch Castle Hill needs alt text
  • all other toolchecks are green (NFA)
  • "(according to American physicists at the University of California, Berkeley who knew the leading Japanese physicists personally)" - I think you could integrate this into the prose, ie "According to American physicists..."
  • "first" and "first" The German nuclear energy project seemed very different; German scientists had reputations as leaders in the field, and the fear of Germany developing nuclear weapons first was one of the reasons for the establishment of the Manhattan Project in the first place. Perhaps delete "in the first place", it seems redundant.
  • "Norwegian saboteurs and Allied bombers attacked heavy-water infrastructure in German-occupied Norway" seems an inordinately long link, could you link "attacked" or something?
  • Pash should be linked at first mention in the body
  • General (United States), OSRD, Stadtilm, Reichsforschungsrat, and Erich Bagge are overlinked
  • In the Italy section, it would add necessary context to explain that Badoglio headed up the Italian government that had surrendered and joined the Allies.
  • (National Research Council) should be added at first mention
  • "an African-American truck company" - what is the underlying context? Why mention this aspect of the company?
    • I think it makes it easier for the reader to visualise. It was probably written at a time when there was another round of criticism of the "whitewashing" of American history. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "less its Company B, which would be commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Wilbur White." This is unclear, was Company B commanded by LtCol White, or the 1269th?
  • citations are not in numerical order here, 84,68,85.
  • "a separate Manhattan Project organized by Groves" - I thought there was only one Manhattan Project? Or was this a separate team from the Project?
  • suggest refbegin and refend templates for the Refences list
  • no dash issues (NFA)

Great article as always, just needs a few small tweaks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • 2 AIP source links have been dead - replaced them (please check image sources).
  • AIP sells those images apparently, but as (clearly) PD-US their usage should be OK here.

All images are PD-US or "own work" with complete source and author information - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Graham Colm (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2014 [3].

John Plagis[edit]

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a young boy from an Rhodesian mining village who became the top-scoring World War II flying ace for both his country of birth and his ancestral home of Greece. Seeing action in Europe and the Mediterranean, Ioannis Agorastos "John" Plagis played an important role in the Allied defence of Malta during 1942, led No. 126 Squadron RAF during the invasion of Normandy and was shot down over Arnhem during Operation Market Garden. After returning home in 1948 he moved into the north Salisbury street that had been named after him—his address was 1 John Plagis Avenue—and became a relatively prominent businessman, serving on the board of Central African Airways. He also forayed into politics as an associate of fellow WWII RAF veteran Ian Smith, running unsuccessfully for the Rhodesian Front in the 1962 general election. The story has a sad ending, unfortunately—Plagis died in his mid-50s, reportedly by suicide, in 1974.

This article passed a GA review about a year ago and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Any and all comments are welcome. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – only two comments, neither of earth-shaking importance:

  • Early life
    • Showing my ignorance, I imagine, but I'm confused by Plagis's adopted citizenship: you mention that in 1939 he lacked British citizenship, but that after the war he took Rhodesian citizenship.
      • The Empire and Commonwealth had one common "British" citizenship until after the war, when it was decided to have separate (albeit at this time still linked) citizenships for each Commonwealth country. Southern Rhodesian nationality was therefore separate following the British Nationality Act 1948 (Westminster legislation) and the Southern Rhodesian Citizenship and British Nationality Act 1949 (passed at Salisbury). I think any explanation of this in the article would be unfortunately long and obstructive so I think it would be best to sidestep it by simply saying he "was not a citizen"—the meaning of this is clear from context. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First tour of operations
    • "having spent the night with a girl, drinking" – it doesn't bother me, but remember that line of Tom Lehrer's: "In my youth there were words you couldn't say in front of a girl; now you can't say 'girl'."
      • Point noted, but I don't really know what would be better in this case. "female friend"? "young woman"? "young lady"? In my view this needlessly dances around the point and, at least in the last case, sounds frankly patronising. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think "young woman" might be more prudent, but I leave it entirely in your hands while I retreat to a safe distance. Tim riley talk 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article: readable, comprehensive, well proportioned, fully referenced, good images. No hesitation in supporting for FA. Tim riley talk 10:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the support and the very kind words, Tim—I'm glad you like the article and enjoyed reviewing it. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: Mainly trivia, but there are a few points I think that need looking at. Otherwise a neat and informative short article.

  • In lead: "about a year" sounds a little casual. Perhaps "After a spell as..."
  • Early life: lose the unnecessary parentheses around "during which he was commissioned..." etc
  • First tour:
  • "increasingly precarious at this time" – you have not specified a "time"
  • Have substituted "in March 1942"
  • "escorted by the battleship HMS Malaya" this marginal detail overloads a fairly complex sentence, and could safely be deleted.
  • "Thirteen of these Spitfire reinforcement operations..." I'm a bit confused by "of these", as the only operations thus far mentioned are those to do with getting the Spitfires to Malta.
  • OK, have removed "of these", don't think we need it
  • "girl" → "girlfriend"? (to avoid pedantic objections) – and a whole night "drinking"? Yeah, yeah...
  • Re: girlfriend, OK. Re: drinking, well, that's what the source says... —Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "colonial Governor" should be either "colonial governor" or "Colonial Governor", without the mix of capitals
  • I've taken the word "colonial" out to remove this issue
  • Again, "about a year". You could safely say "a year" here, to avoid the casual feel.
  • Second tour:
  • "put in command of" → "made commander of" possibly neater?
  • "his usual personal decorations" – readers might need reminding
  • Have substituted "He added to this a full rendering of "kay" and other personal decorations."
  • "Leading No. 126 Squadron on raids into Normandy during the Allied invasion, Plagis also took part in many of the attacks on German positions in northern France and the Low Countries that followed over the next few months. The syntax is wrong; it fuses two separate activities: (1) his raids into Normandy and (2) his subsequent attacks in northern France and the Low Countries. I suggest: "After leading No. 126 Squadron on raids into Normandy during the Allied invasion, Plagis took part in many of the attacks on German positions in northern France and the Low Countries that followed over the next few months". That will do it.
  • There's the same problem with "Leading the wing despite being two ranks below wing commander, he was officially promoted to squadron leader on 28 March..." You could simply add "After..." to the front of the sentence, or for variety say: "He led the wing despite being two ranks below wing commander, before being promoted to squadron leader on 28 March..." Note that I have deleted officially - were there unofficial promotions?
  • In a nutshell: it is not uncommon in an operational situation, particularly where the unit is constantly evolving due to deaths, casualties etc for semi-official "temporary" or "acting" promotions to be made in the field, and sometimes held for years, without the official ("substantive") rank actually changing. It is also possible for an officer to serve in a role higher than that suggested than his rank without such a promotion being made (as was the case with Plagis, who filled the role of a wing commander while keeping his lower rank). Anyway the point is that I included the word "officially" to make clear this wasn't a field promotion. I think you're right that we don't really need it, though, so I've binned it. Thanks for this —Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was furthermore..." no need for "furthermore"
  • Post-war service:
  • "wartime contributions" – "exploits" possibly stronger?
  • One of the best-known Rhodesian flyers of the war, he married in 1954 and had three sons and a daughter." Unrelated facts shouldn't be enjoined within a single sentence. I think I would ditch the words "One of the best-known Rhodesian flyers of the war", as this fact is well established.
  • "perhaps most prominently" is editorialising. Suggest replace with "including"
  • "and ran for it" → "and was its candidate"
  • "who often associated with him and Smith" – do you mean "socialised"?
  • Suicide: I'm a bit surprised that, given the statement that he had never truly readjusted to civilian life, there has een no previous mention of depression or other evidence of maladjustment. This is 26 years – half his lifetime. Thus his suicide comes as a complete surprise. Is there nothing in the sources that gives earlier clues as to his state of mind prior to his taking his life?
  • Not that I can see, and indeed this was also surprising to me, hence me placing the qualifier "according to Lauren St John, an author from Gadzema" before it. I am still looking for sources online but it seems there are very few for the latter part of his life. Getting hold of back copies of Rhodesian papers like the Rhodesia Herald would be very helpful for investigating this further. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing that surprises me is that, given he was one of Rhodesia's best-known and most decorated air aces, had a street named after him, was a friend and confidante of Ian Smith, etc., there is no public record of his date of birth or the date of his death. Surely the latter was reported in newspapers?
  • Again, see above. I am sure it would have been reported in the Herald and probably other Rhodesian papers too but unfortunately the archives I know of are not geographically feasible for me to visit (the ones I know of are in Zim, South Africa and Australia). It does not seem implausible to me however that Plagis might have had an obituary in the UK press as he was a decorated RAF war veteran. I will keep digging and try to find more information. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Brian for the kind words and the review. I will mention here that my attempts to find more information on Plagis online have unearthed that it seems he was somehow involved in the episode in 1966 when L. Ron Hubbard attempted to set up a "haven for Scientology" in Rhodesia before being deported. Hubbard apparently "purchased an interest in the holdings and Investments of Mr. John Plagis, a local property owner, and a holding company was being formed for them". A google search for "Plagis hubbard" throws up mentions of a legal case, Plagis v. Hubbard 1975 (1) SA 469, but unfortunately I can only get the book previews for these. I think this warrants further investigation and inclusion in the article, so I'll get on that as well. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth breiefly adding mention of the Hubbard connection, which could be cited to The Chronicle via the courtesy link. If more comes to light you could expand. As Plagis won the DFC it his highly likely that an obit appeared in The Daily Telegraph, but without a death date, that would be hard to find. You could ask Tim if he can help – he seems to have means of accessing old newspapers, though not necessarily the DT. I don't think, however, that these issues should delay the article's promotion to FA, and have upgraded accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for all your help Brian. I have requested Tim's help in this direction. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments -- Recusing myself from delegate duties to review...

  • Copyedited the expression as I tend to do, so pls let me know any concerns there.
  • Style-wise, a few things:
    • I'm pretty sure we don't start with rank in the lead unless it's one-star and above. I can't point to a guideline on that but it's one I've observed through dozens of military bios at MilHist A-Class Review and at FAC so it seems to be the convention.
      • I don't remember seeing this guideline but I have no problem taking this out. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never seen the point of the post-noms line at the top of the infobox, given they're in the first line of the lead and are spelt out at the bottom of the infobox. Certainly they aren't required, although they don't seem to be forbidden either, so will leave to you.
    • Likewise the flag icons in the infobox seem superfluous to me. Again, though not forbidden, many of us get by without them without any objection at ACR or FAC. Again, will leave to you.
      • I personally like the little flags in this kind of article so I'll leave them there for now, but I don't feel particularly strongly about this and if consensus says take them out I will do so. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content-wise, just a few things:
    • "He was officially promoted to flying officer on 1 October 1942." Looks to me based on the Gazette entry at FN25 that he was a probationary Flying Officer.
    • "He led the wing despite being two ranks below wing commander, before being promoted to squadron leader on 28 March." FN30, the only citation for this statement, simply records his promotion to squadron leader. Has some other source drawn attention to his rank relative to commanding a wing?
      • Not that I can see. In fact a quick check shows the sources referring to this posting seem to incorrect refer to him as a wing commander when he wasn't one at the time. Probably simpler if we just take this fragment out and rephrase. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a related note, I see the conversation above re. UK newspaper obits. I have access to The Times and Sunday Times digital archives through the National Library of Australia and a search there revealed nothing on Plagis after his DSO in 1944. Interestingly, though, that item refers to him as Squadron Leader Plagis, before his substantive promotion in March 1945, so it may be he was acting or temp s/l while he was leading the wing, meaning that in effect he wasn't two ranks below wing commander anyway...
      • That seems likely. Regarding obituaries, the British Library claims on its website to have back copies of the Rhodesian papers, and Tim is going there in a few days, so I have asked him to have a look. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article structure and level of detail seem fine. Obviously be good to find out some more on his death, especially the date, but I've had at least one bio promoted to FA without that, so I wouldn't say it should hold up promotion as long as the effort's been made.
  • Image licensing looks okay, all sourced from Imperial War Museum.
  • No issues leapt out re. source formatting/reliability.

Nice work as usual, John. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the review and the kind words Ian. I'm glad you like the article. Cheers —Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's great to see you bringing your considerable article-writing talents to a WWII ace bio -- I'll scan again when/if Tim provides any further info from the library but confident enough to support in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much Ian! I'm flattered you hold me in such regard. Hope you're well and have a great rest of the week. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

There's only three images, so this will be quick:

  • Thanks for this Adam. I do like that one myself, particularly as the roundel is in Luton Town colours... ;) —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Thank you very much for this Dan, have a great weekend. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update regarding research into death

I am very thankful to my friend Tim, who has located The Rhodesia Herald for 1974 on microfiche at the British Library in London. He has ordered it for Wednesday (20/8), and will check through for an obituary for Plagis. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry to report that I have drawn a blank. There may have been an obit in The Rhodesia Herald in the latter half of 1974, but I'm afraid I ran out of time at the BL today after reading through all the news pages of the Herald (there is no obit section as such) from 1 Jan 1974 to the end of June. I had underestimated how much longer it takes to scan images of pages with the naked eye rather than pressing search buttons on digitised pages, and alas I ran out of time half way through the year. So sorry, Cliftonian! Tim riley talk 17:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, thank you for trying so hard to help! I can't imagine reading through half a year's worth of 40-year-old African newspapers could have been much fun for you. Oh well, it's a shame we couldn't find anything but I guess we'll have to draw a blank on this for now. There is no reason the death date cannot be added later if an obituary shows up. Thank you again Tim for making such an effort and investing so much of your time. It is really appreciated. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2014 [4].

Jules Massenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Cg2p0B0u8m and Tim riley talk 21:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the least of the 1840s generation of composers (Dvořák, Fauré, Rimsky-Korsakov, Sullivan, Tchaikovsky et al) was Massenet, who came to embody French opera of the Belle Époque. After his death in 1912 his music went out of fashion, although his most popular opera, Manon, held its place in the repertoire. In recent decades there has been a revival of interest in his music and many of his neglected operas are being staged. He left some delighful but highly unreliable memoirs; we hope the present article is more reliable. Many Wiki-colleagues contributed to the recent overhaul, and the peer review had an all-star cast. We look forward to suggestions, and, we hope, support. Tim riley talk 21:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I had words at the PR, and also supplied a couple of articles for the research. The article is well-written, comprehensive without wordiness. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. I gave my comments at the wonderfully thorough PR, and the article has only improved since. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: An excellent composer biography, to which I gave the full review treatment at PR, and was rewarded by the adoption of almost all my points and quibbles. The article is pleasant and informative, and in my view deserves a specially gilded star for including an image of the utterly delightful and swooning beautiful Renée Fleming (she's 55! I can't believe it). That really made my evening. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The support of Wehwalt, Crisco and Brian is greatly appreciated – thanks to all three. Tim riley talk 08:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very nicely put together and hugely interesting. One small point, in the "Later years" section, which reads "main biographical detail of note of his latter years": should that be latter years or later years? - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, SchroCat! We must work together on an article sometime. I wrote "latter" deliberately, but am quite willing to be told that "later" would be better. Very happy either way. If you prefer the latter (later) to the former (latter), pray amend forthwith. Excuse me, I think I need to go and lie down. Tim riley talk 14:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I read the article at PR, since when there have been a few changes. Altogether it is excellently written, most sympathetic and informative. Just one small niggle: in the "Recordings" section, there's two consecutive sentences which start "It was...". I think it may be better to start the second of these ("It was released on compact disc in 2008,") with "It has been released on compact disc...", which would also have the advantage, I think, of immediately alerting readers that we're no longer talking of events during Massenet's life. Alfietucker (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thank you for the support and for the unwinking professional eye on the prose. Your suggested tweak shall be twuck as soon as I have signed this... Tim riley talk 20:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Tweacation now accomplished. Tim riley talk 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article, certainly has my support (although I am not myself a great Massenetien). Couple of v. minor points on a first read: why not links for 'Pardon de Ploermel' and Meyerbeer in M's first published work? Also, first sentence of Later Years (and elsewhere), perhaps capital c for Conservatoire, as we are talking of a particular one?--Smerus (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that support, Smerus. I've amended as you suggest. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media check (GermanJoe) - all OK

  • all images and sound files are either some kind of PD-old or released by their author - OK.
  • authors (if known) and sources are provided for all files - OK.
  • some files are only suitable for en-Wikipedia, but tagged as such - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that check, GJ. Always a relief to get a clean sheet. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent article, well written, well sourced. Carefully balanced in coverage. Gives a clear overview of the life and achievements of the composer.--Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support gratefully acknowledged, with many thanks. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • I would think refs 21, 36, 39, 41, 55 and 56 need accessdate parameters.
    • The MoS lays down that for web-only sources the retrieval date should be included when there is no publication date, and so when a publication date is given it is never my practice to include access dates as well. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 55 should notify readers that the source is written in French
  • Ref 57's page number is C17 (article was printed in the Observer Review supplement) Lemonade51 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pleased you spotted that omission (and thank you for finding the page number for me). Now amended.
Thank you very much for that review, Lemonade. I hope my explanation of my logic as regards the first point is acceptable. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2014 [5].

Nagato-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nagato-class ships were the first battleships to be armed with guns greater than 15 inches (380 mm) and followed the Japanese policy about having individual ships more powerful than those of their potential enemies. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) knew that they could not out-build other powers and individual superiority was their only route for success. Reserved for the decisive battle that the IJN anticipated against the US Navy during the Pacific War, they did not see much action during the war. Mutsu was destroyed in an accidental magazine explosion in 1943 and her sister ship Nagato ineffectually participated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. Lightly damaged during the battle she returned home for repairs that Japan could not afford to make. She was modified to serve as a floating anti-aircraft battery and survived the war. She was used by the Americans as a target ship during their post-war atomic bomb tests. She sank during the second one of these and is now a diveable wreck at Bikini Atoll.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've looked at the changes made since I copyedited this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Nagatoarmor.svg: possible to provide a translation of the labels?
    • Not really, unless someone fluent in German who knows Inkscape volunteers to rework the labels.
  • File:Mutsu20.jpg is tagged as lacking source info, as is File:Nagato_1939.jpg
  • File:Nagato1944.png: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that the zealots over on Commons have deleted the latter two and I can only offer my explanation from Mutsu's FAC last year for Mutsu20: I'm not sure what to do here. Under Japanese law the image is copyright-free because of its age, regardless of its source. But I can't swear that it's PD in the US without a source. I can delete it although I strongly suspect that it's PD as well because of the URAA. I think that I'm going to need to upload some more photos of these ships to upgrade the graphic content of this article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replaced the single questionable image and added a few new ones that should have good licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armor cross-section could be larger
    • Done.
  • File:Nagato1944.png still needs sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? Alexpl created it himself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but on what basis? Where does the information conveyed come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done as usual. Just a few comments:

Background
  • "and the government ratified that policy in 1907" maybe "adopted" for ratified?
  • " re-evaluate several times" perhaps "several times re-evaluate"
Design
  • "used formerly" "formerly used" sounds better, but I note you use the word "used" twice in that sentence. One should probably go.
  • "that had occurred a year previously" the previous year
Armament
  • "The unsatisfactory 2-pounders" you have not mentioned problems with them.
  • I wish I knew, none of my sources specify why, although I have my suspicions. I've deleted "unsatisfactory".
Armor
  • " 100 mm armor plates above the main deck and 215 mm (8.5 in) plates below it" what is the rationale for having a conversion on the second stat and not on the first?
  • Measurements are only converted on first use.
Construction
  • "and a similar arrangement" perhaps "in exchange for a similar arrangement"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See how my changes satisfy your comments. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

I'm not into warfare and naval vessels so will be able to give an outsider's perspective. A few points on the prose:

  • "Nagato did not fire her main armament against enemy vessels ..." - Do you mean her weapons in general or was there a single main armament, and if so, what was it?
  • "... resisted penetration by 200-kilogram (440 lb) torpedo warheads in full-sized trials." - What do you mean by "full-sized trials"?
  • "Although the United States Navy planned to arm its Colorado class with 16-inch (406 mm) guns before the Nagato class was designed, Nagato's 41-centimeter (16.1 in) guns made her the first dreadnought that was launched armed with guns larger than 15 inches (381 mm)." - Why mm in some measurements and cm in others?
  • "He estimated that his ship would displace as much as Nagato," - What does this mean?
    • Added a link.
  • "The ships had a stowage capacity of 1,600 long tons (1,600 t) of coal and 3,400 long tons (3,500 t) of fuel oil," - Why do the conversions for coal and fuel oil differ?
    • Umm, what do you mean? They're both given in long tons and converted into metric tons.
Yes, but the long tons equals the metric tons in one case but not in the other. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The US Navy did not learn their actual speed until about 1937" - maybe you should include "capabilities" or somesuch.
  • " an armor thickness of 305 mm on the face, 230–190 mm (9.1–7.5 in)" - Having been so assiduous at giving conversions, did you miss this one and others later in the paragraph?
    • See my response to Wehwalt above; the some of these had been converted earlier.
  • "increased by 38 mm (1 in) on the upper deck and 25 mm on the upper armored deck" - And this one needs a further significant figure.
    • Good catch.
More later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always like it when non-Ships people review my articles as y'all are almost certain to catch any undefined jargon or unclear explanations. Look forward to the rest of your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They now operated Nakajima E4N2 biplanes until they were replaced by Nakajima E8N2 biplanes in 1938." - I don't like the "now", and the two "they"s refers to different things.
  • In the short table in the ships section, I suggest you arrange for the English and Japanese names to be on different lines as on my screen, the Japanese is split awkwardly in two.
  • "Mutsu again served as the Emperor's flagship during the annual maneuvers and fleet review in 1933." - The wording in this sentence is almost identical to the previous one. Could it be expressed differently?
  • "The sisters were refitted in 1941 in preparation for war, which included the fitting of external degaussing coils and additional armor for their barbettes." - The use of "which" in this sentence is a bit awkward.
    • I'm not sure that I agree with you, but I'm open to suggestions if you have any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They arrived at Truk on 17 August." - The previous sentence was talking about Mutsu, so the use of "they" is inappropriate here.
  • "A coal-burning donkey boiler was installed on the pier for heating and cooking purposes" - What does the "pier" mean here?
  • "The Times has named Nagato as one of the top ten wreck diving sites in the world." - Has the radioactivity dissipated to acceptable levels then?
  • That's all. The article is very well-written and laid out. Much of the technical information was beyond me, but for the general reader there is plenty of interesting non-technical stuff and for the specialist reader there appears to be all the detail he might require. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of my sources explicitly mention any diminution of the radioactivity, but I've added a source that states that she was opened to divers in 1996, presumably when the US Gov't deemed it safe. I think that I've addressed all of your other concerns; see if they are satisfactory. Thanks again for reviewing this.
  • Now supporting this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Think we just need a source review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN63: missing italics
    • Fixed.
  • FN62: link isn't working for me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Works OK on my computer just now. Thanks for reviewing these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support but with one question:

  • "15 of these were oil-fired while the remaining half-dozen consumed a mixture of coal and oil." Is there an article one could link to about the coal-and-oil engine? I think most readers won't have heard of it (I hadn't) and might like to know more.
  • Very nice article, good luck with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rephrased to clarify that the ships had some boilers that used coal with oil sprayed on to increase the energy yield. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2014 [6].

Secret of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When you think of the best 16-bit RPGs ever made, 1993's Secret of Mana is assuredly on the list, up there with Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI, and EarthBound. Heck, according to GameRankings, it's one of the best SNES games ever made in any genre. And now, it's available to you for your reviewing pleasure! The article has been fairly solid for a long time—it's a well-known game, after all—but in January I pushed through, rewrote almost all of it, and got it up to GA level. After sitting on it for a few months, I'm still pretty pleased with the way it turned out, and I think it can go all the way. Early-90's games can be hard to source, as the games journalism (cough) field was small and mainly offline, and this game got a surprisingly small marketing push in America for how much it sold in Japan (it's the 21st best-selling SNES game ever, but 80%+ of the sales were in Japan), but I think I've hoovered up everything that could be found and made a pretty nice article. Feel free to explain to me exactly how I'm terribly wrong, or to shock me with easy supports. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Hey, I fielded this page's GAN! Nice to see you've gone a bit further with it; I'll put down some comments later today. Tezero (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Alright, here I go. Just a warning; I'm gonna be more stringent with the prose than I was at GAN:[reply]

  • The intro's a bit long considering the size of the article; Reception/Legacy in particular is given a lot of real estate. It could stand at two-thirds its current size and be just fine.
  • "the hero, the girl, and the sprite" - Popoi and Primm should be named.
  • "Flammie, a miniature dragon which is controlled by the player and able to fly freely across the world, represented by an overworld map" - Minor question, but is Flammie's gender given?
  • "In an unspecified time period" - A little wordy; I'd prefer "Sometime".
  • "The three main characters do not have names in the original SNES release" - Does the player pick their names?
  • "scamming people at the dwarves' freak show" - This is phrased as though this show is referenced earlier, but the reader knows nothing about it. At the very least, go like "a freak show held by dwarves".
  • "as well as with her father for setting her up for an arranged marriage" - With whom?
  • "Mana Sword, and" - Shouldn't be a comma here.
  • "amnesiac sprite child" - What does he remember back to?
  • "Over time, however, Thanatos narrows his selection to Dyluck" - Does it say elsewhere in the game why he picks Dyluck? If not, why is this an "over time" process?
  • What does the Mana Beast look like?
  • How does it reveal itself?

I'll be back for Development and onward later. Tezero (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here instead of inline.
  • I don't know why FAC has decided in the past few months that we should all move to 2-paragraph intros, but I disagree- right now game release info, plot, gameplay, development, reception, and legacy get like 1-2 sentences each; any further cut down and I'd be skipping sections. I've done intros this long for much shorter FAs.
  • Done
  • Flammie's male, but it's never relevant beyond that pronouns need to be gendered in English, and I don't see a good way to integrate it into the sentence.
  • Done.
  • Yes, added.
  • Fixed; sorry, characters was clawed out of a lengthier plot section.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Video game amnesia, not real amnesia, so all of it, even though he obviously knows language and stuff. The quote is "This child received such a shock from drifting here, it lost all its memories." - It's included in the cited quotes.
  • Reworded it; the relevant quote is "For ages I have been searching...for a human with the power to conquer this world... ...one born in the shadow of darkness, and raised in the light of Mana. Dyluck is the one. I cannot wait any longer. My body has grown weak! It is time! Using his body I will take the Mana Fortress, and rule the world!"
  • Renamed creature to dragon; it looks kinda similar to Flammie, but a lot bigger, more monstrous, and less friendly
  • Reworded to "flies in"; it just kinda... shows up. Flies up to the party from below the screen.
@Tezero: alright, responded to everything you've posted so far. --PresN 23:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The real-time battle system used in Secret of Mana is described" - Minor, but perhaps this should be "has been described". It's not a recent description, and perhaps one or more of the creators will die before too long.
  • "a lack of sequential text" - ???
  • "Other Western localizations were done to German and French" - Is "to" the right pronoun, and is "Western" necessary?
  • "Kikuta was originally chosen for Secret of Mana after Kenji Ito, who had composed the soundtrack for Final Fantasy Adventure and was originally slated for the project, was forced to drop it due to other demands on his time such as the soundtrack to Romancing SaGa." - Not awful, but kind of a run-on.
  • "to create an immersive three-dimensional sound" - clarify
  • " Rather than use premade MIDI samples of instruments like most game music composers of the time, Kikuta made his own MIDI samples that matched the hardware capabilities of the SNES so that he would know exactly how the pieces would sound on the system's hardware instead of having to deal with audio hardware differences between the original MIDI sampler and the SNES." - Also quite a dinosaur-bite, as my dad would say.
  • "covers both "ominous" and "light-hearted" tracks" - I'd prefer "includes", or switch "tracks" to "themes".
  • "The title track to the game, "Fear of the Heavens", was designed by Kikuta to sync up with the title screen as it slowly faded in due to hardware limitations; at the time trying to match the audio and visual effects in a game was rare." - Hardware limitations? This seems contradictory. Did he succeed in innovating or not?
  • "Secret of Mana was one of the first soundtrack releases in North America for the North American version of a Japanese game" - Had North American adaptations of Japanese games received soundtrack releases elsewhere? If not, strike "in North America".
  • "with the catalog number N25D-019"/"catalog numbers PSCN-5030 and NTCP-5030" - Relevance?
  • Actually... Given how droning and repetitive the text in this paragraph is - which is, to a large extent, not your fault - it might work better as a bulleted list.
  • "Secret of Mana shipped 1.83 million copies worldwide" - should be "had shipped" or "has shipped"
  • "were also highly reviewed" - There could easily be more releases, so I'd prefer "have also been highly reviewed".
  • Why is Re-releases part of Reception, especially when they're discussed earlier? I'd put it in Development.
  • Not a strict objection, but why is the image of Flammie flying a GIF? It doesn't move.

Everything else looks fine, I'd say. Tezero (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:
  • Done
  • Moved down and reworded
  • Dropped Western and changed to into
  • Split
  • Reworked a bit, though those word choices were Kikuta's
  • Split
  • changed to includes
  • reworded
  • done
  • Removed
  • I'll see what I can do, but embedded lists are rarely the answer.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Don't know, that's just what the original image was, and I left it in the article. GIFs don't need to be animated, by the way, that's not their only purpose, though PNG might be better for this image since there aren't large color blocks.
--PresN 20:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, then. Interesting about GIFs, that; I did not know that. Tezero (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever[edit]

Can you expand the "legacy" part of the article? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 03:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; if I had sources to do so I would have, but I don't. That's the problem with games from the early 90s that weren't that popular in America as compared to Japan, and whose series kinda faded out outside of Japan- Seiken 3 never got released in English, and Seiken 4 (Legend of Mana) was the last one to do well at all. --PresN 23:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, everything in this article is fine. =D }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 13:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • I agree that lede sections of 3 paragraphs sound fine by me. However, some of the lede feels... inconsequential? Is the speed of the translation or the fact that the game was retranslated for iOS really that important? Also, the reference to two rather minor games in the lede seems to undercut the claim to be influential later on. Both these bits feel quite cuttable, not because the lede is too long otherwise, but because they aren't really impactful for the lede.
  • I ought to clarify this: I'm not against ledes longer than two paragraphs per se; I'm guilty of that many times over, with an article I have at GAN right now having a four-paragraph lede. Rather, I thought it went into a lot of detail given the amount of text in the article's body. I think I can still support how it is, but like with SnowFire, a bit of compression would be appreciated. Tezero (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I agree with using the character names in the article. How influential is the iOS version compared to the original? The old "Nintendo Power" and other printed sources always simply referred to them as the Boy, the Girl, and the Sprite. Online fansites have traditionally used "Purim" for the Girl's Japanese name rather than "Primm" as well. Anyway, I'd rather stick to Boy/Girl/Sprite myself short of some evidence the iOS default names are the commonly used ones now, but suppose I'll defer to your judgment. (That said, regardless, can this reference be included for the names? More useful than the Japanese page currently there.)
  • "The hero, while unable to use magic, excels at fighting... the sprite is physically the weakest." Uh, not to be "that guy", but the differences in damage & health in the cast are actually quite minor. Checking the IGN review linked as the reference, it doesn't say the sprite is physically weak either, merely noting that he's the master of offensive magic. I'd leave it at just what the IGN review says - the Boy masters weapons quickly, the Girl casts mostly defensive & healing magic, the Sprite casts mostly offensive magic.
  • "mana represents an ethereal, but finite, energy source" --> If it was 'finite' how did the world ever recover? I got the impression from the SNES translation more that bad things happened when the old civ used too much at once for evil purposes, not that it was like oil where once it's gone it's gone. I'd suggest removing 'finite' and add "technologically advanced" next to civilization, as it should be made clear it was a modern-esque civ.
  • "Dyluck, who was ordered by the King to attack Elinee's Castle, which is considered a virtual suicide mission" --> Is this something added in the iOS version? I don't recall anyone being particularly sure it was a 'suicide mission', and a quick check of the SNES script seems to confirm. It's not even really that relevant, all that matters is the Girl rans after him to save him - I'd just cut the part out about 'virtual suicide mission.'
  • " leaves the castle to join the hero in his quest, hoping to save Dyluck as well" - Actually, it's more "the girl leaves the castle to save Dyluck, accompanying the Boy as well." The game is interestingly consistent on this, she's only interested in saving Dyluck; if the Boy doesn't even go try to catch up with Dyluck and goes directly to Gaea's Navel, the Girl will leave the party for a time and state she's going to Dyluck.
  • "Unbeknownst to the Emperor or his subordinates, they are being manipulated by Thanatos" -- Thanatos is a chief advisor to all of these people, so it's pretty beknownst. The fact he later betrays them is mentioned later.
  • "as well as music from Bali" - Bali, the Indonesian island? Bali, the name of some other musician? Seems like a classic case for a wikilink....
  • Per above, a lot of the information in the soundtracks section feels repetive, and the perfect kind of data to slough off in a sidebar infobox.
  • Is it worth also mentioning the referenced RPGFan article comments about the blisteringly poor reception to Secret of Mana Genesis, that it's 'arranged' but almost identical to the OST?
  • 'Kikuta has said that they are "how he wanted the music to sound when he wrote it"' - #1, this is one of those vague bland useless quotes that might as well be cut anyway. #2, it's not clear in the text who you're even quoting from (it is RPGFan in this case) if you want to keep it.
  • Is there anything more to say in the re-releases? New reviews, commentary on the differences, etc.? Or even just a statement that these re-releases generated little notice. (Incidentally, if there isn't, that argues more for using the Boy/Girl/Sprite names per the above, but that's just me.)
  • "Secret of Mana has been on numerous all-time "best games" lists" --> This is more a pet peeve of mine, but tons of Wikipedia articles these days are just in love with mentioning every minor listicle they get mentioned in - this song was listed as one of Random British Magazine's 25 hottest songs of the summer, etc. It's great you dug all this up, but I'd personally suggest sticking some of the awards in a footnote. (For example, IGN usually provided *two* Top 100s every year, one reader-voted and one editor-submitted. And there'd be random churn each year. That's a lot more than 100 games that make such top 100 lists over time, for all that Secret of Mana is in fact great.) Feel free to disagree though, lots of good WP articles seem to be in love with these lists of mentions, so.

Nice work overall, of course. SnowFire (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Responses:
  • Dropped the less-important bits
  • Removed all places where I used their name directly; the fact that they have names outside of the initial NA release is mentioned once in gameplay and again in setting, but that's it. The iOS version isn't a big enough deal to contradict the lack of names originally; it's just the only version I've played so I over-weighted it. Used that English reference as well.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Given that there's an entire Mana music article, I just pulled out a bunch of the boring bits- length, publishing dates, publishers, etc. Tried to rework some of the sentence flow to make it less choppy- most of this section was copied from a GA I did years and years ago, and it shows.
  • Added as a comment after the Kikuta quote
  • Sourced
  • Added a little comment that there were fewer reviews for the other versions, even if they still got high scores- they are just ports, after all, which usually don't get much.
  • Dropped some of them, since they got laborious. What I really want is to replace the whole thing with a source that says definitively that SoM is considered one of the best 16-bit RPGs, or one of the best SNES games, and I guess I'm using top-100 lists as a proxy for that. For a more modern game I could just use awards, but... 1993.
  • @SnowFire: --PresN 20:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes myself - please take a look and modify if needed. Anyway, Support. I will say that while I think this article is FA quality, there is still room for improvement, especially in the Reception & Legacy section, just I'm sure it'll be aggravatingly hard to get good sources for it. (I think the Edge quote is a bit hyperbolic when it claims SoM arrived "unhyped and unheard of" - anecdotally, SoM was Known among people who owned a SNES, certainly among anyone who enjoyed action-RPGs, and 300K sales in NA was *just fine* by standards then. And of course there are surely more Japanese sources lurking out there.) SnowFire (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "The Japanese release referred to the three protagonists as Randi, Primm and Popoi ...": It's probably not necessary to say this three times.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable, and a very easy copyediting job. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, and I've pulled the extraneous Randis- thought I'd chopped it down to two, but I guess not. --PresN 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
;Prose review from JimmyBlackwing

Impressive work digging up all this material on an old (and Japanese) game. Although prose is my focus, I might comment on other content issues if they stick out.

  • "released in North America as Final Fantasy Adventure and Europe" — Should be "and in Europe" to eliminate the possibility that it was "released as ... Europe".
  • "its release marked the transition of the Seiken Densetsu series's marketing from a thinly related spinoff of the Final Fantasy series to the wholly separate Mana series." — Very vague, on top of being snake-y. Perhaps, "it was the first Seiken Densetsu title to be marketed as part of the Mana rather than the Final Fantasy series."
  • "Set in a fantasy world" — Also vague. Surely it's associated with one of the dozens of fantasy genres. If not, at least provide a wikilink of some sort.
  • The final sentence of the lead's first paragraph is a titanic snake, and it really doesn't mean anything to someone who hasn't read the Plot section. "Empire"? "Mana Fortress"? "Mana Tree"? Having not played the game or read past the lead, it's just cruft to me. The sentence's length should be reduced by about 50%, and the remaining content should be rewritten in a more accessible summary style.
  • First sentence of paragraph 2 is another python. It could actually be ended directly after "real-time battles". After that, remove the "alongside role-playing elements" (we've heard it's a role-playing game already) and begin the next sentence, "The game features a unique Ring Command etc."
  • "needing to switch screens" — I've played my share of JRPGs, but I still barely understand this.
  • The talk of the iOS version in the second paragraph is inappropriate and kind of irrelevant. That's definitely material for legacy discussion in paragraph 3.
  • Paragraph 3 is a single sentence. It's one of the longest sentences I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Needless to say, it desperately needs to be chopped up into smaller, more digestible pieces.

I thought I'd have time to review more of the prose than that, but it didn't work out. I'll be back later with part 2 (and possibly 3) of my review. Judging by the lead, this is several steps above the Mass Effect list—but it still suffers from vagueness and snakes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Specified as high fantasy- could also be heroic fantasy, but that seems to be more about literary style than setting.
  • Long sentences need love too! Cut down.
  • Chopped in half
  • Tried to clarify
  • I think this is the third article in a row you've said that to me; not sure if I'm getting worse about those or what. It didn't use to be the only sentence in the paragraph, but it was still that long before. Fixed.
  • --PresN 20:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made a few follow-up adjustments. The lead looks good now. I'll try to review more later today—sorry for the delay. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries (or rush) - I'll try to get a review done for your FAC soon, been meaning to get to it. --PresN 20:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review from JimmyBlackwing, part 2
  • "Like many other role-playing games of the 16-bit era" — Entails that many 16-bit role-playing games feature three protagonists, respectively named Randi, Primm and Popoi, etc.
  • First sentence of Gameplay is way too long, and it starts to break down grammatically in the dash-enclosed section.
  • "Control may be passed between each of the characters" — Seems to suggest that the characters are doing the controlling.
  • "In order to support three players, a Super Multitap accessory must be plugged into the second controller port of the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) console." — Definitely WP:GAMEGUIDE. Perhaps, "Support for three players is made possible by the Super Multitap accessory for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES) console."
  • "gameplay with the use of additional" —> "gameplay via additional".
  • "the girl functions as a healer, able to cast restorative and support spells" —> "the girl is a healer who casts restorative and supportive spells".
  • "each character can increase in level to gain improved stats such as strength and evasion" —> "each character increases in level and improves in areas such as strength and evasion".
  • "can find refuge" — Better: "may rest".
  • "Located below each character's hit points at the bottom of the screen is a gauge that determines the amount of damage done to an enemy when attacking." — Big run-on. Should be rephrased to be shorter, preferably with a comma somewhere.
  • "styles of weapons throughout the game" — As is usually the case, "throughout the game" can be cut with no loss in clarity.
  • "eight times through the game" — Ditto.
  • "repeated use increases their Skill Levels to a maximum of eight" — Repeated use of weapons or upgrades? Also, whose Skill Levels? And why is Skill Level capitalized?
  • "new charged attack" —> "new special attack".
  • A sentence rewrite suggestion:
  • "Weapons are upgraded through the use of with Weapon Orbs, generally obtained after which are found in dungeons or earned by defeating a certain bosses or found as a treasure in dungeons." (Italics signify an addition.)
  • Another:
  • "Once an Orb is collected, The player takes each Orb to the weapon can be brought to a blacksmith, located in most towns, who uses it to reforge one weapon to be reforged."
  • "Magic in Secret of Mana operates in much the same way as weapon skill progression, with the exception that magic points are consumed each time a spell is cast." — Needlessly long and informal, on top of being vague. Plus, it's redundant with what comes next.
  • "different elements—water, earth, wind, fire, dark, light, moon, and life—and" —> "different elements—such as water, earth, and life—and".
  • "Magic skill can only be as high as the party's current Mana Power, which increases by one with every mana seed unsealed." — This is Greek to me. What is a mana seed? How is it unsealed? What is Mana Power, and why is it capitalized? What is "magic skill"? I'm completely lost.
  • "an enemy-infested countryside in order to reach their next destination" — Should be more specific. It seems necessary, but leaving it this vague gives it a crufty vibe.
  • "expedited through use of Cannon Travel Centers" —> "expedited with Cannon Travel Centers".
  • "where non-player characters offer to launch the party to faraway destinations via a giant cannon" —> "where the party may be launched to faraway destinations via a giant cannon".
  • The way the Mode 7 image bleeds into the Plot header is kind of unsightly. Any way to fix that?
  • Rename "Setting" to "Setting and characters". It isn't just a Setting section.
  • "The story takes place in a fictional world where mana is an ethereal energy source" — What is "mana", and why would we think of it otherwise than as an "ethereal energy source" to begin with? I'm confused.
  • "Sometime in the past, a technologically advanced civilization" —> "An ancient, technologically-advanced civilization".
  • "The gods" — Which gods? As it stands, the voice is in-universe.
  • "their beasts" — Again, too vague and borderline in-universe.
  • "world until" —> "world, until".
  • "default names in the original SNES release" — "Default name" is vague to someone who's not versed in JRPGs.
  • "the Japanese version stated their names in the manual" — The Japanese version wrote the manual? Perhaps, "their names appear in the manual of the Japanese release".
  • "his mother" — Dangling participle.
  • Standardize the capitalization (or lack thereof) on "king".
  • Sentence rewrite:
  • "Angry with the king for this, Angered by the King's [or king's] actions and her father's attempt to as well as with her father for setting her up for an arranged marriage arrange her marriage to with a local nobleman, she rebels and leaves the castle to save Dyluck, accompanying and to accompany the hero as well."
  • "The two" — The girl and Dyluck? Dyluck and the hero? The king and the nobleman? It's not clear.
  • Another rewrite:
  • "The game begins as Disobeying their Elder's instructions, three boys from the small Potos village disobey their Elder's instructions and trespass into a local waterfall, where a treasure is said to be kept."
  • "During his journey, the hero is joined by an amnesiac sprite child and the daughter of a nobleman from Pandora." — They've already been introduced. Same applies to the next two sentences. Why have a Characters section if you don't use it to cut down on introductory material in the Story section?
  • Why isn't the Empire introduced in the Setting section? Seems necessary, especially when the group is introduced cold in the Story section.
  • "unseal the eight Mana Seeds" — Again: what is a Mana Seed?
  • "has designs on creating" —> "hopes to create".
  • "When his body deteriorates too far, however, Thanatos chooses to possess Dyluck." — Most of this seems kind of unnecessary, or at least too vague and redundant (as it stands) to be worth including.
  • "Pure Land" — Another unexplained name. Might not even be necessary to include.
  • "form which is defeated in battle" — "form, which the party defeats."
  • Unfortunate detour: I have very serious 1b concerns when it comes to the Development section. As in, the nomination seems oppose-worthy on that point alone. Normally I'd understand the lack of dev info on an old/Japanese game, but that really doesn't fly in this case. Nintendo Power Nov 1993 contains a feature on the game, as does Retro Gamer #85. LEVEL #6 contains a very, very in-depth retrospective interview/feature. Even this little Edge feature contains dev information not in the article. And that, I hate to say, is after only a very superficial search. Much more is definitely out there, particularly in Japanese. Add to that the thinness of the Reception section, when reviews from Nintendo Power ([7]), GamePro ([8]) and GameFan (ask User:Thibbs) are readily available.

Before I continue the prose review, the 1b issue needs to be addressed thoroughly. For now, I have to oppose based on both 1a and 1b. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw my name mentioned so I just wanted to say that I'd be happy to make any material I have available if needed. Just ping me or post on my talk page. It looks like additional hardcopy sources exist as well covering development and reception in the 2007 May and 2008 December issues of Nintendo Official Magazine, and possibly the 1993 October, 1993 November, and 1993 December issues of Electronic Gaming Monthly. I'm not sure whether or not the EGM reception material is already part of the article because although the reception section mentions a 1993 EGM review, there is no attribution to the original article, only the modern-day archived version. I've never gone through the FA process myself, but I'd imagine that a more precise citation to the actual 1993 EGM review(s) would be a good idea (with a link to the archived version for verification purposes, of course). And lastly, another option for Nintendo Power #54 (linked by JimmyBlackwing above) is via here. -Thibbs (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Helpful as always, Thibbs. Regarding my EGMs: I just checked, and the non-review articles don't contain any development material. However, I could provide the page information on the review, if PresN thinks it's necessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, if I had any doubts that my lack of time and energy for Wikipedia in the past 6 months or so has had a terrible effect on my article writing, this completely dispels them. I'd like to apologize; some of these prose errors are terrible and I should have caught them long before. I've gone through all the points you've listed above. As to 1b, I've asked Thibbs to give me whatever he can, and I would like the page information on the EGM review if you have time. I'll ping you back to the review when I've, you know, expanded/rewritten the entire bottom third of the article. --PresN 19:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. The article isn't perfect, but it's not in horrible shape. You'll almost definitely be able to get it pulled together before the nom's closed. I made a few further copyediting tweaks to the article, but my 1a complaints above have now been addressed. Unfortunately, I won't be able to continue the prose review until the rest of the article is finalized. Here's the citation info: "Semrad, Ed; Carpenter, Danyon; Manuel, Al; Sushi-X (December 1993). "Game of the Month; Secret of Mana". Electronic Gaming Monthly (53): 40." Good luck. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article's much better already. I'll complete the prose review as soon as you've finished expanding Development and Reception, which (from the looks of it) shouldn't be too much longer. I look forward to supporting this article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JimmyBlackwing: Alright, ready to go. Dev has been greatly expanded, basically through two sources: the Swedish Level interview and the retro gamer feature (with a hint of the Edge piece that came out after I wrote the article). Reception has been expanded a bit, with the GamePro and Diehard GameFan reviews and Legacy with the Edge piece; other than that there wasn't much to pull out. The Nintendo Power article was just a game guide puff piece, and the previews in various sources were breathless salivating without new details. 1993 was not, it seems, a banner year for games journalism. Thibbs has offered to see if he can find a 1993 Famitsu review, but even if he does there won't be much to add beyond the scores. In any case, I think the last two sections of the article are ready for you to look over and glare at me for stuffing too many dependent clauses into a single, overwhelmed sentence. (Though I tried to chop those up in anticipation.) --PresN 21:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing the prose review.
  • "Koichi Ishii, the creator of the series" — What series? Thus far, the article body has not mentioned any other games in the Mana series. And, since this is only the second Mana game, it would probably be better just to call Ishii the creator of SoM's predecessor, the first game in the Mana series.
  • "the game is more 'his game' than other games" — "Game" three times in nine words.
  • Given the edits I just recommended, it would be necessary to edit sentence 4 to avoid redundancy. Here's a suggestion:
  • "The team hoped to build on the foundation of Final Fantasy Adventure, and they included several modified elements from that game and from other popular Square titles in Secret of Mana."
  • "than its Game Boy predecessor" — Better to mention earlier on that Final Fantasy Adventure is a Game Boy title.
  • "more engaging than waiting for a bar to fill up" —> "more engaging".
  • "Mana game; instead" — Should be a colon.
  • "temporary helper characters" —> "temporary companions".
  • "alternative main characters to the hero" — "protagonists".
  • "data tables for experience points and leveling up" — Haven't played the game, so this is a mystery to me.
  • Sentence rewrite:
  • "According to Tanaka, has stated that the game's the battle system in the game contains ideas features mechanics that had first been considered for the developers of Final Fantasy IV were considering."
  • "Other ideas for Secret of Mana were used in development for Chrono Trigger" —> "Similarly, unused features in Secret of Mana were appropriated by the Chrono Trigger team".
  • "When Sony changed the project to be the standalone PlayStation console," — This isn't really what happened, as I'm sure you know. I understand the impulse to simplify the history a bit, but I think it would be appropriate to add something like, "After the deal between Nintendo and Sony to produce the add-on fell through, and decided to Sony develop the SNES CD into the PlayStation console, etc."
  • "game cartridge" — Should link to ROM cartridge.
  • "but were overruled" —> "but they were overruled".
  • Sentence rewrite:
  • "The largest of these Most major of these removals was the option to take multiple routes through the game, which would have resulted in that led to several possible endings, in contrast to rather than the linear journey in the final product the plot ended up taking."
  • "had to be dropped" —> "was dropped".
  • "have connected the hardware change to some technical problems the game has when too much is happening at once in the game" —> "have suggested that the hardware change led to technical problems when too much happens at once in the game".
  • A rewrite:
  • "In 2006, Level magazine has claimed that the Secret of Mana's rocky development issues for the game due to the cancellation of the CD add-on led directly to was Square's main inspiration to move moving their games, such as the Final Fantasy series, from Nintendo consoles to Sony consoles in 1996."
  • "was initially advertised as Final Fantasy Adventure 2" — A translation is not advertised by name. The localization in which the translation appears is what they marketed.
  • "presumably" — Presumably according to whom?
  • "fixed-width font" — Any internal links available for this?
  • "the Western versions omitted the default names and first acknowledged them with the" —> "Western versions omitted the characters' names until the".

I'll be back later with more. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final prose comments
  • "'immersive', and would sound 'three-dimensional'" —> "'immersive' and 'three-dimensional'".
  • A rewrite:
  • "With those These custom samples, allowed him to know he knew exactly how the pieces each piece would sound on the system's hardware, so he did not have to worry about rather than having to deal with audio hardware differences between the original MIDI sampler and the SNES"
  • "Kikuta considers" — Should be dated, like "as of XXXX" or "in XXXX, Kikuta said that he".
  • "His compositions for the game" — This would be better placed in the next paragraph, somewhere.
  • "screen; at the time trying to match the audio and visual effects in a game was rare." —> "screen. At that time, composers rarely tried to match a game's music to its visuals."
  • "up; getting the sound" —> "up. Getting this sound".
  • A rewrite (no fancy formatting this time, due to the abundance of italics in this sentence):
  • "The 1993 soundtrack album Secret of Mana Original Soundtrack, first released as Seiken Densetsu 2 Original Sound Version in Japan, collects 44 tracks of music from Secret of Mana. Aside from its packaging and localized song titles, the English release is identical to the Japanese original."
  • "Secret of Mana was one of the first soundtrack releases for the North American version of a Japanese game." — I'm only dimly capable of understanding this sentence.
  • "In addition to the original soundtrack album, an arranged album of music from Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3 titled Secret of Mana+ was produced in 1993." — Ditto.
  • Sentence after that is vague, as well as a snake.
  • "is described as" — Described by whom?
  • "also been described as" — Ditto.
  • Final sentence of the Music section is a massive snake.
  • "their planned nine-game lineup" — I don't understand.
  • "no news of the port ever surfaced outside the announcement" — Citation? Also, which remake of Final Fantasy III is being discussed? A WonderSwan remake?
  • One of those Edge sources Thibbs gave you mentioned that SoM sold out in Japan in just a few days. Probably notable enough to include in the first paragraph of Reception. Also, the Edge quotes currently in that paragraph could use some paraphrasing—I'm all for quotes, but that's a bit overkill.
  • "well-received at the time of its release" — I know these OR summary sentences are desirable, but they really shouldn't be used.
  • "In their 1993 review of the game, the reviewers for Electronic Gaming Monthly" —> "The magazine's reviewers".
  • The EGM summary sentence should also be chopped up; it's too long.
  • It isn't necessary to specify that the DieHard GameFan review is from 1993. Ditto for GamePro. And ditto for all instances of dating these reviews, except for when you jump to retrospective sources like IGN.
  • "Edge magazine said" —> Difficult habit to break, I know (so well), but magazines can't speak. Ditto for other instances of personifying Edge.
  • Right now, the coverage of Edge's review is 16 words of original prose and 83 words of quoted text. Definitely needs to be tilted in the other direction, at least a bit.
  • Dragon's review score is in the template. There's no reason to have it in the prose as well.
  • "Later versions of the game have also been favorably reviewed" — OR again.
  • IGN score should be removed from the prose.
  • Slide to Play review summary is another snake.
  • A rewrite (again, no fancy formatting):
  • "In 2014, Edge magazine described Secret of Mana as 'one of the high points of the 16bit era'. A writer for the magazine noted that, 20 years after Secret of Mana's release, its reputation as a SNES action RPG is surpassed only by that of The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past."
  • "The game has been on numerous all-time 'best games' lists since its release." — Would be fine for a lead section, but in the body it's just OR.
  • The sentence related to Dungeon Siege and Temple of Elemental Evil is an outrageously huge snake.
  • "mascot character for the series" — Which series? Dungeon Siege?

That should do it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done! --PresN 19:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A great article. Props to PresN for putting up with a very long and intensive review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check (GermanJoe) - all OK[edit]

  • 3 fair-use images of sufficient low resolution and valid rationale (see second comment) - OK.
  • The third fair-use -of a Mode 7 screenshot- is a close call (we have a separate "Mode 7" article, where such a screenshot may be better). But if it's a significant feature of this specific game, it should be OK here aswell.
  • Other images of developers are CC, with sufficient source info and personality rights tag - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Tezero[edit]

Will do. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 8. You might consider linking Nintendo World Report.
  • All sources look reliable, though you might want to specify right away in the citation somewhere that 34 is an interview since Square Haven doesn't otherwise look like an RS.
  • Spotchecks (is this enough?):
  • 34: good
  • 54: good
  • 44: good, but you might want to specify that these differences are between the SNES originals and the rearrangements
  • 24: good, though it took me a bit to find "FF III" as I'd been looking for the more general "Final Fantasy III", "experience", and "level up"
  • 14: good, I assume
  • 64: good in that it contains the appropriate content, but it was a dead link for me (archive), though this may be because of this library computer's lousy Windows-Firefox setup. I'd recommend checking a few for dead links.

Tezero (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! swapped deadurl=no to deadurl=yes for the IGN top100 lists; all three live links are dead for me too. --PresN 21:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, cool. Continue to support based on sources. Tezero (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2014 [9].

Freedom from Want (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the four paintings in a famous painting series by Norman Rockwell. It has sufficient stand-alone encyclopedic content to merit consideration here. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WP:HUMAN RIGHTS, WP:VISUALARTS, WP:HOLIDAY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the GA2 reviewer Wehwalt.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning support. I did do the GA and gave it a strong going over then. I own a set of the war bond reproduction and spent some time gazing at this one (masterly) before re-reading the article. Very well done. A few minor comments:

  • My spellcheck says "advisment" is misspelled.
  • "relied on neighbors for advice as well as critical commentary in addition to their service as his models" too much added on, a sentence should not have "as well as" followed by "in addition to".
  • "received filled 25,000 orders" either or both?
  • There is one sentence in "Reactions" that deals with European reaction. I would insert that into the second paragraph where this is discussed in greater detail.
  • "It propounded the discussion of rights of citizens who should bear the allegiance to the democracy" I'm not quite certain what this means.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source says that by pairing the Essay with this painting "the editors of the Saturday Evening Post were illustrating the necessity of the reciprocal relationship between the liberal democratic state and its citizens. The state was obligated to provide a minimal level of subsistence for all of its citizens if all of its citizens were to owe the state the duties and obligations of loyalty, allegiance, identification and, ultimately, self-sacrifice." (page 212)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps something like "It made it clear that while citizens had obligations to the state, the state had an obligation to them to provide a basic level of subsistence."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.
  • by artist and illustrator Norman Rockwell: isn't an illustrator an artist? Why not just by artist Norman Rockwell or by American artist Norman Rockwell?
  • Having been partially created on Thanksgiving 1942, it has become an iconic representation of the Thanksgiving holiday: is it iconic because it was partially painted on Thanksgiving, or because it appears to be a Thanksgiving scene? I'd've thought the latter.
  • It has been widely imitated and parodied. is redundant with the following sentence.
  • were enduring hardship at the time: should be obvious, but you might want to explicate what hardship you're talking about.
  • Freedom from Want was published with a...: shouldn't this go with the other publication information in the second paragraph?
  • The illustration is an oil on canvas: I feel like it should read "oil painting on canvas", even though that should be obvious
  • not actually eating because the painting depicts emptiness: the concept of "emptiness"? If so, in what way?
  • In addition there is a covered silver serving dish that would traditionally hold potatoes, according to one source.: this is awkward, in that we've just jumped from the table to the curtains and back again. Also, we should be naming the "once source".
  • However, another source describes this as a covered casserole dish.: and the "other source"
  • The table is the central element of the painting. Then this should probably be stated before the table settings and curtains.
  • use fine artists men, real artists: is there a comma or something missing here? Can yu double-check the quote?
    • Grammatically, there should be commas after the word war in each sentence, but as you can see in the online source, the commas don't exist in the quotes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In mid-November, Hibbs wrote Rockwell pleading that he not scrap his third work in order to start over.: this jumps out suddenly---probably best to explain what would cause him to want to scrap it before having Hibbs try to stop him.
  • soon under the advisement: is "advisement" really the word you want here?
  • the magazine was soon going to place restrictions on four-color printing, so Rockwell had better get the work published before being relegated to halftone printing: the reader likely won't know why the magazine would do this
    • If you are talking about placing restrictions on four-color printing, I don't know why and we don't need to know why here. I presume it has something to do with cost efficiency or technological advancement. I don't need to know which and neither does the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the reason almost certainly has to do with wartime rationing, which is important in the context. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As much WP:OR as my 2 possible reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would be OR if I were telling you to add it without a source. I'm asking you to check the sources. If it does have something to do with the war (which it almost certainly does), then that's important in the context; if it's not, then that should be made clear, as many readers would assume it (as I would) as it was common at the time. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have expanded this point as much as the source will permit. The source says the government was forcing the change, but does not clarify whether this was part of the military strategy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, that's much better than it was. If you ever happen to come across a history of th emagazine at the library or something that specifies it was rationing, it would be a good idea to add that. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim Martin appears in each painting in the series: who's Martin, and is he the only one who appears in each paintig?
    • Isn't it clear that he is an Arlington neighbor. He is the only one that we have a source for appearing in each image. Also since some of the works only have 2 or 3 subjects, there can't be too many people who are in them all.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It only becomes clear when he's named again shortly after; I'd suggest putting this after that, then. Is it the source that says he was the only one who appeared in all four? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟
        • I have fixed the link for that WP:IC. However, you still need to have a Time subscription to read it in its entirety. I am unable to confirm what the source says at this time. I sourced this before this content was behind a paywall.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • as Hallmark at Christmas, according to Linda Rosenkrantz: maybe this would be better as a quote; I don't think "as Hallmark at Christmas" is vey encyclopaedic.
  • associated with Regionalism: should explicate that REgionalism is an art movement; otherwise it might appear as, say, a political thing.
  • perceived as a depiction of American overabundance.: somewhat redundant with the preceding sentence; perhaps combine them somehow?
  • that is described as coy: who descrives it so?
  • overall I find the "Reactions" section kind of repetitive; ideas mentioned once are brought up in later paragraphs again. It would be best if you could go through this section and reorganize it.
  • catch as catch can manner: too informal for an encyclopaedia
  • written when Rockwell was "at the height of his fame as America's most popular illustrator.": why is this quoted rather than paraphrased?

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring the socioeconomic hardships domestically rather than those enduring sociopolitical hardships abroad: this doesn't have sufficient context for it to make sense---which hardships are "the" hardships? Also, the home vs abroad thing was a criticisim, rather than an aspect of the essay, right? I might shorten it to something like "Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring domestic wartime socioeconomic hardships".
  • a special occasion for "sharing what we have with those we love": attribution?
  • Rockwell's work came to be categorized within art movements and styles such as Regionalism and American scene painting. It sometimes displays an idealized vision of America's rural and agricultural past.: Is the "idealized vision of America's rural and agricultural past" an aspect of Regionalism and American scene painting, or are these independent statements?
    • The IC includes a quote in this case. Let me know if there is still an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would probably be better as a footnote, then, wouldn't it? The note's longer than the on footnote you do have, and I doubt many would think to click through to the IC to see that (I sure didn't). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, now I'm ready to support (although I'd still like to see something done about that note). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Tezero[edit]

The album one's fine, and the one of Norman Rockwell is free. I am, however, concerned about the FUR for File:Freedom from Want.jpg; two categories are simply given "n.a.", while "Purpose of use in article" and "Minimal use" could use a bit of beefing up, the latter category not even ending with a period. I'll watch this FAC; alternately, you can ping me when this has been fixed. Tezero (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FUR now beefed up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review passes. Source review and one more support still needed. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prhartcom[edit]

Support. The few issues I found were quickly fixed and I heartily support this article for FA. Below are my comments. As requested, I have struck those comments that have been fixed. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to you, TonyTheTiger. I have just read the president's speech that inspired this painting as well as the Four Freedoms article, and feel ready to review this article. *I'll start with a complement: "Until then, Freedom from Want was not a commonly understood or accepted universal freedom" is a powerful sentence that really hooks the reader into reading more.

*Which do you like better: The passive "Freedom from Want was published with a corresponding essay" or the active "The Post published Freedom from Want with a corresponding essay" ?

***Great; by the way, I wasn't being sarcastic, sorry if it sounded that way, I meant to sincerely ask is it worth stating the facts in a passive way in order to accentuate the object rather than the subject, as maybe the subject (The Post) is entirely unimportant. It actually could be (e.g., for the first couple of passive sentences still in the lead, the unmentioned object is unimportant so the passive voice is quite worth it.) If, however, the subject is as important as the object, than by all means use the active; your fix is correct. Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC) *"rather than those enduring sociopolitical hardships abroad" sounds important, but if it were cut, it would greatly strengthen the sentence's main idea, which is "Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring the socioeconomic hardships domestically and it thrust him into prominence". Perhaps convert the cut passage into an introductory phrase (e.g. "Despite ...") which would add counterpoint to that main idea.[reply]

*Notice that every main idea presented in the lead is executed in a single sentence, with the exception of the description of Bulosan's essay, which takes two. While I was reading the lead I half-expected that second sentence to be the start of a different topic, then found out it wouldn't be. If you'd like to have that consistency, perhaps an expertly applied conjunction or semicolon and a few cut phrases (e.g. "as part of the Four Freedoms series") will do it. You could combine the solution to the point above with this solution.

    • I don't really understand the point as it relates to the article and the remedy is equally confusing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like you solved it! Each sentence in the lead now sticks to one main idea each. It's a very well-written lead. Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* "emptiness" = "the themes of Puritan origins of Thanksgiving." Really? I would like to know more as I never considered that, but no reason is given to equate the two. Perhaps only a small hint or reminder could be added?

    • The source is online. If you look at that, you can tell if I am summarizing the source correctly. There is really no further connection in the source though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right; the author assumes we're supposed to know what that means. Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* "'The last war you ...'" This quote, I assume, is cited in Fischer 2004? I ask because there is no citation after it but there is one in the next sentence. Consider adding a reference footnote directly following the quote, since it's a quote, after all. I think a comma is needed between "war" and "you" (it's okay to punctuate someone's quote).

    • That quote is in half of the books on Rockwell. It is a quote. Above I explained to another reviewer that I believe two comma are missing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you can fix them. It may be a quote, but we, as editors, are allowed to make simple punctuation changes (See MOS:QUOTE). My main suggestion was to place another "ref" tag to the source immediately after the quote.
        • I have added [,] in two places.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I changed them to regular commas. It's okay. Our style guide states we are allowed to do that (link above), and I found more than one online example of others doing it. [10] I also added the footnote I asked for; please ensure I did it correctly ("ref name=LaF"). Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* "Hibbs alleviated Rockwell's thematic concern. He noted ..." Perhaps combine the two sentences, which are on the same topic, with a semicolon. "Noted" could be changed to a more accurate verb, such as "explained" or "reasoned".

* "pressured Rockwell into completing his work soon after warning him that the magazine was soon ..." I think you see the problem, right? A comma is needed in a strategic location (either between "work" and "soon" or between "soon" and "after"; I can't tell if you are using the phrase "soon after ..."). Consider another word for the second "soon" to avoid the redundancy; e.g. instead of "soon going to be", perhaps "about to be".

* "relied on neighbors for advice, critical commentary and their service as his models." Oh dang, you prefer not to use the Oxford comma in a list (which would be: "1, 2, and 3" instead of "1, 2 and 3"). Your choice, but I always use it (because I don't want to imply a relationship between list items "2" and "3").

* "Jim Martin appears in each painting in the series." Really, why? Does the source say? It's obviously an interesting bit of trivia but it leaves us wanting an explanation.

* "Rockwell lived in Stockbridge, Massachusetts ..." Nice to know, but we shouldn't say it; it's just stuck in there next to a detailed examination of the painting's production. We go from the painting directly to the related topic of its eventual home to that topic's related topic of Rockwell's home; of the three, the third is in no way related to the first, which was the main topic of the paragraph. Perhaps there is another, better place for this third fact. The last sentence of a section should should be a nice finish, ideally with some emotional impact (especially in a FA).

    • I have split off the last two sentences into a separate paragraph. The two new paragraphs are relatively stubby, but that is probably the best solution.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is better as a separate paragraph, I agree. The new wording could be better, but I won't dwell on this. Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have reworded the sentence. Feel free to revert or make further changes. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Another complement: The entire first two paragraphs and the last three paragraphs of Reactions is wonderfully well-written. I got chills reading how well the painting was received. No issues here.

* "Richard Halpern says ..." since what he says is in contrast to what those dreary, starving Europeans said, perhaps a more accurate verb is needed here (or a "However") to signal to the reader that they are about to read a contrasting position.

* "empty plates and white dishes on white linen ... Rockwell may have been invoking the Puritan origins of the Thanksgiving holiday." There it is again. We just said all this earlier, and not in the summarizing lead. Do you reconcile a good reason for mentioning the same thing in two different paragraphs? It seems odd to me, and until I hear your reason, I'm suggesting that you shouldn't.

    • I have removed it from the earlier section. However, in the reactions section it is natural to have different critics pointing out the same theme.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* "no one appears to be giving thanks in a traditional manner at the Thanksgiving dinner." That is super-important; majorly, incredibly important. Are you American or Canadian, Tony? Even atheists feel the need to give traditional thanks at Thanksgiving over here. If no one is giving thanks at a Thanksgiving meal in a Norman Rockwell painting, that deserves to be highlighted, not mentioned in passing while discussing that guy Jim Martin. Thankfully, you write more about it and you place it at the end of a section, where it gives that strong finish and emotional impact I mentioned above. I just wanted to make sure you knew how important this fact was and to encourage you to emphasize its importance if you can. Thankfully it is a direct quote. Maybe you can even put it in a quotebox.

* "He was sympathetic to the fact that the painting was produced in 1943 ..." The "was produced" indicates passive voice (note the missing subject: Mr. Rockwell) and isn't worth it (since Mr. Rockwell is the pronoun at the beginning of the sentence). (Note: There is plenty of passive voice in this article, but I'm not bringing most of it up because I must admit it is almost all worth it: In each case, it avoids mentioning a less-important subject over a more important object.) How about, "He was sympathetic to the fact that he produced the painting in 1943 ..."

* Oh dear, is the abbreviation The Post or the Post? Now this article has both. Please find out which one is correct and correct the other one. (I'm guessing The Post because "the" is in the actual title, but I'll let you make the call.

* I was expecting to read more about "not a commonly understood or accepted universal freedom" that I enjoyed reading in the lead. Shouldn't the article proper mention it, with in more detail and explanation?

* The Essay section is in perfect shape! And is a fascinating read!

  • So is the Pop Culture section. It's in great shape.

* Tony, it doesn't appear that you have run the bots from the toolbox to the right; such a basic step; please do so. For example, no image is using the "alt" parameter, which our blind readers depend upon; a comma needed after "Additionally" in "Additionally the OWI ..." and needed after "In addition" in "In addition there is a covered silver serving dish", "All of the people in the picture ..." change to "All the people in the picture ...", redirects include "Thanksgiving Picture" and "The Thanksgiving Picture" but not "A Hallmark Christmas".

    • Technically, alt text is not a requirement for FA---though it's good to recommend, of course. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, thanks for keeping me in line; how about just the external reference checking script? It shows several external links have changed and one has rotted; in my humble opinion even a Good article should have all links working at 200 or 0, and should have them all archived too.
        • I only see one bad link and I have fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • There were two. The link to animationarchive.net was bogus (it was displayed in blue right there on the checklinks output); with no source to reference at all, I'm afraid I have entirely cut its mention in the article (Lilo & Stitch). The checklinks script tells us another URL ("Inside America’s Great Romance With Norman Rockwell") has changed; I replaced the redirected URL with its new one.
          • I wish you would add the "alt" text to the images. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* I should check the sources. Is anyone doing that? I'm looking over the References and it you appear to be doing a good job on it. Maybe I can take a look at the online sources later. Very well-done article! I would say good-luck, but you've done pretty well up to this point earning FAs without me wishing you luck! What an honor it was for me to review your work Tony, as well as the article about Norman Rockwell's most famous painting! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

Source review[edit]

Congrats on promotion, TonyTheTiger! Prhartcom (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Graham Colm (talk) 22:20, 22 August 2014 [11].

Katy Perry[edit]

Nominator(s): Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC) & S△M talk 19:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Katheryn Elizabeth "Katy" Hudson aka Katy Perry. She's the California Gurl who kissed another girl and very much liked it. When I first started working on this article slightly over one year ago back in July 2013, it was a delisted GA. Ever since, I've done intricate work on this article and have made over 1,000 edits to the page. I now believe she's finally ready for that gold star. In March 2009, she went through a premature GAN and failed for prose, but was successfully brought to GA three weeks later. However, she was delisted in October 2012 for prose and reference issues. After a detailed peer review from JennKR this past January, the article went through more expansion and fine-tuning before a successful GAN last month. Thank you again, Petergriffin9901, for all your input during the GAN. Looking back, the article was in better state this past May (when I nominated this for GA) than it ever was before October 2012. Shortly afterwards, I took this to peer review for further improvement. Within the last couple weeks, I've done some more polishing before this FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chasewc91[edit]

Resolved concerns from Chasewc91
Infobox and lead
  • Infobox lists Perry's genres as pop, rock, and electronic. Musical style and themes only notes "elements of" these genres. There is a difference between elements/influences and an artist/work actually being a certain genre. Perry is not known as a rock or electronic artist and I'd like to see sources that say otherwise if these stay.
  • While she is most often described as a pop singer, One of the Boys is mainly a pop rock album. Also, NME called her a "a ballsy rock chick" while The Daily Telegraph talks about her "rock chick voice". I'll give "electronic" more thought, though..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but I think the NME link can support the "rock" she's done in past works for infobox inclusion. I'll remove "electronic" from infobox. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider trimming the third paragraph and moving most of its first half to the Achievements section. It leans towards too much detail for an introduction.
  • In that case, I'm not sure which bits should be in both lead and "achievements" SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should remove the 5x Platinum singles, 2012 Woman of the Year, and 69 consecutive weeks in the top ten from the lead. And possibly combine the awards/nominations and Forbes into one sentence. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and career beginnings
  • "She has a younger brother named David, who is a singer, and an older sister Angela." I think there should be a comma after "sister", but I may be wrong.
  • I would add a comma: a lack of one implies that she has more than one older sister. I also think it reads better with one. Acalamari 12:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This section relies too heavily on partial quotes and reads very awkwardly. Consider these changes:
  • "Perry described her parents as 'uniquely strict'" → "Perry described her parents as strict" (no quotes)
  • "focus on most 'secular music' was discouraged in the family's home" → "focus on most secular music was discouraged in the family's home". Quote is not necessary.
  • "Perry began singing while 'copycatting' Angela" → "Perry began singing while imitating Angela". The sentence still reads a little awkwardly, actually. Maybe something like "Perry, [imitating / following] her sister, began singing"?
  • "During her teenage years, Perry said she 'tried to be like the typical California girl', trying out surfing and getting deeply involved in the local rollerskating scene." I would rewrite this whole sentence - something more along the lines of, "During her teenage years, Perry became involved in surfing and rollerskating in an attempt to be 'the typical California girl'."
  • "David described her as 'kind of a tomboy' during that period." → "David described her as tomboy-like during that [this?] period."
  • Changes here are much better. I missed these the first go-around, also take a look at:
  • "Perry stated that she found it "tough" as a child to frequently switch between schools" → "Perry found it difficult as a child to frequently change schools"
  • "Her family 'barely got by' financially" → "Her family struggled financially"
  • "she sometimes felt "out of place" during the early part of her childhood." Just drop the quote, or change "out of place" to something like "alienated". –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Katy Hudson and The Matrix
  • Remove "career beginnings" from the title of the last section and change this section title to "Career beginnings". Katy Hudson is not a well-known album and her project with The Matrix is little-known and insignificant to her career. And this section mostly describes Perry's activity before her commercial breakthrough.
  • Done..... hesitantly..... while not as well-known as her later material, I will say that Katy Hudson is certainly more widely known than The Matrix. I included these as Katy Hudson was a critical part of her early career, and included "career beginnings" in the previous section as she began performing publicly after getting a guitar for her 13th birthday. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perry completed her General Educational Development" → "Perry completed her GED" (acronym is more well-known than the full name).
  • The peer review previously advised against that, so I'll give this some thought. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would at the very least put "GED" in parentheses following "General Educational Development". –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would just point out that the acronym is only more well-known if you were educated in the United States. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Katy Perry has a large fanbase in the US who will be reading this article, so I don't see the problem with listing "GED" in parentheses after "General Educational Development". –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2003, she briefly performed as Katheryn Perry to avoid confusion with actress Kate Hudson" I've read before that she chose this name because it was her mother's maiden name; would be good to include, even if her mother's name is already listed in the section above.
  • Indeed that was part of the reason. However, I'm not sure if they way it's included now reads well. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "played the love interest of her then-boyfriend Gym Class Heroes lead singer Travie McCoy" → "played the love interest of her then-boyfriend, Gym Class Heroes lead singer Travie McCoy"
One of the Boys
  • Again, section title. I think it would be more helpful to describe what happened in her life during this time in her life instead of just reducing it to an album title. Especially for readers who aren't familiar with Perry's work. "Commercial breakthrough" would be good. I won't list this multiple times, but consider doing this with the Teenage Dream and Prism sections as well - especially the former, where it might be useful to note her marriage to Russell Brand.
  • Restored the previous title of "Breakthrough with One of the Boys"- some editor had previously removed it. I'll include "marriage" for Teenage Dream, but am not sure what to say for Prism section. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. Prism is fine; the album hasn't been out for long and she hasn't done much else in the time period. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "JohnJay & Rich radio show" should this be italicized?
  • Since television shows are italicized, I have a feeling radio shows should be as well. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the Boys, released on June 17, 2008, garnered mixed critical reviews and reached number nine on the US Billboard 200. The album reached number nine on the Billboard 200."
  • "and topping charts in Germany and Canada, among other countries." might be good to specify which countries, but regardless, citations are needed to verify other #1 peaks.
  • I meant that you needed sources to verify the #1 peaks in the "other countries" mentioned. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Canadian chartings can be found in the second page of the URL I linked, gonna search for a different Germany ref if needed Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other countries besides Canada and Germany. The article says it reached #1 in Canada and Germany, "among other countries". That part needs citation and it would probably be even better to actually name those countries, or rewrite this whole sentence to say something like "it reached #1 in X countries" (with refs for every country it topped the charts in). –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later singles 'Thinking of You' and 'Waking Up in Vegas' achieved moderate success." source only shows their peaks on the US charts, doesn't include an assessment of their performances.
  • Also, refs for Billboard chart histories such as the last two bullet points should include the specific chart linked to as well. ie: "Katy Perry – Chart history: The Hot 100".
  • In the actual ref, the name of the chart should be included in the "title" parameter. like I said, "Chart history: The Hot 100", "Chart history: Billboard 200", etc. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She requested to hold the release until the fourth single of One of the Boys had been commissioned, but The Matrix was released onto iTunes on January 27, 2009, despite her wishes." I would replace the bolded text with "prior to the release of fourth single 'Waking Up in Vegas'" - the "against her wishes" part isn't in the source and doesn't seem "neutral" (for lack of a proper description - it just feels "off"). and move the citation to before this change, since the release date of "Vegas" isn't discussed in the source either.
Teenage Dream
  • "69 consecutive weeks in the Top 10 of the Hot 100" → "69 consecutive weeks in the top ten of the Hot 100"
  • "In December, Perry played Moe Szyslak's girlfriend" I would include 2010 after December, even though a September 2010 incident was mentioned at the end of the preceding paragraph, since the paragraphs in this section jump around to and from various years in the 2010-12 time range.
  • "playing a woman known as 'Honey'." quotes aren't necessary.
  • "featuring herself and Andy Samberg" → "featuring her and Andy Samberg" (?)
  • We might have to let someone else make a suggestion if "starring her" or "featuring her" do not work well Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Starring herself" sounded better actually, in my opinion. I'm not 100% sure which would be more correct grammatically. S△M talk 00:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prism
  • "The fourth single from the album was 'Birthday' followed by 'This Is How We Do'" → "the fourth and fifth singles from the album were 'Birthday' and 'This Is How We Do', respectively."
  • "On November 30, 2012, Billboard dubbed Perry as their 'Woman of the Year'." and "Forbes ranked her #5 on their 'Top-Earning Women In Music' list for 2012" Why are these in 2013-present?
  • November 2012's Billboard "Woman of the Year" is still in Prism. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Top-Earning Women In Music" actually need the quotations? They aren't usually used for compiled lists, such as the Forbes Celebrity 100, for example. S△M talk 00:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Influences
  • "She cites the band's front man, Freddie Mercury, as her 'biggest influence'" Quote isn't necessary, not unique or notable language. And I believe "frontman" is one word.
  • "the Beatles' album" → "The Beatles' album"
  • "ABBA and the Cardigans" → "ABBA and The Cardigans"
If the Beatles are written as "the Beatles" shouldn't the Cardigans be formatted in the same way? It just looks odd to write "the Beatles" and then use the capital T on "the" for the Cardigans. S△M talk 19:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - use "the" for consistency - I know this has been edit warred over to death elsewhere, but consensus seems to be finally settling on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lower cases it is. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Musical style and themes
  • "Her use of idioms and metaphors in her lyrics has been criticized – with Randall Roberts..." → "Her use of idioms and metaphors in her lyrics has been criticized by Randall Roberts..." (no other critics are cited)
Politics
  • "While not identifying strictly with religion, she has also stated, 'I pray all the time – for self-control, for humility.'" SNUGGUMS, I know that we had disagreements on where this should be included not long ago, but I still don't think this is it. Feels very out of place in this section as it doesn't have anything to do with her political work and religion ≠ politics.
  • Hmm..... the interesting thing is that political matters often include aspects of religion (i.e. a politician's campaigns). If need be, I could remove the "While not identifying strictly with religion" bit. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You would have a point if Perry cited religion as the basis for any of her political views. I still personally think it fits best in the "early life" section as her early faith is discussed there. It can be added as a parenthetical and still work, I think. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean by "parenthetical" in this instance, but I could use something like "Perry later stated that she continues to pray 'for self-control, for humility'". SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By parenthetical, I mean add it to the "early life" section and put the statement in (parentheses). Also, the way it's now worded goes against the RfC here where it was decided to include the fact that Perry no longer identifies as Christian. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perry's quote: "the fact that America doesn't have free health care drives me fucking absolutely crazy, and is so wrong." → "the fact that America doesn't have free health care drives me ... absolutely crazy, and is so wrong." (per WP:PROFANE, and in line with MOS:ELLIPSIS)
  • "Fuck" isn't the most offensive word ever, but I could also paraphrase this to something like "Perry has also criticized America's lack of free health care, and stated that it drove her 'absolutely crazy'". Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be interesting to note that Perry directly called out Tony Abbott when he called into a radio interview of hers, per the source that discusses her criticism of him.
  • Great, but the period should be inside the quote since it's a full sentence. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Achievements
  • "She has earned eleven Grammy nominations, two American Music Awards, four MTV Video Music Awards, fourteen People's Choice Awards, and two Guinness World Records." odd to list Grammy nominations in the same sentence (especially before) awards that she has actually won. I'd either nix the Grammy note or move it to another sentence.
  • Better, but just change "Grammy nominations" to "Grammy Awards" since it currently reads "nominated for ... nominations". –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of this overlaps with the Life and career sub-sections; I would move all but the most significant material out of the earlier sections and keep it here.
  • I thought there was more overlap. Maybe some of it was edited out while/after I left my initial comments or maybe I imagined it. Anyway, the "69 consecutive weeks" thing repeats three times between the lead, Teenage Dream section, and achievements. I already suggested you remove it from the lead, but it should be removed from one of the others. Your choice. Keeping it in the Teenage Dream section is fine since it's relevant to that album, but I'm not opposed to it being in Achievements either, since it's a feat that only she has accomplished which is notable. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She trails behind only Rihanna and Taylor Swift." drop "behind"
  • "As of May 2014, she holds the record for most 5× Platinum certified singles in the United States. Her songs ... have each sold over 5 million digital copies." source only mentions the sales of these songs, not certifications.

Overall, this is a very well-written and well-structured article that includes an abundance of info without being obscenely large. I will be more than happy to lend my support once these concerns are addressed. –Chase (talk / contribs) 02:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remaining concerns are dated 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC). (CTRL+F the timestamp) Just thought I'd add this at the bottom for convenience. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chase how does she look now? Also, do you think perhaps there's enough material to warrant a "legacy" section for this article or is it too soon in her career?? Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too soon. But a lot of great improvements have been made and I now gladly support this nomination. Kudos to your very hard work, Snuggums and Sam, and best of luck. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

Resolved concerns from WikiRedactor
  • Is it really necessary to include the "near" in the birthplace parameter in the infobox? You mention the "near" in the first section of the article, so I don't find it particularly needed in the infobox.
  • I thought it could be useful since she is commonly said to be born there while in reality her birth hospital was just outside of Santa Barbara. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the introduction, can you mention that Billboard is for United States charts at its first mention?
  • "Billboard dubbed her 2012's Woman of the Year. She has been listed in the Forbes "Top-Earning Women In Music" for 2011, 2012, and 2013." For better blow, I'd suggest merging the sentences like "She was dubbed Billboard's Woman of the Year in 2012, and has been listed in the Forbes "Top-Earning Women In Music" for 2011, 2012, and 2013."
  • It might be helpful to state the specific years she was married to Russell Brand in the introduction, or even "the early 2010s" if you want to keep it brief.
  • Based on the content about Katy pursuing a music career beginning in 1999, wouldn't that make her "years active" parameter 1999–present instead of 1997–present?
  • I used 1997 as she told GQ that she started playing her guitar in public to earn money at age 13. I guess this is simply a question of what 1997–1999 counts for Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some instances of inconsistencies regarding the use of "US" and "U.S.", please pick one style to use throughout the article.
  • Perhaps this is just me being silly, but wouldn't The Sims 3: Katy Perry's Sweet Treats technically be considered a stuff pack? Maybe you could wikilink "stuff pack" to the article for "expansion pack"?
  • I think the 2012 Woman of the Year information has been misplaced in the Prism section.
  • As Chase previously mentioned, this was indeed misplaced. Now fixed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since she and John Mayer already broke up and won't be getting married, it is still necessary to address the engagement rumors?
  • That bit was first added before they split due to high speculation that they were engaged, but I've now removed- the article at one point also included debunked rumors of being engaged to Travie McCoy shortly before their relationship ended, but I've given this thought and decided you're right Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like a little bit of a stretch to include the The X Factor UK template at the end of the article since she was only a guest judge for a brief second?

Definitely a well-written article, I will be happy to give my support when these comments have been addressed. I will check back in a short while! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRedactor look now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I am very happy to see all of the hard work you put into this article has paid off! Great job! WikiRedactor (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you- I have indeed put my blood, sweat, and tears into this page! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333[edit]

  • Conditional Support pending comments elsewhere and referencing problems listed below - I was involved in the peer review, and thought there would be some more minor prose issues that FAC would throw up, but Snuggums seems to be on top of them all, so I'm happy to think this will not be hard to reach the FA criteria. It's a well written and informative article about an increasingly important figure in modern entertainment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism[edit]

  • Just a minor point, but why isn't—at least—Sam listed as a nominator? He really contributed to the development of the article and should get some recognition, in my opinion. My comments on prose/files/etc will be here soon. (I'm excited to see that this already has two supports!) pedro | talk 20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prism the reason is because when I launched this FAC, it automatically just listed my own username. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should add him, though. pedro | talk 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I saw. I'll be back tomorrow. pedro | talk 00:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved concerns from Prism
Last batch
  • "number-one Billboard songs" Shouldn't this state Billboard Hot 100?
  • "contract" → "record contract/deal"
  • Went with "deal"
  • "Forbes "Top-Earning Women In Music"" → Forbes list (...)
  • "has also ventured" remove also
  • "In July 2011, she (...) In July 2012, she" This is a bit repetitive
  • "In July 2012, she released a 3D autobiographical documentary film, Katy Perry: Part of Me, which concentrated on her life as a touring artist and the dissolution of her brief marriage to English actor and comedian Russell Brand in the early 2010" is too long. Maybe 3D autobiographical could be removed (3D isn't needed, and autobiographical is already implied)
  • "Perry described her parents as strict, while Angela reminisced of their upbringing as "God's way or no way", resulting in household bans of popular products" This implies that they banned products due to their daughters' descriptions of them

pedro | talk 14:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is she now, Prism? Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better than ever, 'resulting in me giving you another Support' (that's me trying to make a joke). I know you—Snuggums—since last year, when we started edit-wars over what images to include on Prism's composition section. You've come a long way since then, in terms of writing and being nice to others. This is truly your finest work, as well as Sam's, and I can't congratulate you enough! pedro | talk 15:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Prism! I do agree this is easily my best work yet, and is unquestionably the article I'm most proud of so far. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from IPadPerson[edit]

  • Support, Your tireless work on this article has really made it meet the requirements for FA based on its layout and look. This would definitely be the right time for its nomination to FA instead of doing so at the last minute. The article's sources also seem to be in very good shape. Keep up the good work! IPadPerson (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

Resolved concerns from Retrohead
Intro

Finally got the time to review this article, so I'll jump straight to my concerns:

  • Katy Perry is originally from Santa Barbara, California.–does "originally" has a specific meaning in this sentence?
  • It was used to indicate she grew up in Santa Barbara, but I could remove if unneeded Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might remove it.--Retrohead (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to do so, but that article has no references- red flag Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My intention was for readers to know that "secular" means non-religious, if they already haven't.--Retrohead (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if you don't want to link it, leave it that way.--Retrohead (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we use brackets for the release year of Katy Hudson→(2001)
  • The following year, she moved to Los Angeles–I think we can swap the clauses so it can read "She moved to LA the following year"
  • She also worked on a solo album with Glen Ballard that was recorded but never released–She recorded an album with Glen Ballard that was never released. (the reason why the album wasn't released could be added)
  • signed a recording contract with Capitol Records–"recording" could be easily dropped since we know that Capitol is a label
  • her single "I Kissed a Girl"–the instead of her (excessively repeating her)
  • re-released–reissued would be a better fit, since the re-release had modified tracklist and artwork
  • structures such as early/late July aren't recommended for the lead; naming just the month and year is a better option
Life and career
  • Her parents are both reformed Christians–both is extra
  • She has a younger brother named David, who is a singer–Her younger brother David is a singer,
  • I would go with something like that if I knew for sure what Angela works as Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the older sister's profession?
  • the early part of her childhood–early childhood
  • as focus on most secular music–we can omit "focus on most"
  • incorporated–included
  • in the pursuit of a career in music–to pursuit music career
  • in support of it–to support it
  • Perry saw a small amount of success–Perry had/enjoyed minor success...
  • provided background vocals–you can use recorded to shake the prose a bit (provided is used in the previous sentence)
  • One of the Boys, released on June 17, 2008–we know it is 2008 since the year is mentioned in the previous sentence; same for "Hot n Cold"
  • After touring on the Warped Tour 2008–after finishing/concluding instead of "touring"
  • Done Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perry told MTV in August 2008–the date is irrelevant in this context
  • was cut and does not appear in the film–"was cut and" is extra; since it doesn't appear in the film, it would be logical to assume that it was cut down
  • "California Gurls" served as the lead single–was is a better fit, since we used the verb "to serve" in the previous sentence (Perry being a judge on American Idol)
  • She released the album's second U.S. chart-topping single, the title track "Teenage Dream", before releasing the album on August 24, 2010.–split this sentence; you can pair the second clause with the next sentence (something like "Released on August 24, 2010, Teenage Dream debuted at number one on the Billboard 200")
  • omit "The success of Teenage Dream continued with"
  • you have several "2011"and "2012" that are extra; for example, if you write "January 1, 2011", you don't have to mention 2011 in "January 2" the following sentence, since the reader assumes we are talking about the same year. This is until you mention "2012", and you continue discussing Katy's career during that year.
  • her scene was uploaded to YouTube earlier–cut earlier
  • with Robyn serving as the episode's musical guest–cut serving
  • She was ranked #3–I personally don't prefer "#3"; we can go with "third on the Forbes"; also put 2011 right before Forbes list→2011 Forbes list
  • she told L'Uomo Vogue in June 2012–2012 shouldn't be here, since it was mentioned in the previous sentence (November 2012, Billboard)
  • Not done if removed, some readers might think it refers to June 2013 Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Smurfs 2 earned $347,545,360 in theaters–Does the gross revenue really matters here? Can we say it was a financial success, although the critics disliked it?
  • Wondering if I should also do this with the first Smurfs film Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Achievements
  • many awards and nominations–numerous fits more than many
  • That was previously deemed POV and thus discouraged during GAN Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perry has also been nominated for eleven Grammy Awards–received eleven Grammy nominations
  • Perry has sold more than 11 million albums worldwide. Do we have the accurate number? More than 11 million can vary from 11,1 to 11,9.
  • Turns out I misread the sources given, they simply say 11 million. If I can find more recent statistics, I'll include those. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed your points, Retrohead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artistry
  • Perry's musical styling–I think "style" is more accurate
  • she aspired to be like Amy Grant–we should specify what "to be like" means; I suppose she wanted to sound like Amy Grant, but in the current state, it means Perry wanted to look like Grant
  • she was introduced to Queen's "Killer Queen"–heard is definitely a better choice
  • since is extra
  • can we have the comma in "frequent collaborator, Ballard" omitted? It kinda breaks the flow.
  • Some suggestions on the opening sentence from musical style and themes: Although Perry's music incorporates pop, rock, electronic, dance, and disco, Perry's debut album, Katy Hudson, is primarily a gospel record.
  • we should link pop rock, as a different subgenre (if it's not already linked) and comma after it
  • living in the present sounds awkward to a certain degree; maybe replace it with themes from everyday life (or simply everyday life)?
  • vocals as "processed staccato blips" on Teenage Dream–move "on Teenage Dream" before "as"
Other ventures
  • the money generated from tickets to her Prismatic World Tour will go to UNICEF–I see this was published in January 15 this year, so do we have the information whether the money went to Unicef? If we do, you should re-word it in past simple tense.
  • Not yet, but will probably have answers after the second leg of the tour ends. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as a selection of her own songs–I think here we should have "a number of her songs"; if we go with selection, we should list which songs she particularly performed, which I think would be too detail-y.
  • overall, this is pretty well-written section, perhaps the strongest facet of the article. It reads how a standardized encyclopedic article should read.
  • Support on prose and support on enthusiasm and team work. My concerns were dealt with the speed of light, and I've got no further objections. You've outdone yourself on this one Snuggums. Turning an article from C-class into a featured item is an admirable feat. I'll leave the image and source review on someone else. Good luck with those.--Retrohead (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

  • Support. I have made some minor corrections, but excellent work overall! Happy to lend my support. Good luck! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from IndianBio[edit]

Starting on image and non-free content review (if any) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IndianBio, the verdict, please? Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this helps, but
Hi @SNUGGUMS: all of them appear as fine to me per the licensing. My only qualm is the desciption of each image at their respective pages in commons. That needs to be updated to reflect. Also, I believe the descriptions of Perry's images in the main article is quite bland. Its all about "Perry performing on XXX tour" or "Perry at XXX event". A little more description would be better. Normally if you see books and academic materials, there are quite a few tid-bit about the image present in a page. That's what I'm trying to achieve here. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you IndianBio, I'm contemplating better image captions now (though this could take a bit as my hands are somewhat tied). Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, the Billboard references for before 2010 has publisher as Prometheus Global Media, it should be Nielsen Business Media since they were the publisher for Billboard from 1989 to 2009, when the company was taken over by Prometheus. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IndianBio I've touched up the references and have made some caption tweaks. How does she look now? Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SNUGGUMS the captions look much better and at least provide some context. I replaced the Prismatic tour image with its corresponding cropped version, it will be Flickrreviewed soon. And I'm happy to lend my support for this article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you IndianBio :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ[edit]

  • Support I can't seek out any major issues on this article. Neatly done! Simon (talk) 13:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

Last time I looked here we hadn't had a source review for reliability and formatting, nor a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. FYI, the former is a check we try to make on every FAC, the latter is an extra hoop to jump through for people who haven't taken an article to FA before, which I think is the case here. If I'm right about these checks not having been performed, pls post requests for them at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked some sources during the PR (I was not happy about at least one comment and it was removed), but one general comment I would make is that films, such as Katy Perry: Part of Me and E! Special: Katy Perry per WP:CITEHOW need an "approximate time at which event or point of interest occurs, where appropriate". You can use {{sfn}} with the "loc" parameter to support this, and it will avoid having one citation that's referenced in 5+ different places. As regards paraphrasing, Earwig's bot throws an error. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SNUGGUMS:, you can use the {{sfn}} or {{harvnb}} templates for this. Instead of p=294 (indicating pages), you can give p=00:34 (indicating at what time the interview it is sourcing took place in the film). Ask me if you need help. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Ian Rose- this is my first FA nomination. Ritchie indeed did some sourcechecking, and so did Chase. The E! Television special will take some searching. IndianBio please do help- I might be able to find some timeframes for KP3D, but don't know how to use those ref formats for film/television. Snuggums (talk / edits) 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have the blu-ray of the film. So I will use {{sfn}} and substitute the time parameters. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would use loc=00:34 (for example) instead of p=00:34 for sfn - you aren't referencing a page per se. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I will say this could take some time as KP3D is 93 minutes long. Samjohnzon, do you by any chance have access to the E! special in full? I've only been able to find clips online, and the full video would be useful for determining time parameters. You were the one who added it in this past May, so please do provide a link here if you have one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have added the {{sfn}} for the Katy Perry: Part of Me 3D movie citations. If we have a full link where the E! special is viewable, I can update those too. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thank you again :D! With the film now being in the same section as Guinness World Records and biographies by Noam Friedlander, Alice Hudson, and Kimberly Dillon Summers, I'm thinking that should be titled "references" and the other section "footnotes" or "citations". Thoughts? Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(→) That would be better. Further reading is a bit ambiguous. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Implemented. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • SNUGGUMS, I don't have a link to the full E! special, but it is available on YouTube in individual parts. I'm not sure if it'd be convenient to work out the combined times, especially since the first clip doesn't even seem to start at the exact starting time, so we could try and find a different source(s) to replace the special if necessary. S△M talk 15:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We might have to look for other sources, Sam. IndianBio, what are your thoughts since you browsed through KP3D to find individual times? Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. I really don't want this to be a deal breaker, but if the "E!" special has not been commercially released on DVD, or is otherwise accessible to the general public, you cannot use it as a source for an FA. We cannot be trumpeting this article as "Wikipedia's best work" while citing a copyright violation. I can try and find book sources to see if I can replace everything, but Katy Perry is not my chosen specialist subject. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck..... It has been shown on television, and Sam provided clips on YouTube, but that seems to be it, Ritchie. I'll search for other sources, but thankfully there are only three instances where it is used. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All uses of the E! source should have been removed now. S△M talk 22:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed they have- while you removed one of the instances, I replaced the others with biographies by Alice Hudson and Kimberly Dillon Summers. We're good to go :D! Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: did you anything about the paraphrasing error thrown by Earwig's bot here? If so please note it here for the co-ordinators to see it. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I clicked that link, IndianBio, it said "No violations detected". Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, @Ian Rose:, please take a note of this. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

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

  • Disclaimer: I have a lot more experience with history articles.
  • "of record production team the Matrix": I know some people feel strongly about whether to capitalize "the" in band names, but there's a grammar issue here: it only works to lowercase "the" when it flows naturally, and it doesn't here. I kept the lowercase, but moved "the Matrix" in front of "record production team".
  • "Perry played Moe Szyslak's girlfriend in a Christmas episode of The Simpsons": Although "played" wasn't wrong, there was a kind of "miscue" here: unless a reader knows who Moe Szyslak is, they had to get to the end of the sentence before they found out that "played" meant "voiced", so I changed it to "voiced".
  • Understandable, but she had a live-action role with the Simpsons as muppet-like characters. I have now indicated this was a live-action segment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was ranked ... fifth on their 2012 list with [earnings of] $45 million. Billboard ranked her number fourteen on their 2012 list of top 40 earners, grossing nearly $12 million": So I'm guessing the $12 million wasn't all she earned ... what was the $12 million for?
  • "She was initially so distraught over their divorce that she contemplated suicide." The source says:

    "That song is evident of how tough it really was at a certain point. I asked myself, 'Do I want to endure? Should I continue living?'" Perry says. "All the songs are real-life moments."

  • Right or wrong, some readers are going to feel that this is insensitive. Also, it's stated as a fact rather than attributing her ... better would be: "... she talked about contemplating suicide".
I brought this up during the peer review. My initial concern was that the article said "suicide" but the source did not contain that word, and per WP:BLP it needed to go. Snuggums assured me that the claim could be backed up by additional sources that could be added to the article if challenged and supplied links to several. Please see Talk:Katy Perry#2010-12: Teenage Dream for the full discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go with the IBT source. In my view, it's the least likely one to cover Katy Perry as subject material, yet it puts "Katy Perry reveals that she considered suicide after divorcing Russell Brand" in a box separate to the other prose, citing Reuters. You can't get much more obviously sourced than that, can you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and subsequently reached number one on the Billboard Hot 100". Avoid the word "subsequently"; some readers take it to mean "immediately after" and some read it as "much later". I didn't reword it here because I didn't know which you meant.
  • "5th Top Global Recording Artist of 2013, making her the highest-ranking woman to chart on the list": I'm having trouble making sense of any of that.
  • I've tweaked this a bit. According to the source, the rankings are as follows:
  1. One Direction
  2. Eminem
  3. Justin Timberlake
  4. Bruno Mars
  5. Katy Perry
  6. Pink
  7. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
  8. Rihanna
  9. Michael Bublé
  10. Daft Punk
Hope it looks better now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perry lists Carole King, Bonnie Raitt, and Joni Mitchell as musical aspirations": I don't know what that means. I do understand the next bit ... "and intends to become "more of a Joni Mitchell", releasing folk and acoustic music." ... because you explicitly say what she's aspiring to.
  • As it turns out, this only mentions Joni Mitchell, so I've removed the others. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "involve sexual lyrics and love as themes": You don't mean that the lyrics are themes, right? I'd probably say "include themes of sex and love"
  • "co-written songs for other recording artists": for, or with?
  • I've changed this to "co-written songs recorded by other artists" just to clarify. S△M talk 15:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remaining points: "5th Top Global Recording Artist of 2013" should probably be "fifth on the list of Top Global Recording Artists of 2013". On the point about suicide, none of the sources given say that an expert evaluated her as suicidal, they all attribute that to her. We should follow the sources, and attribute it to her, rather than putting it in Wikipedia's voice ... for instance: "She was initially distraught over their divorce, and said that she contemplated suicide." There are some downsides to using the word "suicide" instead of the words she actually used, but "suicide" was used in the sources, and I'm not seeing any evidence that she objected, so I don't object either. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more: the $12 million figure should either be scrapped, or described as tour earnings. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a reviewer these days, just a copyeditor. The prose looks really good. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not for the nominator, or any other editor, to ascribe an explicit support for promotion to any commentator. If the commentator wants to be clear about it, they will be. If not, the FAC coordinator will still take their comments into account when determining consensus to promote (or otherwise). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. It's important not to be too focussed on expressions of support. By convention a few are certainly helpful and indeed necessary for the coordinators to judge consensus to promote but, as the FAC instructions state, resolving critical comments -- whether that results in declarations of support or not -- is just as important, and that was evident in your dealings with Dank even before he added his support. Anyway, all's well that ends well... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the changes I made while copyediting. I'd appreciate knowing if anyone can think of any time we wouldn't want to change the "before" phrase into something like the "after" phrase:

  • included into: included in
  • her first semester of her freshman year: the first semester of her freshman year
  • She waned away from gospel music and began transversing into: Transitioning from gospel music to
  • [a band], who was working: [a band], that was working (or: [a band], who were working)
  • After being dropped by Columbia, [Angelica] recommended Perry: After being dropped by Columbia, Perry was recommended [by Angelica]
  • She requested to hold: She requested holding off
  • viewers criticized it for the amount of cleavage Perry had on display in the video.: viewers criticized Perry's exposed cleavage.
  • conflicting career schedules and him wanting to have children before she was ready: conflicting career schedules and his desire to have children before she was ready
  • Speaking on Perry's fans, Keith Caulfield of Billboard stated ... "... interaction with her adoring KatyCats.": Keith Caulfield of Billboard stated ... "... interaction with her adoring KatyCats." [It's also possible to add "(fans)" after KatyCats.]
  • She confirmed that she voted against Proposition 8, an amendment that would legally define marriage: She confirmed that she voted against Proposition 8, an amendment (ultimately ruled unconstitutional) that legally defined marriage
  • and appeared in a video clip for the "Chime For Change" campaign that aims to spread female empowerment in April 2013.: and appeared in April 2013 in a video clip for the "Chime For Change" campaign that aims to spread female empowerment.
  • She has also criticized America's lack of free health care, and stated that it drove her "absolutely crazy".: She has also said that America's lack of free health care drove her "absolutely crazy".
  • Perry supported President Barack Obama in his run for re-election, due to his support for same-sex marriage: ... re-election, and praised his support for same-sex marriage
  • [Tony Abbott's] opposition towards gay marriage: [Tony Abbott's] opposition to gay marriage

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Nikkimaria[edit]

spotchecks not done

  • FN5: page?
  • FN36: page formatting
  • Check consistency of wikilinking - for example, Capital is linked in FN84 but not FN80
  • I was told to link the first instance a work is used within refs, but not subsequent ones Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, but you need to do that consistently - in the example I gave, the first instance is not linked but a subsequent one is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you check our article on that source, you will find that we generally italicize it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why that is the case, but I actually used an even better ref (Entertainment Weekly) in place Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this "don't italicize if it's not in print" rule has been spread erroneously from user to user during GA reviews and the like, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics is explicit in guiding that the actual medium of publication or presentation is not a factor. It expands on this saying online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized. —JennKR | ☎ 17:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting..... if I remember right, Jenn, you said this past January not to italicize sources like MTV. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Did I? I think I was right to, as looking over some featured/GA work it's not formatted as such. This is probably the result of a discussion (the guideline notes that websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis). Nevertheless, the rule to not use italics if the publication does not exist in print is not a consistent one. —JennKR | ☎ 20:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see..... in any case, feel free to leave comments on how the article currently stands as a candidate for FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add here regarding italicizing MTV. That is a channel first and foremost and then a music webzine unlike Slant Magazine. Hence MTV should not be italicized while the latter could be. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know one or two reviewers have done the odd spotcheck of sources but if Nikki wouldn't mind conducting a few herself that come up clear then I think we can wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • "She was banned from watching MTV while growing up, and discovered popular music while watching television at her friends' houses." - the source says instead that friends snuck CDs to her, and doesn't mention MTV or TV at all
  • Not seeing anything about comedic timing in FN90. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Nikki is comfortable with the results of her spotcheck then so am I; assuming that's the case, I'd probably get round to promoting tomorrow when I do my usual EOW walk-through of open noms -- unless Graham beats me to it... ;-) . Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JennKR[edit]

Resolved concerns from JennKR

There is nothing much to do here. The article's strongest attributes are its conciseness—an achievement in itself when you look to other female pop-singer BLPs—and its use of high-quality sources. I'm also glad to see some books have been used. I just have a few comments:

  • You list rock as a genre—do you think she is a rock artist, or more rock-influenced?
  • Considering that Katy Hudson is a gospel-rock album, One of the Boys is a pop-rock album, NME called her a "ballsy rock chick", seems appropriate to include. Refer to my response above to Chasewc91's comments. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On July 22, 2009, Perry recorded a live album titled MTV Unplugged" → This reads strangely, because it implies that Perry chose this title. There are hundreds of MTV Unplugged albums, so it would be much better to say that Perry performed an MTV Unplugged special, and the audio was released as an album.
  • "After the marriage was officially dissolved in February 2012," → This isn't in the Vogue Italia source provided. What that source does say is that divorce proceedings began at that time, but that isn't the same as when a marriage is "dissolved". This would occur on the official date of divorce (or nullification), which according to MTV is July 16. — JennKR | ☎ 15:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terminology is still problematic. You need to mention three dates: they separated in December 2011, divorce proceedings began in February 2012 and they were divorced in July 2012. Try not to stray to far from this, everyday terms like "dissolved", "finalized" and "ended" have very different legal meanings, and its important to be precise when discussing legal processes as to not misrepresent them. —JennKR | ☎ 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, the International Business Times source says that the "divorce was finalized" (meaning that the divorce proceedings were agreed on), this is not the same as being divorced. (Therefore after mentioning their separation say something on the lines of "their divorce was finalized in February 2012 and their marriage was dissolved that July".) —JennKR | ☎ 18:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPI and St. James say it all ended February, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What ended? Their marriage? You could be of the opinion that their marriage ended in December 2011. The law sees this differently, the only thing that "ends" in February are the discussions between Perry and Brand. They are not divorced at this point. What follows is the six-month waiting period that the State of California ascribes, and hence they are divorced. This is why it is important to be careful and very specific about the terms you use about this process. —JennKR | ☎ 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes- according to UPI and St. James, the marriage ended February 2012. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your source from the International Business Times and the MTV source I provided earlier contradict this. —JennKR | ☎ 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their divorce was finalized in February 2012 and their marriage was dissolved that July" ← Can this be inserted? (Or something close to this?) —JennKR | ☎ 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As credible as MTV's reputation is, something doesn't feel right about contesting the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture (I just found the full title), especially since it is from the most recent edition. Maybe just not mentioning dates at all could work or perhaps saying just 2012. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have the quote from the encyclopedia? I'm wondering whether it may mischaracterize what happened in February. The State of California details their jurisdiction's process on their website, which reads You cannot legally end your marital status until at least 6 months after the case is filed and the respondent has been served with a copy of the petitioner’s paperwork. And of course, December to February is only three months, so a divorce simply cannot happen in this time. —JennKR | ☎ 18:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to consult a library to find the book, but they said the marriage was "16 months". Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I think they have mischaracterized what happened in February. Are you still opposed to detailing these three dates? —JennKR | ☎ 19:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but only because there's apparently a conflict of dates between sources. I've now simply said 2012. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I would have preferred you to have been more specific (as the laws of California show that divorce cannot have happened in the time frame St. James suggests), it's better than it once was. —JennKR | ☎ 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK JennKR, that should do it. Thanks for the last-minute polishes to my (at least right now) current masterpiece :3. I spent lots of time on finding top-quality sources as well, including books. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support—FA coords should note that I am somewhat involved having completed a peer review of Katy Perry in January 2014, although I have contributed minimally to the actual article. In its current state, it is well written and researched, and as someone with familiar with Perry's work, I believe it does not neglect any important aspects of her life and career. The references are consistent and well-selected. —JennKR | ☎ 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JennKR :D Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 [12].

1998 FA Charity Shield[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about English football's traditional curtain-raiser, played in 1998. Like nearly all Charity Shield stagings, this was a drab affair because it has the feel of a pre-season match – the events of the game weren't particularly memorable, but it was the first competitive match of Manchester United's successful 1998–99 season. I nominated this for PR last month and have since made adjustments; I believe now the article is worth a shot here. Any sort of comment would be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Clarify that 9 August 1998 is the date of the match, because as it is, it appears that this was the date when Manchester United secured the 2nd place in the league.
  • Rejigged sentence and cited date on the infobox. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Manchester United began the game more effectively of the two,..." – Is "of the two" necessary? Reads strangely.
  • "... with the corresponding home fixture, at home, ending..."
  • Could you state in which phase of the competition Manchester would face ŁKS Łódź?
  • Shouldn't "players sharpness" have an apostrophe somewhere? Unless the quotation lacks it...
  • "... for their upcoming matches."[14]" – Extra quotation mark there?
  • Remove the first instance of ref 17, as the second covers every content before it
  • Please, use {{convert}} to display the metric correspondent of "25 yards"
  • "Anelka in turn transferred it to Wreh..." – link Wreh
  • Remove the margin, cellspacing and cellpadding parameters from the statistics table coding, as it messes with its disposition in the subsection.
  • Move ref 24 to the end of the sentence, alongside ref 25
  • "Ferguson admitted his team were been beaten..." – 'were beaten' or 'had been beaten'
  • "... was confident his team would fare better, against ŁKS Łódź..." – remove comma
  • "two goals to nil" → 2–0
  • "group stages" should be singular, as there was only one group stage in the 1998–99 UEFA Champions League.
  • "United's 2–1 win against Tottenham meant they pipped Arsenal to first position by a point." – Actually, United had already pipped Arsenal in the penultimate round, following their win over Middlesbrough and Arsenal's loss to Leeds United. This win only secured the first place, which was already theirs. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • True – rephrased it to highlight that the title was only decided on the final day, and there was a outside chance Arsenal could win it.
  • If you finish the article mentioning the treble, then you should mention again that, after getting past Arsenal in the semi-final, United won the FA Cup final.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, think I've addressed them all. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good job. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment: Isn't the lead rather long? Four paragraphs of lead, but only a further nine paragraphs of prose in the article itself. 194.176.105.145 (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trimmed the lead to three paragraphs; removed bits about team news and what the managers had to say. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made some minor tweaks. I suggest adding some of the following:

  • Names of the linesmen (if known)
  • Perhaps a photo, ideally of Overmars
  • The fact it was Arsenal 9th Charity Shield win
  • Who presented the trophy (if known)

--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments – added the 9th win in the post-match section and an image of Wenger, as I couldn't find any of Overmars which are licensed/on Wikicommons. Nor could I find any information about who presented the Shield, or names of the fourth official/linesman, etc in the archives at this moment. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Another obvious omission I see is a lack of a link to the match report in the relevant field of the details section, you could use this one {http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-arsenal-show-united-little-charity-1170865.html]. Also I see several Independent articles you've used as references, all of which are freely available online. I supposes there's nothing wrong with referencing the hard copy instead, but I do feel it would be an improvement if readers were able to actually click to see the material in question.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the heads-up -- have found a few more online Independent articles to link accordingly. Changed the details source because the one I initally cited didn't specify what time in the match certain players were shown yellow cards -- this article does however. And across the print texts there are inconsistencies between match facts and written reports; when minute did Arsenal scored their three goals and how many players were booked. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple of changes myself, almost there i think, though we surely need at least one more image? Perhaps a photo of the old Wembley stadium could be used? (ideally taken as close to that year as possible). Alternatively, maybe a photo of the trophy? Perhaps even both?--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have now added an image of Wembley. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,I've been looking through other comparable matches that have achieved FA status in order to find anything we might be missing and encourage others to do the same, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football#Showcase. I see some have diagrams of the team line-ups, heres one such example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sounders_FC_vs_Columbus_Crew_2010-10-05.svg Do we have sufficient information for such a diagram without venturing into original research? Alternatively can we at least describe each player's position as per some of the FA Cup finals that have FA status?--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PeeJay has created a line-up graphic and I've added some detail about the formations Arsenal and United employed without getting too technical. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, my concerns have all been addressed and I can't think of any other issues, good work.--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One further thought, I note the "AXA" logo on the programme, and assume they're the sponsor? It seems to be standard practice to mention such information so I suggest a brief mention of that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Explained my reasoning for not including sponsors here. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more recent Charity/Community Shields should have sponsor information included, as they often request that their name be included in the title of the match (e.g. this year's "FA Community Shield sponsored by McDonalds"). However, although I have a copy of the match programme from the 1998 Charity Shield, which undoubtedly contains info about AXA's sponsorship, I don't think their name was included in the title of the match (it wasn't called "The AXA FA Charity Shield", AFAIK). – PeeJay 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it turns out the situation was quite the opposite. There's literally nothing about AXA's association with the Shield in the programme, but they do refer to it as "The AXA FA Charity Shield", albeit only once in the running order at the front of the programme. – PeeJay 12:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester United began the game more effectively - maybe "strongly" - "effectively" doesn't go here....
had won the Shield outright - why is "outright" needed here?
Because up until 1992 a drawn game resulted in each club having to share the Shield for six months each. Although Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur both list the 1991 FA Charity Shield as an honour, it was shared. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks on target.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for taking a look. Hopefully I've addressed all your concerns. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need to sleep now - will take another look in the morning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes -- Looks like we still need image and source reviews and, assuming this is your first FAC, Lemonade (a belated welcome in that case!) we'll also need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If any of the above reviewers would like to undertake one or more of those, pls do so, otherwise we can list requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Hamiltonstone

  • I'm assuming football stripes are not images requiring review. If I'm wrong, someone else will have to tackle that.
  • File:1998 FA Community Shield programme.png - has a non-free use rationale. Resolution is OK, and content is generally relevant, but I'm not clear how it meets nfcc#8. The existing rationale is "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question". But the article isn't about the poster art as such, and I'm not sure how important the poster art is to an understanding of this charity shield match...
    • This is an old concern that I've seen plenty of times. My contention has always been that the poster/programme cover serves as the primary means of visual identification for the match; a random photo from the match might do the job, but it would take a fair bit of detective work to ascertain that the photo came from that specific match, whereas the programme cover is unique and provides all the info you would need to identify this match. The article may not be about the programme itself, but the programme, the match and all other paraphernalia are related, IMO. – PeeJay 07:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, if others are happy with that, then change the text at the NFCC to "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the subject of the work in question". hamiltonstone (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wembleyold.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Arsenal vs Man Utd 1998-08-09.svg - looks OK
  • File:Arsene Wenger.JPG - this is on commons; the page states that permission for the image can be found here, but the link doesn't work for me, so I am none the wiser. It would be more appropriate to provide a copy or account of the permission on the commons page, not just a bare url which, once broken, gets us nowehere.
    • The permission link is available on the Internet archive; is this sufficient? Lemonade51 (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess so - the page is very bare and you can't tell what it links to, but that isn't your fault - that's down to the originator of the page. AGF, it's OK. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Eric Corbett

  • There's a rather cryptic comment in the Post-match section stating that weather conditions were crucial, yet nowhere in the article do I see any description of what those weather conditions were.

Eric Corbett 18:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for taking a look. Have added a bit on the pitch-side temperature in the match summary. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your addition – "The pitch-side temperature had reached 30 °C (86 °F) in the second half" – isn't quite right, the tense is wrong. Should it be "The pitch-side temperature reached 30 °C (86 °F) in the second half"? In addition the cited source says nothing about the temperature in the second half. What it says is that "An hour and a half chasing the double-winners around Wembley's broad acres in 30-degree heat was not the ideal preparation for United's European date on Wednesday", clearly implying that it was 30 °C throughout the entire match.
  • Tweaked it. Now put it at the beginning of the first paragraph.
  • Also, "Patrick Vieira and Emmanuel Petit ... took longer to get into the match, having taken part in France's successful World Cup campaign" seems to be a non sequitor. What has one to do with the other?
Eric Corbett 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the bits about the World Cup and tweaked the sentence. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no so sure i agree with the removal. At the very least it's well worth mentioning that it's their first competitive game for Arsenal since winning the World Cup. The pair combined for France's third goal, so it's not as if they were mere uninvolved France squad members.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it worth mentioning? Eric Corbett 00:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because winning the World Cup is notable and therefore it's probably worth documenting their return from such a feat, particularly as they won it together in such a fashion. I think I'd be right in saying that only one Arsenal player had actually won the World Cup before those two.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So in the context of this article about a relatively insignificant Charity Shield match it's not important at all, unless you're attempting to pump up Arsenal. Eric Corbett 01:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for periodicals and accessdates for online periodicals
  • Google Books page links can be truncated after the page number
  • Be consistent in whether you italicize BBC News. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, have made corrections. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks for that, Nikki -- could I also trouble you for a spotcheck of sources as I understand this is the nominator's first (potentially successful) FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • The "Arsenal began dominating..." paragraph is a bit close to FN2
  • "The result was the first time a southern club in England had won the Shield outright since Tottenham Hotspur in 1962, and was Manchester United's first defeat in seven Shield matches" is quite close to "This was the first time a southern club had won the Shield outright since Spurs in 1962. It was also United's first defeat in seven Shield matches"
  • FN6 is broken
  • "For Arsenal, new signing Nelson Vivas began the match on the substitutes' bench" - not seeing this in either source

The number of offline sources prevents comprehensive spotchecking, but what is here is a bit troubling. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the spotchecks. I've updated FN6's link, added a source to confirm Vivas was on the bench, rewritten the Southern club bit and tweaked the second paragraph of the summary. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Temporary oppose: (Striking oppose after the second spotcheck turned up okay.) I'm not trying to stop promotion ... just to delay it until you've had a chance to take another look at close paraphrasing and make sure the citations support the text. "Spotchecks" means that Nikki only checked in spots ... if she found that much, then there's probably more somewhere, so please go back and check all your text against the sources. If a spotcheck after that turns up clean, you can forget I mentioned it :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did a few corrections to the article after Nikki's spotchecks last week, which I forgot to mention. Have in the last few hours checked every source and tried to paraphrase the summary in particular to the best of my ability – bit difficult with few sources about the actual match available. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. What happens next is up to the FAC coords, but I'm hoping someone will do another spotcheck. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys. Nikki, I note what you said about availability of sources. If you feel there's enough to make another check that might give you a reasonably confident feeling either way, then that'd be very helpful. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is, at this point - much of the "meat" of the article yet to be checked is cited to offline/subscription sources that I can't access for the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this would be of any help, Nikkimaria → FN10, FN18, FN20, FN21, FN25 (Team lineup is in the print edition), FN33 (Highbeam), FN41, FN42 Lemonade51 (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lemonade. That copy of FN21 is incomplete so can't be verified, but the other footnotes don't have any obvious problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, I did ask Tim Riley if he could have a look at some book refs through the British Library but if you feel comfortable with the accuracy of the sourcing now then we could release him from this task and promote this long-running nom. OTOH if Tim has the books already then I'll wait for his checks in any case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I come to look at the refs I see that the printed books quoted can be accessed online. Both refs 31 and 32 are correctly cited. As I'm at the British Library I have availed myself of its online access to the paywalled archives of The Times, and refs 5, 20, 21a-f, 41 and 42, all from The Times, are absolutely fine. Refs 1, 10, and 25 to The Guardian are fine too. All looks right to me. Tim riley talk 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks Tim, and everyone else who's participated in this review. That's the full-time whistle I think... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2014 [13].

George Formby[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC) & Cassiantotalk 21:26, 13 August 2014 [reply]

George Formby was a music hall star, singer-songwriter, comedian and film star—and an unlikely one at that. While still trying to find his place on screen, one film producer thought him "too stupid to play the bad guy and too ugly to play the hero". The producer reckoned without the cheeky grin and the ingrained need of the British to have double entendre and smut in its cultural output, not forgetting the thinking man's violin, of which he was a maestro, his playing still revered by amateurs and professionals alike. – SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC) & Cassiantotalk 21:26, 13 August 2014[reply]

Support Ah, here it is. I reviewed at the peer review. It seems well written and comprehensive, and my concerns were answered then.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt! Your time and thoughts at PR and here are very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Wehwalt. Cassiantotalk 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you provide accessdates
  • FN211: location?
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your time and diligence, NM: I think I've covered all of these now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments Support

  • South Bank Show is linked for a second time in the article under legacy. Same with Isle of Man in this sentence → "He returned to the mainland by way of the Isle of Man..."
  • No need for location parameter where places are in the title of the source (eg: Ref 220, 228) Lemonade51 (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Lemonade51. The second SBS link has now been removed. I'm slightly ambivilent on the MoS guideline on the location perameter, as I've had people complaining about a lack of consistency in providing some and not others, so opted to go down the route of including all locations on the basis that as its not misleading it does no harm to leave them there. I'm happy to take the advice of other reviewers on this point, and if they agree to remove it, then I'll be happy to comply with a consensus here. Does that sound OK? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Licensing tweaked. I need to check on another screen before I move them round, as on a small screen (iPad) there is no sandwiching; on my widescreen there is, but there's so much text in between it isn't an issue (there's more text between the images than there is on any one line on the iPad); I'll check on a laptop tomorrow to see. Moving creates other issues, like nudging up against other images, knocking stuff away from pertinent text and interfering with section titles, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unknown: I've tweaked the text to leave as that, and moved the dates into the description field: is that OK? - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Formby in Boots! Boots!.jpg: this file appears to be under copyright and lacks a FUR; the copyright belongs to Mancunian Film Company, but it was posted to Flickr with a cc-by-2.0 licence by University of Salford. What evidence do we have that they had the right to do that?
  • As it's an academic institution, I've taken on good faith their knowledge of the IP behind the image, and their ability to release it into the public domain. Do we need to question sources to see if their release is justified? - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a legal one, a procedural one here: I'm not sure I've ever been asked to question an academic source before. - SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I'd call it an "academic source"—it's Flickr, and happens to be from a university account. For all we know it was posted by a student who was in the habit of just slapping a cc-by-2.0 licence on uploads—most of the photos there appear to be from university events. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point: I've removed until we can clarify the licence. - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks CT: I'll work my way through these shortly. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was another of the peer reviewers, and my few comments were dealt with then. The present text seems to me a model of its kind: a really good read, comprehensive, fair, and widely and thoroughly referenced. Super stuff. – Tim riley talk 13:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your help and encouragement Tim. Cassiantotalk 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Despite my strenuous nitpicking at peer review I've still found a few more opportunities to tweak (see edit history), but I think enough is enough. A fascinating story, which I believe meets all the necessary criteria for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2014 [14].

John Gielgud[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a star-studded PR involving @Brianboulton:, @Cassianto:, @Cliftonian:, @Crisco 1492:, @Dr. Blofeld:, @Loeba:, @Sarastro1:, @Ssilvers: and @Wehwalt:, and following our recent collaboration on the associated list, Tim riley has asked me to help steer the very lovely John Gielgud through FAC, after its recent overhaul. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC) & Tim riley talk 21:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN47 doesn't match punctuation of other web sources
  • FN50, Morley: which source is this? Other Morley refs have no date but the only Sources entry is 2001 not 2002
  • Fn52: missing full bibliographic info
  • FN107, 141: page formatting
  • FN190: Who Was Who should be italicized
  • FN191 is incomplete
  • No citations to Hall 2000. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All attended to. Blitzed 191, a drive-by trivia addition. Tim riley talk 23:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aargh! An edit conflict intervened, and I didn't - till now - properly thank Nikkimaria for that review. Tim riley talk 16:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
    • Refreshing my memory with this article, I see only a few errors
      • " After Hillside, Lewis and Val had won scholarships, respectively to Eton and Rugby School" - I believe "respectively" requires a 1:1 ratio. It's not clear from this phrasing whether it was Hillside and Lewis at Eton and Val at Rugby, or Hillside at Eton and Lewis and Val at Rugby.
      • Gielgud (2000), p. 198; and Morley, p. 81 - why did you remove the date for Morley?
      • Standardise whether your short footnotes use the year or not. (Compare Croall (2000) and Page, p. 50) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dates given only when there is more than one book cited by the same author. Tim riley talk 23:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, alright.
  • Support on prose. Another great article, from two amazing authors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Alfietucker
    • I really enjoyed reading this article: not only a well-written and rounded portrait, but studded with intriguing facts and very amusing anecdotes which cheered me tremendously, as well as very moving (Gielgud’s quiet and unfussy way of promoting talented young actors, for instance, comes across well). Just a few comments about content:
    • Lead
      • "The Independent described him as one of a great trinity of actors, together with Ralph Richardson and Laurence Olivier, who dominated the British stage for much of the 20th century." To cite The Independent as sole authority seems a bit odd, given how widely the three actors have been coupled in people's minds (I remember Spitting Image's perhaps unkind skit in which Gielgud and Olivier are seen ruminating about "Dear, dear Ralph"). A quick Google search dug up these possible additional references: New York Observer; New York Times; The New Statesman; and Peter Sallis!. So, given these (and possibly other) references, I suggest we can be bolder, and write something like: "He has been widely remembered as one of a great trinity of actors, together with Ralph Richardson and Laurence Olivier, who dominated the British stage for much of the 20th century."
        • I'm not sure about this, as for such a big claim I prefer to see some touchstone for it, rather than the big phrase that immediately triggers a "says who" question in my mind. I'll leave it for Tim to mull over and come back on. - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the one hand, other things being equal (I sound like Sir Humphrey!) I prefer not to have citations in the lead, but although the fact that JG, Richardson and Olivier were the big three of their generation is clear from the totality of the text it is nowhere specifically stated, and so I suppose we are on thin ice according to WP:LEAD when we mention it in the lead. On the other hand it would look rather odd to omit it. How about adding a line in "Honours, character and reputation" at the start of the fourth para, immediately before the introduction to Coveney's tribute: "Together with Richardson and Olivier, Gielgud was internationally recognised as one of the "trio of theatrical knights" [add ref for direct quote] who dominated the British stage for more than fifty years during the middle and later decades of the 20th century.[add the Indy and the sources mentioned by Alfie]", which would then, as it were, legitimise an uncited statement in the lead? – Tim riley talk 07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Background and early years
      • "For a child with no interest in sport he acquitted himself reasonably well in cricket and rugby for the school. In class, he hated mathematics, was fair at classics, and excelled at English and divinity." Maybe it's just me being really niggly, I feel that there's rather more detail than necessary in these sentences. The most important information, surely, is that he excelled at English (given his relish in delivering the poetry of Shakespeare’s lines), and there's a danger of this getting rather lost in the other less relevant details. The first sentence in particular, it seems to me, presents the kind of information one would include in a detailed full-length biography, or an old-boy's report, rather than an encyclopaedic article: I'd be inclined to cut this. Also the mention of his ability in divinity at this point rather "hangs over" what I subsequently read (was it of any personal significance to him?) and it was only several sections later, in "Honours, character and reputation", that it is finally revealed that religion meant nothing to him after he left Westminster. Should we perhaps have a footnote to explain this if we keep this tidbit in this sentence?
        • I'm not tied to the present wording with hoops of steel, and will get out the secateurs if there is a consensus that we should prune. But we gave very similar information in the Britten article, which I think is the last one I helped pilot through FAC. – Tim riley talk 07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't involved in the FAC for Britten, so I've now had a look at that article with critical eyes. The difference, as I see it (and as the article stands), is that for Britten all the non-musical items that are mentioned either illuminate Britten's character, or his state of health (notwithstanding his suffering life-threatening pneumonia early in his life), or explain his relationship with the cane-happy headmaster (which some writers have suggested is relevant to his pacifism): whereas Gielgud's ability in cricket and rugby does not IMHO illuminate our subject in the same way. Still, it's only a small niggle in a very substantial and excellent article, so I won't insist upon it, though I feel we could lose that sentence without disadvantage. And what do we think of a footnote with the mention of his ability in divinity? Alfietucker (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, to me the little details – rugby, divinity etc – give a rounded picture of his schooldays and himself as a schoolboy. I'd like to see what other reviewers think about it. Comments cordially invited from one and all and in partic SchroCat as co-nom. Tim riley talk 08:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Like Tim, I'm not tied to the text on this, and I'm fairly open to removing it. I think it adds a little depth of background to his his school years and, on balance, I'd rather see it kept, but if others also pick up on it, then I won't be too miffed it it goes... - SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • First acting experience
      • "Gielgud was in the Oxford company in January and February 1924, from October 1924 to the end of January 1925 and in August 1925." A small point: I know this is almost certainly a matter of style, but I think this sentence would read slightly more naturally and clearly if there was an Oxford comma before "and in August 1925".
    • War and post-war
      • "but he found at first that less highbrow performers like Beatrice Lillie were better than he at entertaining the troops." At first? So what changed this? You mention later that he entertained troops in Gibraltar – did he meet greater success at that time (in which case it might “tie things up” a bit to say so).
        • I can't find anything to suggest that he changed his material: I infer that he had to learn to work the boisterious army audiences in a way that came more naturally to those like Lillie who had played variety and revue. But this is speculation. – Tim riley talk 07:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not a problem if there's nothing to indicate how Gielgud's act changed, but can we say - for instance - "in lighter material for the troops in Gibraltar, with whom he had greater success than he had had on such previous appearances" (to resolve the implication of the earlier "he found at first that less highbrow performers [...] were better than he at entertaining the troops")? Alfietucker (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've found something ad rem, and have redrawn accordingly.
That's really about it from me. A very enjoyable read and kudos to the editors who have put so much evident good work into this. Alfietucker (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these points, Alfie. Comments above, which I hope will meet your objections. Tim riley talk 08:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I should have said that my support is not dependent on the changes I suggest; I've only offered them as personal reactions to what seem to me to be slightly loose ends, but in every other respect I think this is a superb article. Alfietucker (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shouldd have added earlier: thank you so much for taking the time to go over this with a critical eye: your thoughts have been extremely useful and helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from me with one minor observation: "Gielgud's partner, Martin Hensler, died in 1999. Gielgud died in May the following year, peacefully at home, at the age of 96." Why should Hensler be given his own sentence here? Is there a way of combining the two deaths which would eradicate the died / died repetition? Cassiantotalk 18:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, and very much appreciated. I'll defer to the senior editor here on this point, but a possibility to consider would be "Gielgud's partner, Martin Hensler, died in 1999; Gielgud followed the suit in May the next year, peacefully at home, at the age of 96." - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not enthused with "followed the suit" TBH. How about "Hensler and Gielgud died a year apart in 1999 and 2000 respectively." If this were me personally, I wouldn't even mention Hensler. Reduce to a footnote if you must, but having him start a para with Sir John coming a close second seems wrong. I would just have this as "Gielgud died peacefully at home, at the age of 96 in May 2000; Hensler predeceased him by a year." Cassiantotalk 19:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relevant to mention Hensler's death as it seems to Morley and others to have been a tipping point in JG's life, and he went rapidly downhill afterwards. I've fleshed the text out, glancing at this. Thank you, Cassianto, for your support, – Tim riley talk 08:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Improved since I last looked at it, definitely FA worthy. Great job on a great actor!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my main contribution was at peer review. That was a while back, so I've read the article again and picked up a few very minor sweepings:

  • "named for him": in British usage, "named after him" is the idiom
  • Terry family image: could the caption inform us as to which jubilee (i.e. 25th, 50th etc) is being celebrated?
  • Again with captions, perhaps add "(photographed in 2012)" to the Old Vic image details (the theatre is now much more spruce than it was in Gielgud's day).
  • "He gave his first performances on television during 1959: in Rattigan's The Browning Version for CBS and N C Hunter's A Day by the Sea for ITV." I beg leave to challenge the colon. The word "in" links the two parts of the sentence, and should be preceded by a comma. Alternatively you could ditch "in", but that does not read particularly well.
  • "One potentially outstanding acting role fell through in 1967 when Olivier, with whom he was to co-star at the National Theatre in Ibsen's The Pretenders, was ill". The role being...?
  • Isn't it more usual to give James Elroy Flecker his full name?

Pathetic, isn't it? These tiny pinpricks in no way temper my admiration for this comprehensive and utterly readable account of an astonishingly productive life. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks, Brian. All done, bar the one left for Tim, who has the source. Your time and efforts here are, as always, hugely appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto from me, Brian. Tim riley talk 09:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Thank you very much for that review, CT. I've amended the details for File:Mabel terry-lewis.jpg. Can I trouble you further and ask what licence tag you recommend to replace {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} for File:Ellen-Terry-jubilee.jpg and File:Mrs-Patrick-Campbell-and-EdithEvans.jpg? Tim riley talk 08:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco has caught these in the interim. CT, Many, many thanks for your thoughts and comments here: all is very much appreciated in an area rife with confusion (for me, at least!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2014 [15].

The Bread-Winners[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a rather dated book by John Hay, subject of my last nomination. Controversial as it presented a hostile view of organized labor, Hay prudently published the book anonymously, which led to quite a guessing game that is now entirely forgotten, but that was one of the literary events of 1883. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per my PR comments. I'll have to abstain from an image review as I uploaded several of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I, too, carried out a detailed peer review. I have reread the article and picked up a few minor points that I either missed or have arisen since my earlier review:

  • In the lead: "the Bread-winners ... calls" The verb looks wrong. Although "the Bread-Winners" refers to a group, they are a "they" rather than an "it", thus the verb should be "call"
  • "This transformation did not stop at Appomatox". American readers will no doubt understand this, others won't, and will be scrambling around the link. Why not "did not stop when the war ended"?
  • "suppression" repeated in first line, third paragraph, Postwar labor troubles section (first could be "intervention")
  • "Offitt, at birth, was given the name Andrew Jackson which according to Hay shows that the bearer..." etc. I presume this should be "given the forenames"? Or did he change his name from Jackson to Offitt? In either event, I wouldn't say "according to Hay", which suggests that he gave an overt explanation. Something like: "which, Hays explains in the book, shows that..." etc
  • "Gilder called it "a powerful book", did not immediately offer to publish it in his magazine". A "but" or similar should precede "did not"
  • "In an anonymous letter to The Century Magazine after the book was published, Hay alleged that he chose to remain anonymous..." The repetition jars slighly. And I'm unsure about "Hay alleged". You could say: "...Hay said that he chose not to reveal his authorship..."
  • "As the second installment was read, and the character of Alice Belding became prominent" → "As the character of Alice Belding became prominent in the second installment..."
Disagree, the focus should be on the second installment being distributed.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction. And "read" does not necessarily mean distributed. But I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "convincing himself he is not a fortune seeker" – I had difficulty with this phrasing at the PR, you may remember. It's OK, but I think the sense would be reinforced by making it "not merely a fortune seeker".
  • "By comparison, Democracy sold only 14,000 copies". By this stage I had forgotten about Democracy. It would help if you said: "Adams's Democracy".

These points are easily dealt with, and I see no reason to withhold support meantime. An interesting study of a forgotten literary work (which perhaps had best remain forgotten). Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Except for the one noted above, I have made those changes, though sometimes varying from the suggested language.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Only one wrinkle, around caps, with Dalrymple having lower case text after the colon: all the other sources are capitalised throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fixed. I'm uncertain on "Anti-labor" vs. "Anti-Labor" but have elected the latter. Please feel free to change it. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images All images are OK: PD and with appropriate descriptions. - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2014 [16].

Sonic: After the Sequel[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My last FAC met a rare and gruesome end. Due to the greater depth of the sources available, this one is unlikely to follow it, and I've fixed it up a bunch since its GAN, mostly through helpful comments made at its peer review, so here it is.

Anyway, if you pay attention to the gaming world, you're probably aware that most Sonic the Hedgehog games from the mid-2000s onward have not been well-received. At all. Gaming articles abound in lamentation of how Sega can't just let its furred children die, but one Brazilian fan disagreed. He's enjoyed near-every odd detour the series has taken, and over a couple of years, he combined musical and thematic elements of later Sonics with the familiar gameplay and graphics of the Genesis titles and weird, Newgrounds-style cutscene animations to make a highly developed and polished trilogy. The second such game, which you see here, has for some reason received the most attention from critics, but all three have been acclaimed. Here I stand in hope that its article will receive similar praise. Tezero (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

  • Coulda sworn I already had for LakeFeperd, but done. Tezero (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Sonic: Before the Sequel is notable, consider redlinking it.
  • I don't think it's likely to be. For some reason, there's coverage on After the Sequel and the trilogy as a whole, but little to none on Before the Sequel or Chrono Adventure. Probably has to do with After the Sequel piggybacking on Before's mild popularity while improving on it, and Chrono Adventure just being too weird. (It's a time-travel Metroidvania with lengthy cutscenes.) Tezero (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's kind of inconvenient that the "n.a." shows up by default since it doesn't give you the option to fill those in originally... Anyway, done. I think. Tezero (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider finding a way to work the links from #See also into the text, or at least giving a short reason why they are included (per MOS:SEEALSO).
  • One composer from Sonic 3 emailed one of the After the Sequel musicians. - And?
  • The source doesn't say what happened next. This actually came up at GAN; I wanted to say something like "it is not known what happened next", but even that pittance was deemed to be OR. Tezero (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I could support this passing FAC with such an obvious question still hanging. I'll try and help find something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nothing ever came out of this, and if nothing even talks about the contents of the email (it could just be "good job!", after all), I would seriously consider eliminating this sentence. Although you could mention Sega's previous litigation as context (and to complete the paragraph) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count seven references, excluding primary sources. Are you sure this is a comprehensive review of the literature on this subject?
  • I'll give a more detailed prose review once this is done.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an unofficial work in the Sonic the Hedgehog series - This implies that the game is canon, which it decidedly is not. "Set in the Sonic the Hedgehog universe" or something, maybe?
  • Sega Genesis Sonic games - First, WP:SEAOFBLUE suggests separating those two links. Second, to differentiate between Sonic 1, the series, and the character, I'd change the link to "Sonic games"
  • with each zone divided into three acts followed by a boss fight with Doctor Eggman. - how exactly does the quote support this?
  • By listing the composer for each act. Or is this about Eggman being the boss? Tezero (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • zone, - I'd have expected this link in the gameplay section
  • Unlike many longtime Sonic fans, Daneluz remained supportive of the series through its "dark age" in the mid to late 2000s and enjoyed games such as Sonic Riders. - might want to discuss, just a little, how negative reception of those games has been, for people who don't follow VGs.
  • I listed the meager GameRankings scores Riders got for context; it might be straying too much from the focus (as well as OR) to list those of, say, '06, Shadow, Genesis, Black Knight, or those others with particularly poor reviews. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... what about as a footnote? Personally, I think a bit of context is necessary to get the point the sources are making across. Regular readers of the sources may have an idea of exactly how terribly recent Sonic games have been received, and thus the sources you have are not explicit, but our average readers probably don't know. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I've done is list the GameRankings scores of all Sonic games released during 2006, likely the critical nadir of his career, in a footnote. Tezero (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think you've linked to the games proper in the article text (only in the lede). Consider doing so.
  • "Games proper"? I link to Sonic 2 and 3 in the body, specifically in Plot; what others should I? Tezero (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OH. No, you were right; I hadn't linked to Sonic 1 in the body text. Just fixed that. And I'll look for an Eggman citation, though it seems obvious and I don't expect it will be difficult to find... Tezero (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • MaxieDaMan - And this is who, exactly?
  • Again, the lack of a CAD notice might require background for the average reader; why is this worth noting?
  • As of March 2014, the trilogy had been downloaded 120,000 times, as compared to the 640,000 copies of the official game Sonic Lost World (also released in 2013) sold by the same time. - you don't exactly state that this is a rare tour de force for an indie game, like you do in the lede — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, only question left is whether or not that email should actually be included. I mean, it goes nowhere and is only mentioned offhandedly in one source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've merged a few of the paragraphs together after redacting that sentence. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assuming that no further RSes are found. Good read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism[edit]

  • "the trilogy of Before the Sequel, After the Sequel, and third installment Sonic Chrono Adventure" — A bit ambiguous. (i.e.: The trilogy of Before the Sequel: After the Sequel and third installment Sonic Chrono Adventure)
  • How is it ambiguous? How would adding a colon in place of a comma make it any less so? Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The example inside the parentheses is how one could interpret the sentence (as if you were referring to After the Sequel and Sonic Chrono which form the trilogy of Before the Sequel). pedro | talk 17:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prism, I've reworded it a little, although I don't think it's confusing either way as a trilogy would not include two items. (Also, you used the word "support" in your last edit summary. I don't know whether you mean to say that you support this nomination, but if so, please state this outright in bold.) Tezero (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove also from "can also fly" (redundant)
  • Um... why? It isn't used earlier, and I think it helps keep it unambiguous that Tails' ability to fly does not come at the expense of some other ability. Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it includes ones typical of the Sonic series" — awkward wording
  • Reworded to "typical Sonic power-ups". Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad. That came from the merging of a few paragraphs and I didn't notice it earlier. Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more reserved" seems like NPOV
  • Well, his praise was less effusive. I'm not claiming one way or the other whether the game is good or whether he's a biased writer. Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The average reader should be able to figure out that he was more reserved while referencing the music. Anyway, I'm not going to insist.
  • While refs aren't explicitly part of the FAC, we have to ensure that these articles are in top-notch condition. Can you insert the publishers for websites on their refs?
  • This isn't standard (only czar does it as far as I know), it's not required now (plenty of video game FAs pass without them), and I think it would set an onerous precedent if it became required. However, for information's sake:
  • Kotaku - Gawker Media
  • Red Bull - Red Bull
  • Game Rankings - CBS Interactive
  • NintendoLife - dx.net/Gamer Network
  • IndieGames - UBM Tech
  • Destructoid - independent
  • Per WP:VG/S — has "author reliability" been checked for Damien McFerran, considering he's an editor for NintendoLife?
  • He's the editorial director of NintendoLife and a couple of other sites and has also written for IGN UK and Eurogamer. Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you ping me when you respond to those comments? Thank you, pedro | talk 11:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Prism: Tezero (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I now Support the article as I believe it fulfills all of the FA criteria (i.e. follows the MOS rules, is extremely comprehensive even though there wasn't a lot of coverage for this game, its prose is brilliant—all in all, an article developed by Tezero. Keep up the good work. pedro | talk 18:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Taylor Trescott

I have a video game FAC currently open, so I've decided to review some others to make things fair. Overall this article looks pretty good. I just have some minor niggles.

  • "1990s-inspired soundtrack" I think this should be changed. You're referring to Red Bull's comment, right? They aren't saying it's inspired, more that it reminds them of nineties music.
  • "the segue into the events of Sonic the Hedgehog 3." This doesn't seem like something the game itself would be able to cite.
  • Cited to a third-party source. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One called RedHot Ride Zone, however, was based mainly on a level of the same name in Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest, while ideas for other levels came from the likes of Sonic Riders, locations in São Paulo, the concept of Sonic being high on sugar, and a Sonic-style song called "Combat Night Zone" by electronic artist MaxieDaMan." So, many, commas, could, you, rework, this?
  • "that fan made Sonic After The Sequel has" - no colon?
  • The original quote doesn't have one. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does every reference repeat LakeFeperd twice?
  • Because he's both the developer and de facto publisher. I've removed it, though. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me once you've responded to these. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Taylor Trescott! Come hither! Tezero (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks good. You have my support. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review from JimmyBlackwing

Prose is solid overall. Just a few nitpicks.

  • "a 2013 video game" — Type of video game should be specified.
  • "Similar to its predecessor" —> "Like its predecessor" or "As with its predecessor".
  • "other games both inside and outside the series" —> "other games inside and outside the Sonic series".
  • "and was developed in" —> "and it was developed with".
  • "engine" — Needs a link.
  • "on June 15, 2013" — We already know the year of its release, and the full date may be found in the infobox, so just cut this.
  • "Unusually for fan games" — Unusually how? Is it a low or high number?
  • "the trilogy of Before the Sequel, After the Sequel, and a third installment called Sonic Chrono Adventure" —> "Before the Sequel, After the Sequel, and their successor Sonic Chrono Adventure".
  • "traditional style" — Since "traditional" doesn't add any new information, it can be cut without loss.
  • "it lets the player play as either" —> "it lets the player control either".
  • "left and right with the arrow keys and jump with the 'Z' key" — It isn't standard to provide this much control information, but I'm willing to be convinced. What's the rationale?
  • At the peer review, someone said it would have to be included or the article would fall into the damnable zone of "not enough coverage for FA". The implication, I believe, is that he would oppose on those grounds. Tezero (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it veers dangerously close to WP:GAMEGUIDE. It isn't a dealbreaker, though, so I'll let it slide. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with each zone divided" —> "each divided".
  • "somewhat like labyrinths" — Half-swallowed phrases like this don't mean much to the reader. I, for one, can't even guess as to what it means.
  • Half-swallowed? I don't understand. The zones have layouts that make ample use of the X and Y axes and that you have to think a bit about, rather than just being flat and brainless or whatever. Tezero (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's not that common of an expression. It means tentative. "Somewhat like labyrinths" second-guesses itself so much that the reader is left with very little. Based on your description here, perhaps the sentence could be rewritten, "These levels are designed for fast-paced gameplay along both the horizontal and vertical axes". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I think that'd be leaning too far into ideas not in the original source, so I've just scrapped it. It's not especially important anyway. Tezero (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rings in levels" — All mentions of "levels" should be changed to "zones", or vice versa, after the zone concept is introduced.
  • Well, sometimes I utilize "level" rather than "zone" when "zone" appears nearby in the text, to keep it from getting repetitive. Any specific instances that are glaring? Tezero (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the concern, but I don't think it's worth the loss in clarity. Once you've defined a jargon-y term like "zone", I find it's best to use it either every time or never again. For example, defining the term "research" in a RTS-related article, and then using it interchangeably with the more general "upgrade", just confuses the non-specialist. And, for what it's worth, clarity worries led me to avoid using synonyms for "level" in Robbing the Cradle, which turned out fine. I say pick one and stick with it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "incurs a game over screen" — Game over should be linked, and "incurs" is a very strange word for this. Perhaps "results in".
  • "On the other hand" —> Very informal turn of phrase for a Wikipedia page. Perhaps "Conversely".
  • "it includes" —> "these include".
  • "but also includes" —> "as well as".
  • "After the ending of Sonic the Hedgehog 2" — Canonically after the ending of Sonic the Hedgehog 2, or only in Daneluz's creation? Should be specified.
  • Well, he didn't create his own ending for Sonic 2, but this game isn't part of Sega's official canon for the series, so I don't know which of your options is correct. I also don't see why the situation is ambiguous, though. Tezero (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to be clearer. The article states that Sonic and Tails fly over an ocean after the end of Sonic the Hedgehog 2. Is this an after-credits sequence in Sega's game, or is it Daneluz's idea? If it's Daneluz's idea, then I recommend changing the sentence to something like, "Picking up after the ending of Sonic the Hedgehog 2, After the Sequel begins with Sonic and Tails flying over the sea in Tails' biplane, the Tornado." This way, you avoid tying the plot section canonically to Sega's work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • First one. It's not a post-credits scene in Sonic 2; it's pre-credits, after the final boss. Tezero (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "helps himself to" — Somewhat informal. Perhaps "steals".
  • "its 'dark age' in the mid to late 2000s and enjoyed games such as Sonic Riders" — Appears to be OR, given the note at the end of this sentence. If it isn't in reference 3, cut it.
  • It is. The source refers to this period as the "dark age" and mentions Riders accordingly. Believe me, I side with Feperd over the general public here (well, not for Unleashed. I don't like Unleashed), but I do have to represent the sources fairly. Tezero (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. However, in that case, I don't understand the presence of the GameRankings scores. Reviews aren't objectively linked to game quality or popularity, so I don't see how they relate to the term "dark age". I'd recommend removing them, since they only serve to muddy the point. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 above wanted them there as an illustration of the dark age. Tezero (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " – rather than cynicism – " — This is redundant. Also, just for future reference, you have to pick one dash style and stick with it.
  • Done. And for the record, I don't know how those got there. I always just use the individual en-dash and em-dash characters. Tezero (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "game engine" — Link needed again.
  • "pre-tailored" — "tailored".
  • "The game's levels" — Which game? Two have just been mentioned.
  • "Sonic: After the Sequel" — You've called it "After the Sequel" until now, so I don't understand the change.
  • Eh, I felt it was best to start the paragraph with the full title, but whatever. Tezero (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Destructoid quote is far too long. Try to slice it up into smaller pieces, broken up by paraphrases.
  • "the trilogy" — What is "the trilogy"? The third game has only been mentioned in the lead, and there with no citation.
  • Hmm. I know at least one of the citations covers it, though I can't remember offhand; where do you think information about the third installment should go? Tezero (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend adding it to the end of the final sentence of Development's opening paragraph, via a comma break. It's the only place where it would really fit. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unusual for indie games" — Unusual in what way?

Good work scraping this thing together: you've pulled off a fairly strong article with next to no sources. I'll be more than willing to support once these issues are addressed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JimmyBlackwing, I've responded to them all. Tezero (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Made a few minor prose tweaks to the article and responded above. Just a few more things to hash out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Haven't read in detail, but they look fair; I'll get to them tomorrow and then we should be good to go. Tezero (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing Tezero (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. One final request: in the plot section, you need to define when After the Sequel starts. As someone, who's never played Sonic 2 or AtS, it's a mystery to me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. The time that's passed isn't specified; they were flying at the end of Sonic 2 and they're flying at the start of After the Sequel. It could be that they stopped to stretch and hit up the vending machine in between. Tezero (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, that wasn't at all clear to me from the article text. Here's something along the lines of what it needs: "... the Tornado. After the Sequel picks up from this point." The wording could be changed in a dozen ways, but that's the general idea. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tezero (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work. I still remember reviewing Lego Star Wars II way back in 2009; glad to see you're still putting out quality FACs. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - lead image needs an expanded FUR, particularly in terms of purpose of use. I would also suggest using the original source rather than the forum. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about now, Nikkimaria? Tezero (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better. I would prefer if it explicitly stated that it is used in the infobox. Nikkimaria (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tezero (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • I have a problem with only one sentence: "Ideas for other zones came from the likes of Sonic Riders, locations in São Paulo, the concept of Sonic being high on sugar, and a Sonic-style song called "Combat Night Zone" by electronic artist MaxieDaMan.": I don't know what the sentence is saying. What does it mean that an idea comes from a location in São Paulo? And what's a "location in São Paulo"? A neighborhood, a business, something nearby? In what way was a zone inspired by a song?
  • None of that's explained in the sources. LakeFeperd's a creative guy, I guess. Tezero (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the source doesn't succeed in communicating a coherent idea (as often happens), leave it out of the article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the sources do give those helpful bits about his inspiration. They don't say how, but that often isn't the case. It's just that it seems odd to you and me for a game to be inspired by a city or a song, but it happens. Tezero (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I see you've included the source text in the refs, perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approbation": disapproval, or intent to take legal action?
  • Disapproval. I believe intent to take legal action pretty much would be the cease-and-desist order mentioned. Tezero (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review from GamerPro64[edit]

  • Setting this up to look over the sources used in this article. I'll get it all down real soon. GamerPro64 21:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have overlooked it even though I went through the reference at least six times but Reference 3c and d don't seem to have the information in the citation. 3d I can almost let slide since it can almost go without saying that Sonic Chrono Adventure takes place between Sonic 3 and 'Sonic & Knuckles. But I just can't find the mentioning of the addition of new items in the reference. Maybe I went past it so correct me if I'm wrong. GamerPro64 21:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I guess I couldn't find it, either. I've actually just removed the citation, because the Kirby powerups mentioned right afterward are new ones. Tezero (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for Citation 3, when it mentions 640,000 copies of Sonic Lost World being sold, it specifically mentions the Wii U version. Probably should add that part in. GamerPro64 21:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Citation 5, are you referencing the game itself? GamerPro64 22:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it was for some details about the gameplay not covered in secondary sources or the game's text but that someone at the peer review insisted on including, with the implication that the article would be incomplete and he would oppose otherwise. I don't feel strongly either way. Tezero (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that its a problem overall. I guess it can work. Sometimes playing a game can help with understanding it more. I think that the sources Pass now. GamerPro64 00:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2014 [17].

Noye's Fludde[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC) and Alfietucker (Talk)[reply]

Britten's short church opera, based on the biblical story of Noah and the Flood, has delighted performers and audiences for more than half a century. Among its memorable moments is the great storm, during which the human and animal occupants of the ark pray for salvation in the words of the hymn "Eternal Father, strong to save". Throughout, the mix of conventional and improvised instruments create a vivid sound picture, from the portentious opening to the redemptive finale. If you've not heard it before, listen if you get the chance. The article has been thoroughly reviewed at PR (comments here). My conom Alfietucker and I will welcome further suggestions or criticisms. Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was one of the peer reviewers. Well worthy. Just getting in ahead of the Fludde.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review help and support, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Second wave, just behind Wehwalt: I was also one of the peer reviewers. My few quibbles – none of them of much consequence – were all dealt with fully there. This is a fine article, a pleasure to read, comprehensive, carefully proportioned and balanced, with a wide range of sources, fully cited. Images are as good as can be, given copyright constraints, and the judicious use of quote boxes breaks the text up nicely. I mean it as a compliment to the co-nominators when I say that this top-notch article almost overcame my allergy to the piece – a very considerable achievement. Certainly an article to grace the front page. – Tim riley talk 18:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I am sorry we could not fully overcome your irrational aversion to this delightful piece, but give it time, give it time. Your help in reading and reviewing the article is greatly appreciated, in amy event. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I was another satisfied reviewer at PR, and thought then (or prematurely) that this article was of FA standard. Interesting, concise, and very well written are just three of the reasons as to why this article should wear the gold star. Cassiantotalk 06:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Yet another happy sailor from PR turning up to the swell of admiration for this excellent article. A subsequent re-run shows the few minor changes since I reviewed have only strengthened the article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add my thanks to Brian's - I share his pleasure that you have all enjoyed the article so much. Many of you have helped a great deal already with your feedback at PR, and to have your appreciative comments here is a wonderful reward for what has been a fairly intensive yet pleasurable process. Alfietucker (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I've not been involved in this process before but I do think that this is a terrific article and I would be pleased to see it featured.
Can I mention a couple of minor gripes, please? (With apologies if they have already been discussed but I missed it.) The subsection "Performance requirements" seems to be overfond of "respective" and "respectively", which I fear add little or nothing. In this one I think it's literally nothing that is added: "There is a dance or ballet involving two child performers playing the roles respectively of the raven and the dove." Surely "respectively" would only make sense here if the two child performers were somehow differentiated; male and female, tall and short, do and don't like bluegrass music? Without anything to enable us to get a cigarette paper between the two, I feel that "respectively" is redundant; no less information is conveyed here: "There is a dance or ballet involving two child performers playing the roles of the raven and the dove." Or am I missing the point? It would not be the first time.
My next small beef is with "respective" in this sentence: "The young musicians play a variety of instruments, including a full string ensemble with each section led by a respective member of the professional string quintet." This inflames my perhaps not fully rational hatred of "respective" quite badly, making me shout at my inoffensive computer, "well of course they bl**dy are!" I can't see how this is better, or rather, not worse, than "The young musicians play a variety of instruments, including a full string ensemble with each section led by a member of the professional string quintet." If BB had specified that the cellos should be led by the first violin and so on then it would be remarkable; but he did not, and we certainly do not need telling this. I could write more, but should probably not. Please consider looking again at these two wordings, and I again I apologize if I am missing some crucial nuance. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your feedback, DBaK: you're absolutely right on both counts and I've made the amends. As a matter of fact, at the first production the Raven was danced by a boy, and the Dove by a girl, so it's sometimes said that the roles are traditionally assigned respectively to these genders; I seem to remember we may even have said this in the article at one stage, but that has - probably quite rightly (e.g. the lead female character of Moonrise Kingdom plays the Raven) - been edited out. Alfietucker (talk) 10:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much; that's great. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bugles – Sorry, me again.
(1) why do we specify that they are B-flat bugles? We may or may not need to; I honestly don't know ... BUT if we do, why do we specify it in that particular place? They are mentioned plenty of times before and their pitch is not specified, and it sure as anything hasn't changed! :) and
(2) is no more known about the writing and performance of the bugle parts? I see and like what we have, and it fits the general picture of the am/pro/what's available thing, but I just wondered if anything else citeable and interesting had been said about it. For example the parts are not that easy - that written B-flat, a rather flat 7th harmonic, is something that doesn't really show up in bugle music, most of which stops at the 6th harmonic, the written G. Buglers will have spent years trying NOT to play it! And in context it's very exciting, but probably not that easy to find for a young player. Did anyone talk about it, or how the buglers coped, or whether they craftily had a pro or two go and help out? :) Sorry to go on but I'm a trumpet player and it's of some interest, not least because it's yet another example (see Fanfare for St Edmundsbury and Serenade for Tenor, Comma, Horn and Strings inter alia) of BB's absolutely divine genius grasp of writing for natural(/ish) brass. I'm shutting up for a while now. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) The point here is not that the bugles are in B flat, but that they are playing fanfares in B flat, which are followed by the key changes explained in subsequent sentences. I have changed this accordingly to make it clear.
2) Maybe this is a little too involved for the article, but FWIW I've looked at the score, and I see that in the fanfare played at the end of the animals' march into the ark, the lead bugle plays a high A flat (i.e. this would be a flattened 7th in the key of B flat). Is this what you mean by the "that written B-flat"? (i.e. would the actual bugle parts be written in C? In which case that written "B flat" would sound A flat when played. I ask as someone who doesn't play the bugle.) Otherwise I believe it's all straightforward fanfaring in B flat (certainly for the remaining three players), and as they are bugles in B flat that doesn't seem exceptional. Or have I misunderstood your point? Alfietucker (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that.
(1) Exactly. That small change seems amazingly effective. Thank you!
(2) No, you've understood me well thanks. I've seen the score and recorder (don't ask) parts but not the bugle parts; but it is vanishingly unlikely that they are written in anything other than a transposing B-flat, making them to appear to the players as if in C so yes, my written B-flat is the sounding A-flat to which you refer. I'm sorry if I was unclear about this. I don't think that they are exceptionally hard parts but as I say the written B-flat might upset the applecart a little with young or inexperienced players. I was hoping that BB had written/said something about it or someone else had written that "Ben was upset that the buglers found the A-flat so difficult to pitch and had Ernie Hall come in and play with them" or whatever. BUT I cheerfully acknowledge that this is a bit of a specialist taste for a generalist article and if nothing springs to mind - and I have also not yet found anything interesting, scandalous or helpful in my books - then it can and should absolutely be left and forgotten, and I will go and put the kettle on. Thanks again and best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS I do now rather wish that I had asked [dropped name removed] about the bugling when I had the chance, but it is a bit too late now! :( DBaK (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Can I add my thanks to Alfie's for your contribution here, and for your support. My online time is very limited at the moment so I can't say more, except that as you have been contributing since 2002 I'm surprised I haven't encountered you before – or perhaps I have. Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review All image seem validly in the public domain.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Any reason why Ref 24 and 46 use a different name format?
    • In Ref 24, the original publication and date are already given in the footnote itself - but I see your point re consistency. I've amended accordingly.
  • Ref 72 and 73 are newspapers, so need ‘work’ or ‘newspaper’ parameter. Author for 72 missing.
  • Full stop at the end of "Operabase.com list of performances from 1 January 2011 and forward Retrieved 13 August 2013" Lemonade51 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for your feedback, Lemonade 51: I've now made the amendments. Alfietucker (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2014 [18].

Harry Glicken[edit]

Nominator(s): ceranthor 19:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A brilliant guy who just rubbed people the wrong way, Glicken was a first-rate scientist and one strange dude. Besides the first image in the infobox (still searching for its original source), I think this is all set to become an FA. ceranthor 19:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Comments: I intended to peer-review this, but got caught up with other things. Here are a few initial comments, concerning the lead. I'll add a few more, later.

  • "notably blamed himself" - lose the adverb, per WP:EDITORIAL
  • "...who had switched shifts with Glicken so that he could attend an interview." Presently ambiguous as to who went to the interview. Suggest replace "he" with "the latter"
  • "per his parents' wishes": it would be better to replace the informal shorthand "per" with its actual meaning: "in accordance with".
  • "Despite a long-term interest in working for the United States Geological Survey, Glicken never received a permanent post there because employees found him bizarre". I think "bizarre" is too loaded a word in an encyclopedia article, especially with no further explanation. Perhaps "because of a reputation for eccentricity" or some such.
  • There's a vastly overlong sentence, beginning "Conducting independent research..." that needs subdividing.

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be resolved. ceranthor 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
  • "in 1980" followed by "In 1980"
  • Over-referencing in first line of "Early work" – 2 citations for his graduation, separate citations for "graduate student" and Univ. of California.
  • "previously dormant" – just "dormant"
  • "He became so distraught that he refused to accept Johnston's death,[4] requiring comfort from Don Swanson to eventually calm down." Kind of clunky. May I suggest: "In his distraught state, Glicken refused to accept Johnston's death, and was comforted by Swanson before calming down".
  • We could do with a few more date indicators: "the summer after the eruption" makes a look back to find the year, and thereafter, zilch in this section
  • Again "who found him bizarre". See my comment above over the use of this word. "Who found his behavioral oddities unsettling" would I think be acceptable.
  • Suggest avoid "...Unzen. Unzen..."
  • I wonder why you've pipe-linked "eruptive activity" in relation to Mt Unzen rather than with the earlier example of Mt St Helens
  • "near the end of May." – year?
  • "the niche grew" – unclear, further explanation required
  • "extremely detailed and comprehensive work" –delete the adverb

Will finish tomorrow Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Think I addressed all the clear-cut ones. Two ones I just want to make sure I took care of:
  1. The dates. In general the dates are hazy for Glicken's research, but he basically spent summer 1980 through 1989 working at St. Helens as far as I can discern. If I need to dig around for more clear dates, feel free to ask me to do so. Did some digging, and found out that the latest source referenced in his report is from 1986. This would imply he was done with all of his research by 1986, but that would be original research unless I can find it elsewhere, I should think.
  2. The niche. I tweaked this to say that research in the niche grew, but essentially this sentence means that volcanic debris avalanches became recognized as a widespread phenomenon and he inspired people to conduct research in such a specialized field.
Thanks for your comments so far! ceranthor 02:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final
  • "...was later published in 1996 a single report by his acquaintances..." – is there an "as" missing after 1996? I would actually make this a separate sentence: "It was later published" etc
  • "comprises" rather than "compiles" (reports don't "compile")
  • "painstakingly" – another editorial adverb for the chop
  • "In his work for the report..." Verbose: either delete, or "In the report,..."
  • "Glicken's father, Milton" – no need to name him again
  • "After ... says" does not work. "After ... said". I'm not sure that Dad's words are worth quoting verbatim, though
  • Likewise, "keen" is a commonplace term that shouldn't be in quotes.
  • Conversely, if you are going to use the word "crazy", then this should be in quotes, provided the word is used in the source. If it isn't the word should not be used.
  • The examples of his odd social behavior look out of place in a "Legacy" section. Here's a suggestion: change section title to "Tributes and legacy"; drop the last anecdotal three sentences; move the sentence beginning "Chatty, noted for ..." up so that it becomes the second sentence in the paragraph. Then move the whole paragraph so that it is the first, rather than the last, in the section. That way, the section builds towards a summary of Glicken's achievements and status, rather than ending anti-climactically, with examples of his oddness.
  • Footnote 1: I wonder if it is worth including a footnote to highlight such a small difference in the death toll between the two sources? I think I'd just say 42 or 43 in the text, and cite both sources.

This is an engaging account of the short life of someone who clearly made an impressive contribution to volcanology – a subject of which I have no knowledge, but the necessary technical detail is clearly explained. Once my remaining concerns are addressed, I see no barriers to the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've taken care of these all appropriately. I replaced crazy with a quote, which refers to him as a nut. Thanks so much for all your help, Brian! ceranthor 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
  • Ref 11: the titlein the ref does not mach the title in the source. Is the link to the right article?
  • Ref 33: appears to link to an unrelated article
  • Be consistent in including publisher locations in source book descriptions.

Otherwise all sources look of appropraite quality, are properly formatted, and all links are working. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to the sources fixes mentioned above. I have not checked images. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be fixed. I replaced the USGS ref with the newly-linked GVP page. I hope you don't mind that I changed your header to a ; style heading. Thanks so much for your input and support, Brian. ceranthor 23:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Crisco. I'm working on the first two images, which are both from USGS websites which were recently redesigned and thus it'll take me a little while to find the new location for all this information. I'll get back to you on the third image. ceranthor 04:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking for information on the first two. As for the third one, I'm a bit confused with the second half of your comment. Which volcano do you mean... the one in the image? ceranthor 02:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the engraved volcano. Someone may take issue with the photograph affixed to the plaque, but I say it's easily de minimis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think that's resolved then. As for the first two images, Nikkimaria has attested to their integrity here. What else needs to be done? ceranthor 02:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. For the first image, I think we still need an information template (source, when the image was taken, etc.). For the third... I think it's best if we replaced it with something else, to be safe. Do you have any other images? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco prose comments
    • Per WP:LEADLENGTH, this should preferably have only two paragraphs in the lead.
    • To date, Glicken and Johnston remain the only two American volcanologists known to have perished in volcanic eruptions. - What exactly is "two" adding? Not particularly necessary, in my opinion. Also, "To date" is when exactly?
    • Glicken accrued expertise in the field of volcanic debris avalanches. He also wrote several major publications on the topic, including his doctoral dissertation based on his research at St. Helens titled "Rockslide-debris Avalanche of May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens Volcano, Washington" that initiated widespread interest in the phenomenon. Since being published posthumously by Glicken's colleagues in 1996, the report has been acknowledged by many other publications on debris avalanches. - this kinda renders the above clause "noted for his expertise on volcanic debris avalanches." unnecessary, at least partially. Perhaps a way to be less redundant?
    • Absolutely nothing about his childhood? Why he went into volcanology?
    • During the summer after the eruption in May of 1980, - clunky and against WP:SEASONS. "In mid-1980" is so much simpler
    • I think linking US states is WP:overlinking. Thoughts?
    • Glicken quickly earned recognition as the first geologist to explain the creation of hummock fields near tall volcanoes. - what does "quickly" add here? I think you could lose it without changing the meaning too much
    • In the years following the eruption, ... - this paragraph might look better in the next section, especially since that's only a single paragraph
    • In the months after its first activity, it had been erupting sporadically, - why the past perfect continuous? The simple past tense would work as well and be less complicated
    • 41–42 people died in the incident - Recommend a footnote as to why estimates vary
    • seminal - sounds weaselly. Better to have a direct quote
    • being considered one of the foremost experts in the field. - by whom?
    • One of his friends writes, - who?
Source doesn't say. Just "'Harry was a character his whole life,' recalled a friend from the St. Helens days."
    • that he was "totally absorbed" with volcanology. - again, why?
Source doesn't say.
    • When did the university establish the fund?
Source doesn't say.
    • I'd use "Cite Journal" for his major publications. Keeps them nice and neat. Kinda like Lie Kim Hok's bibliography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crisco! I'm on vacation at the moment, but I'll be sure to get to them by this weekend. A response to one of your comments... the 41-42 estimate had a footnote, but brianboulton recommended removing it, so I'd rather not readd it. ceranthor 23:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet at the time he commented it was 42–43? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was just a typo... the sources say either 41 or 42. ceranthor 15:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly done with these prose comments. In the process of sorting out responses to a few, and fixing the rest! :) Nothing about his childhood, unfortunately... people knew him as an adult and for his career. "To date" is a phrase meaning to current time, so I think it's fine as is. ceranthor 15:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To date" means whenever you wrote that text, so something like July 2014. If in, say October 2015, another volcanologist is killed (hopefully not; this is just an example), and the text reads "to date" until January 2016, then it is not accurate. There's a more detailed overview at Wikipedia:As of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not a big deal. ceranthor 15:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay everything including images should be fixed. I don't have a substitute for the third image, so I guess I'll have to leave that section without an image. ceranthor 16:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I've made one further change (WP:SEASON applies to Summer, not May). Support on prose and images. Looks like a good biography of this interesting individual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, Crisco, and of course your support! ceranthor 03:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "and was comforted by Swanson before calming down": I can't get an image here; what does the source say about this?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Lively writing. Very little for a copyeditor to do. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank, and thanks very much for your support. As for your comment, I changed it to "had to be comforted". The source says "Early in the evening Swanson was asked to talk with the man who had been on duty [...] Glicken was overwhelmed with guilt and grief. Swanson did not particularly want to talk to the inconsolable man. [...] 'It's not your fault,' Swanson said." That, of course skips some of the fluff, but that's the essence of what Parchman says. ceranthor 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Thanks again to you, Brian and Crisco for making the job easy here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for the compliment. :) ceranthor 20:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 05:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Frédéric Chopin[edit]

Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the composer and pianist Frédéric Chopin. The subject is listed as a level 3 vital article; although the article has been subject to some alarums and excursions in the past it has now been stable for quite some while. The peer review has been supportive and constructive, and I am grateful to those who participated. Now that the suggestions of reviewers have been generally adopted, (and reasons offered in the few cases where they where not), I believe it to be at, or very close, to FA status. I look forward to comments. Thanks, - Smerus (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've contributed a fair bit to this so I'm unwilling to assume the stance of a reviewer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A very well researched and engaging article. All my comments were well addressed at the PR. --Stfg (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support: I, too, was active at the peer review stage, during which the article was pretty thoroughly worked over. A couple of final quibbles:
Resolved concerns from Brian Boulton
  • There are a few uncited statements at the ends of paragraphs. See, for example "Death and funeral", 2nd paragraph: "Later that morning, Solange's husband Clésinger made Chopin's death mask and a cast of his left hand." In the Music section the first "Overview" para is uncited, as is the last part of the final Overview paragraph. There are a few other instances; in some cases it may be more a case of adjusting the position of the citation rather than adding a new one.
  • A suggestion: short quotations, e.g. Liszt's remark in the "Franz Liszt" section, are best kept within the main prose, rather than as blockquotes. Short blockquotes give the prose an unnecessarily fragmented appearance, especially when there are two close together, as in the "Technique and performance style" section.

These are small matters. I have no hesitation in supporting the article's promotion to FAC, subject to the usual source and image clearances. An excellent composer biography. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. I think I have now dealt with the points you mention.--Smerus (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. A fine article; I also commented at the peer review. Reading through again I see a couple of minor points:

Resolved concerns from Mike Christie
  • "Even in early childhood, Chopin was of slight build and prone to illnesses": perhaps "Chopin was of slight build, and even in early childhood was prone to illnesses"? I don't think his build should be in the scope of "even" here.
  • "It quickly became apparent that he was a child prodigy, and by the age of seven Fryderyk had begun giving public concerts, and in 1817 he composed two polonaises, in G minor and B-flat major": two consecutive "and" conjunctions in one sentence. I think a full stop after "prodigy" and then "By the age..." might be better.
  • On re-reading I realize that you don't mention whether he was raised speaking French; it's apparent later in the article that he could speak it, but preferred Polish. If he was raised to be bilingual perhaps that could be mentioned in either the "Childhood" or "Education" sections.Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • "where, for the last time in his life, he met his parents": you have "met" three times in quick succession here, and in any case "met" has the wrong connotations for a visit to his parents. How about "where he spent time with his parents; it was the last time he would see them"?
  • I think Arthur Hedley should be identified when his opinion is given: "Musicologist Arthur Hedley". (I don't think this sort of attributive description is necessary everywhere -- for example, in the Polish heritage section, you introduce a paragraph with "Some modern commentators", which serves to characterize each of the writers you then quote; and in the Form and harmony section I think there is sufficient implication that the opinions are from musicologists or historians of music.) Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • "But they also require a formidable playing technique": The "But" seems unnecessary to me.
  • Attributing an opinion to "Grove Music Online" in the text of the article seems odd -- wouldn't it be better to give the names of the authors of that article? E.g "musicologists Michałowski and Samson"?

All very minor points in a very impressive article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have responded to many, but not yet all, of your comments in the article text. I'm now away for a few days, so intend to catch up on these and any other comments on my return.--Smerus (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the points you've dealt with and switched to support above; the two remaining points are very minor and it would not affect my support if you don't agree. It's great to see such an important article make it to this level of quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I had one minor query about the comprehensiveness of the literature consulted, but on second thoughts that's just nitpicking that wouldn't have stopped me from supporting anyway. Excellent article. And thank you, because it is an important one. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda[edit]

Impressive, written with knowledge and enthiusiasm! Some minor points for consideration (I will not mention my major one again, it's on the article talk), and more may come up once I have more time:

Resolved concerns from Gerda Arendt

Lead

  • "He gained and has maintained renown worldwide as one of the leading musicians of his era" seems needlessly complicated. I doubt that we can say "He maintained" of a dead person. No, this is perfectly OK English usage
  • "Chopin was born in what was then the Duchy of Warsaw, and grew up in Warsaw, which after 1815 became part of Congress Poland." Consider to just say "Chopin grew up in Warsaw." and leave the rest of politics to the article. We want to get to music! I believe this is necessary as there has been much discussion on precise description of his origins.
  • "During the last 18 years of his life, ..." - A reader who forgot his year of death may not realize that there is no break in the chronology.Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • How about songs to Polish lyrics? I would not click "song" otherwise, thinking that I know what a song is. Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • insurrection? - I didn't know the word, but you don't have to adjust your style to people limited in language who would profit from a you-know-what.This is perfectly OK English usage

Childhood

  • "Chopin was of slight build, and even in early childhood was prone to illnesses." - "even in early childhood"? how about something like "already in early childhood"? This is perfectly OK English usage

Education

  • "and on this instrument in May 1825 he performed his own improvisation" - long time until a verb appears, almost German This is perfectly OK English usage
  • "the Leipzig Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung praised his "wealth of musical ideas"" - the paper certainly wrote not in English Gerda, this seems a quite superfluous comment - the quote is cited - we don't give every quotation in the orginal language - this is English WP, so it would be pointless to give the original German'
@Smerus: I was wondering if Gerda was referring to the fact that, as those are not the exact words but a translation, the quotes are unnecessary (i.e. the translation serves as paraphrasing). Just a thought. --Stfg (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Stfg:, if so do we have to somehow rework Chopin writing "It should be like dreaming in beautiful springtime – by moonlight", and "O God! ... You are there, and yet you do not take vengeance!", or Fétis writing "Here is a young man who ... taking no model, has found, if not a complete renewal of piano music, ... an abundance of original ideas of a kind to be found nowhere else ...", etc. etc. etc.? If you remove the quotation marks from "wealth of musical ideas", you make the phrase look like a rewording - actually it is a translation representing the exact words used (as are the Chopin and Fetis quotes I have cited in this comment and which are used in the article). The original text is "ein Reichtum musikalischer Ideen", exactly equivalent to the translation and not a paraphrase; and for this reason I believe it is best left as is.--Smerus (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerus: good point. Fair enough. --Stfg (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why "Piano Concerto no. 1? vs. No. 1 Now dealt with 27.7.14.

So far for now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travel ...

  • I am oldfashioned regarding imagelocation and dislike images left under a header. We don't yet know who the Radziwills are, and it's too small to show. Radziwill is linked immediately to the right of the picture, i.e. in the3 same paragraph where the pic is located, but I have added a link in the picture caption for those who can't be bothered to read the text. Your own predilections for picture positioning (with which by the way I disagree) are not I think a criterion for FA.
  • He premieres the piano concerto, - do we know anything about the composition process? This article is about Chopin, not the detailed processes of composition of his works. I know of nothing particularly interesting to add here - in any case the concerto is one of his least original works, as the article mentions.

Paris

  • The image of Maria appears well before her mentioning in the text. I disagree; she is in the second para on the right of the picture, which starts within the picture area. To move the pic to the top of the para referring to her would involve disrupting the next section which would be contrary to FA criteria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of my comments. I am sorry that I missed the PR, questions are just questions, they don't question the FA quality. I guess that the reactions of a non-native speaker might be of interest. - For the following, a simple "English" will tell me "This is perfectly OK English usage." - Image placement is not "my own" but as it was recommended until quite recently, and still makes sense to me. I will not repeat that for the images in "Music". All questions above are resolved but one:

  • Back to the newspaper: "the Leipzig Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung praised his "wealth of musical ideas"" - the paper certainly wrote not in English, I would prefer it without a quote, "the Leipzig Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung praised his wealth of musical ideas". @Gerda Arendt:, I disagree strongly with your preference here - see my comments re Sftg's note on this for my more detailed reasoning and justification.
accepted, I forgot that you might have trouble with copyvio ;)
  • In Music: Maurice Schlesinger and similar, - I would consider to link them again, for readers who jump there without reading the biography. Different readers have different interests. I have some sympathy with this, but then some other editor will complain about overlinking - I have had this problem before when articles are up for promotion. Safer to leave as is, perhaps? If there are any other editors with opinions on this, I would be glad to hear from them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see readers being interested just in music, and I have seen new linking in a major paragraph of longer FA articles, such as BWV 172 where the instruments are linked in the lead, the infobox and the scoring section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will look through and link some of the more recherché characters.--Smerus (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
now done!--Smerus (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Now Music:

Overview

  • I expect an overview, not first thing an image with a caption of one specific type of composition. Can that image go to where Polonaise is mentioned?We are now dealing with music, and here is a piece of music, so I think this is OK. If you have enormously strong feelings, I am happy to delete the pic.
Don't delete! I would prefer it on the right, as an illustration rather than the first statement. GA
  • Do all readers assume that songs are part of chamber music, or could they be mentioned separately? Agree- done
  • If chamber music has a link, how about Bach and Italian opera also? Agree- done
  • "Much of what became his typical style of ornamentation ... is taken from singing. His melodic lines were increasingly reminiscent of the modes and features of the music of his native country, such as drones"- I am not happy with "is" vs. "were" but can't even describe why.Perhaps because you are not a native English speaker

Form and harmony

  • "The preludes, many of which are very brief, (some consisting of simple statements and developments of a single theme or figure), ..." can we drop the brackets?We could, but that would make the sentence as a whole less clear.

Form and harmonyPolish heritage

  • Bach is linked here, but not before in Music. Corrected

Reception and influence

  • "A less fraught friendship was with Alkan, with whom he discussed elements of folk music, and who was deeply affected by Chopin's death." - first he, then Chopin, - rewording? I don't see any issue here- this is a straightforward English sentence; 'with whom' and 'who' both clearly refer to Alkan.
I would not exactly call it "straightforward" but it's clear, - just strange for me that "Chopin" first appears as a pronoun, later as the name. GA

I guess that several people and institutions will eventually get articles and then be linked. Thank you for what we have already! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My points addressed, thank you! Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Image review[edit]

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
I found it once and removed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Frederic_Chopin_photo.jpeg: what is the copyright status of the original unrestored image? Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • File:CHopin_SIgnature.svg: bluntly, nothing on the image description page is right Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • File:Mikołaj_Chopin.jpg: artist's date of death? Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • File:Franz_Liszt_by_Herman_Biow-_1843.png: source link is dead, needs US PD tag Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • File:Chopinamqsop53.jpg: possible to include a more specific source? 'Private collection' means just that , i.e. collection/collector not revealed to public. This is a standard form of reference in academic works etc. where the owner does not wish to be made public.
  • Sound files should include licensing tag for original composition (all PD by now) as well as the performance Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • File:Op_62-1ms.jpg needs US PD tag Now dealt with 27.7.14.
  • File:Pere-Lachaise_Chopin_grave.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, we need to include a licensing tag for the monument itself as well as the photo. Now dealt with 27.7.14. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, Gerda Arendt and Nikkimaria, I think I have now dealt with all outstanding comments (see notes in red following comments)--Smerus (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

Resolved sources review issues from Brianboulton
Citations
  • Ref 4: The linked document is undefined, no source information. The citation should be properly formatted. Deleted this as I couldn't find satisfactory source information.
  • Ref 20 and many others: you need to employ a consistent page range format. Compare 12, 20, 38, 48 and lots more. done: have reviewed all Zamoyski citations in this light.
  • Ref 25: This would be better as a full citation, as with ref. 93 The information you mention was alreay in the text, but I have rewritten this to clarify.
  • Ref 34: This does not look like a reliable source, nor o I think citation to it is necessary Deleted this - following cite also covers this issue.
  • Ref 92: In the bibliography this is "Zaluski, Iwo and Pamela" Done.
  • Ref 104: This is not a citation, its a direction to another WP article. The information on Chopin's illness needs to be cited, here, to a reliable source. I have deleted the WP article redirect, since it is already linked at the start of the paragraph. The citation at the end of the paragraph carries the relevant information.
  • Ref 112: What makes this source reliable? (Now mote 109). I think this is OK - it's the website of a well-known published series of handbooks, of which the webpages are extracts. I.e. I think an acceptable secondary source, as any serious guide book would be, for factual information of this sort (as opposed to speculation about characters, motives, etc.).
  • Ref 118: format (lacks "p.")Done.
  • Ref 120: Ditto Done.
  • Ref 131: The link is no longer working New cite, and revised text
  • Ref 161: Comment as for 25 Done.
  • Ref 170: Should be Atwood (unless all the other refs to this source are wrong)Done. and corrected article text as well.
  • Ref 186: Source does not support all the information cited to it, e.g. no mention of the Milan 1901 performance. Also, the writer of the source says "I tried to find more on the internet but could only come up with the information on Wikipedia, quoted in the first paragraph above". So I don't think this source qualifies as reliable.Sorted - I think this opera surely deserves an article of its own, if I can acquire enough info..
Bibliography
  • There is inconsistency in providing publisher locations Done (I think).
  • I could not find citations to the following sources listed:
  • Chopin: 19 most popular pieces
  • Chopin 1973
  • Chopin 1993
  • Eisler
  • Siepmann Removed all these.

Otherwise sources seem to be of appropriate quality. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton:, I believe I have now covered these issues. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough by me. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Piotrus[edit]

  • Object.
Issues from Piotrus - and responses
  1. As discussed at Talk:Frédéric_Chopin/Archive_12#Few_pre-GA_comments, I still believe that that the phrases French citizenship and French passport should be linked. The argument that those articles cover only 20th century development is irrelevant; they should and will eventually be expanded to discuss 19th century ones, and are valid links.Disagree: such links would be misleading. If the articles are rewritten as you predict links can be made at that time/
  2. I also stand by my pre-GA comment that this article fails to adhere to WP:RED. To enumerate the problems:
    polonaise in A-flat major is still not linked. Smerus argued that not all works of Chopin are notable. I disagree. Quoting from Notability policy for books: "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." I think the same principle should apply for musical pieces, and for a composer of Chopin's stature, anything he composed should be blue or red linked. Another link missing would be in the sentence "he played the piano for the Duke and composed a march for him"; pl wiki identifies this as pl:Marsz wojskowy (Chopin).These and all other comments made in this section refer to a variety of non-crucial items for which there are no articles on English Wikipedia. Contrary to User:Piotrus's belief, it is not a condition of FA status that every person, noun, or work of art be given a link. If the articles Pitorus discusses are later created on Eng;ish WP, links can be given at the time. By the way, the blue link he gives at the start of this comment is to a disambiguation page: blue links are given in the article as appropriate to the actual polonaises referred to.
    eolomelodicon may be notable
    Emilia Chopin has an article on pl:Emilia Chopin and is probably notable, here's a long English bio: [19] See above
  3. Back in the pre-GA review I've identified a number of factoids from pl wiki that should be added here. I was not impressed back then when Smerus dismissed them saying that most of them are trivial. I'll repeat some of them here:Factoids I agree is the right word
    one of his teachers in his youth was Wilhelm Würfel See above: also my note at the foot of these comments.
    according to pl wiki, 1818 saw the first significant review of him, published in pl:Pamiętnik Warszawski (1815-1823). This is referenced on pl wiki to "Kazimierz Wierzyński: Życie Chopina. Białystok: Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1990, p. 33. ISBN 83-03-03117-1."See above
    "Nasze Przebiegi... Pl wiki notes that a work of Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz (unnamed there) was actually a critique of a society, instead of a praise for Chopin. It was also inspired by an event/concert that drew many notable individuals, and did contribute to Ch.'s popularity. I think we should discuss this further, with the stress not on JUN's work but on the original event itself.See above
    " their spoofing of the Warsaw newspapers" - pl wiki identifies the newspaper as Kurier WarszawskiSee above
    "In September 1828 Chopin, while still a student, visited Berlin ". According to pl wiki, he already went to Berlin in 1826, which our article does not mention. Is that prior trip trivial while this one is less so?See above
    Pl wiki notes that he spent his last three days in Poland in Kalisz. Earlier, on 2 November, the date of his leaving Warsaw, he was celebrated by his friends, including his teacher Elsner, who composed a cantata for his pupil. This is hardly a trivia.See above
    The November Uprising inspired the Étude Op. 10, No. 12 (Chopin).This is often asserted, but as mentioned in he article there is no evidence for this assertion.
    Those sources are not that difficult to find: Ashton Jonson (January 2013). A Handbook to Chopin's Works. BoD – Books on Demand. pp. 30–. ISBN 978-3-95507-929-1. seems quite sufficient, but there are more: Carl Turco (1 October 2010). Life Is Gray: A Story of Love, Pain, War and the Enduring Human Spirit. Carl Turco. pp. 203–}quote=It seems well established that No. 12 of Opus 10, “ The Revolutionary Etude, ” was written under the stress of emotion caused by the news of the taking of Warsaw by the Russians, which took place in September 1831. ISBN 978-0-7414-6200-8. Here's a Polish source: Artur Nadolski (2008). Pani Chłodna: (opowieść o warszawskiej ulicy). Bellona. pp. 103–. GGKEY:PPQESZBUL6A. Wyrazem jego stosunku do powstania było skomponowanie w 1831 roku słynnej etiudy c-mol „Rewolucyjnej". Here's another one ("Tymczasem Etiuda rewolucyjna powstała dopiero jesienią 1831 r. pod wpływem wiadomości o upadku Powstania Listopadowego." [http://books.google.com/books?id=lbkHAQAAMAAJ Chopin Studies. Frederick Chopin Society. 2000. p. 96. ISBN 978-83-85981-85-5. may be a good page to read, but Google only gives me snippets. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    according to pl wiki, while in Paris he lived at Rue de la Chaussée-d'AntinSee above
    according to pl wiki, while in Paris he had notable pupils (royalty or at least high nobility as well as notable musicians; "princesses de Noailles, de Chimay, de Beauvau, baroness Rothschild, countesses Peruzzi, Potocka. Future musicioans Karolina Hartmann, Karol Filtsch, and his friend Adolf Gutmann.See main comment above

Seeing as my recommendations back then regards adding red links and missing content from pl wiki were disregarded, I stopped my review of those two topics at the beginning of the "George Sand" section. I'd hope that they are given more serious attention this time. If they are sufficiently addressed, I'll resume my review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What User:Piotrus is saying is that he would have written the article differently. But he does not demonstrate that any of his points disqualify the article for FA status, which is a different matter. Furthermore he refers to a number of articles on Polish WP: I don't have fluent Polish, nor I suspect do most readers of Engish WP. More importantly for FA status, I have no way of assessing the reliability or otherwise of these articles or of their Polish sources, a key issue. Piotrus notes correctly that he has already raised many of these issues at GA review and elsewhere, when they did not meet with support from other editors. Some are without evidence (e.g. that the so-called 'Revolutionary etude' was inspired by the Warsaw rising). I thought about including Würfel, but whilst it is true that he knew the family, he did not, as the English WP article says, teach Chopin from 1823-6, because he returned to Prague in 1824; the source given here (Slonimsky) is wrong, and I find no reliable source suggesting that he had significant influence on Chopin. I do not see that any of the issues Piotrus has raised either controverts the tenor of the present article or adds to it anything of any significant value. I am afraid therefore that I continue to disagree with him.--Smerus (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article as written fails to be comprehensive; while I am open to discussion of individual points I raise, a blatant dismissal of all of them is not helpful. And the fact that Smerus disregarded my comments before doesn't make me feel better about it now, neither. With regards to MoS, fails to follow WP:RED, which the last time I checked is an accepted editing guideline and endorsed by MoS. Seeing as Smerus is dismissing my comments along the lines of "I don't want to expand the article further" and "I chose not to follow WP:RED", I sadly have to stand by my oppose. Speaking as a representative of WikiProject Poland, and in my view as an author of thousands of Polish related articles, this one is not ready to join a dozen or so other Polish topics that are featured. I applaud Smerus on getting this to a high quality standard (the article is without doubt much better than it was a year or so before he started working on it), but I don't believe your refusal to compromise on the issues I raise makes this work eligible for Featured status. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles should not have red links to topics that are not likely to have an article." (WP:RED). The onus therefore falls on Piotrus, if his objections are to be valid, to demonstrate the likelihood of articles on his factoids (his word). I happen to think it is is Piotrus who is unamenable to compromise, but I will be glad to see the opinions of others. --Smerus (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) OK, I'll bite. In general, I don't think it's helpful to say "according to pl wiki ...". There is no reason why an article in one wiki need follow an article in another wiki, and most of us won't be able to read Polish. Also, what is interesting to readers in one country is not necessarily of interest to those in another. The case for inclusion or exclusion of something should be made on its own merit, not on precedent. Turning to specific points:

  • The concepts French citizenship and French passport are clear enough. Wikilinks to them wouldn't aid understanding of the present article, so imo they shouldn't be linked.
  • Potential redlinks need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, not generically. I don't see the article failing to conform to WP:RED generically.
  • "1818 saw the first significant review of him ...": I have no strong view.
  • "Nasze Przebiegi...": I suggest taking this to the article talk page. This is a case where things suitable for pl.wiki may be unsuitable for en.wiki, since most of us can't read that source and thus cannot assess its significance.
  • "identifies the newspaper as Kurier Warszawski": ^F text search doesn't find where it says that, but it's in the second paragraph of the Pierwsze sukcesy section. Like the rest of that section, it's uncited, so we should not follow this.
  • 1826 visit to Berlin: our article says what happened of interest during the 1828 visit. pl.wiki's merely states that an 1826 visit occurred, not what happened, and imo this isn't enough to merit inclusion.
  • "spent his last three days in Poland in Kalisz. Earlier, on 2 November, the date of his leaving Warsaw, he was celebrated by his friends, including his teacher Elsner, who composed a cantata for his pupil": imo this is trivia; ymmv of course.
  • November uprising inspiring op10#12: we need to be careful here, because sources less than the best are prone to propagating urban myths. Ashton Jonson is published by DOGMA, about which I can discover nothing. The front material of the book mentions www.dogma.de, which is now something completely different (a space probe or something). The Turco is self-published through Infinity Publishing.com and is a work of fiction, therefore not RS. I don't have the language skills to evaluate the Polish sources.
  • lived at Rue de la Chaussée-d'Antin: trivia
  • list of pupils: several of his pupils are already mentioned in the article because of something relevant that they did. I don't see the point of a vanilla list of pupils, even notable ones, unless they contributed something to music history themselves later on. Princesses and countesses aren't interesting just because they are high society. Gutmann is already mentioned as a pupil. We don't have articles about Karolina Hartmann and Karol Filtsch, and I don't know whether they are notable or not. Further additions could be proposed on a case-by-case basis. This could be done at any time on the talk page, and imo it should not hold up the FAC.

Regards, --Stfg (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stfg I note all your points, especially the final one!--Smerus (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS as regards the so-called 'Revolutionary' etude - it was never given this name by Chopin and he never referred to it as such. I know of no musicological work or modern seriously researched respected biography which gives any reason for stating it was connected with the Uprising. I do not think WP should spread such stories without cast-iron evidence. And that evidence should be in English, so that English WP readers can check it (per WP:V).--Smerus (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PPS As regards "Nasze Przebiegi"... whatever this event signified, or signifies, to Poles is not relevant to this article, only that it was the occasion of a (cited) comment on Chopin by Niemciewicz.--Smerus (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: if something is now a red link but seems good for improving Chopin's article, make it blue. That could be a stub first, which eases the connection to the Polish article for those who can read it. I don't know what FA criteria think of {{ill}}, example Emilia Chopin, which turns automatically to a simple blue link once there's an article in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gerda . In principle I do not disagree with this approach. It's more that none of Piotrus's suggestions seem to me worthy of an article now or in the future, nor are any of them significant in the context of Chopin's life and career. A WP article is not a full-length biography or study. In fact at the GA stage, I actually wrote a number of articles on English WP at Piotrus's suggestion - perhaps he fails to recall this - including among others Tytus Woyciechowski, Jan Białobłocki, Jan Matuszyński and Société historique et littéraire polonaise - so that they could have blue links. They seemed to me to be interesting, and relevant enough to justify the work. The other topics listed by Piotrus in this review do not seem to me to have any great interest or relevance as regards Chopin. E.g. Emilia Chopin played no part in his life after childhood, and would scarcely merit an article even in Polish WP were it not for the fact that she was Fryderyk's sister - relationship, as you know, is not a justification for WP:NOTABLE. So I think it appropriate - regardless of FA considerations - to leave matters as they stand rather than to litter the article with red links which neither I, nor apparently anyone else, has a yen to turn blue. If it is a bar to FA status that everything potentially blue-linkable is not blue- (or red-) linked, then I think very few if any articles would ever get FA status. Most relevantly, nothing in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria requires this, and it is therefore not a valid reason in itself for objecting to FA status. If Piotrus feels so strongly about his topics then of course as long as he can justify WP:NOTABLE he is free to write the articles himself and insert blue-links.--Smerus (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree. I should have said more clearly that I was addressing Piotrus when I said "make it blue". I think that a sister, fiancée, dedicatée deserves an article if it sheds light on aspects of a person but is too much to be included in the person's article, but agree there is not much about Emilia even in Polish, different from Ottla Kafka, Felice Bauer and Giulietta Guicciardi, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good idea to create blue links when possible, but that should not stop us from creating red links. I've stubbed Emilia Chopin, whose notability is indeed borderline, and you are welcome to take it to AfD with no prejudice from me. Nonetheless, I do think that this article is under-red linked - I am not convinced that any piece of Chopin's music is non-notable, for example, and I'd still like to see some of the facts I listed above added to the article. I'll leave this to others to consider, and if the consensus is that my recommendations are not necessary, so be it. Once again, I do applaud Smerus on great work getting this so far - please remember that reviewers prime job is to nitpick :) Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:, many thanks for stubbing Emilia, I certainly won't take it to AfD! I understand where you are coming from, but, reinforced by the comments from Stfg and Gerda above, I believe I can defend the charge that the article as at present 'fails to be comprehensive'. The issues which you raise may be appropriate for a detailed academic study of Chopin (and in particular, for some of them, maybe a Polish one) but they do not feature in e.g. Grove or Britannica amongst leading English references, or in any of the other sources I have to hand. For myself I am happy that the article is comprehensive to the level of GA, and I am glad that other editors contributing to this discussion agree. That of course doesn't mean it can never be developed or improved, as you have demonstrated with Emilia, and I have just done by creating Chopin (opera) for a bluelink.--Smerus (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be taking it to AfD either, and would !vote Keep if anyone did. It's well enough sourced to meet GNG. Although notability isn't inherited, I think the two literary efforts mentioned in the article are enough to make her independently notable. Thanks Piotrus. --Stfg (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbing and red-link discussion[edit]

In related topic, I looked at pl wiki Chopin's category. I thought about stubbing pl:Tekla Justyna Chopin but I have doubts about her notability, so I won't even suggest red linking her for now. I think I'll try to DYK pl:Listy Fryderyka Chopina do Delfiny Potockiej, it's a nice story through perhaps not even something we have to link from the main Chopin's article. pl:Narodowy Instytut Fryderyka Chopina should be mentioned in the article if it isn't already (it's a major institution) and should be easily stubbable with English sources. pl:Rok Chopinowski probably is worth mentioning through English sources may be fewer; it is however interesting enough it should be there (probably with the rest of tributes and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Institute is mentioned in the article, and I will have a go at stubbing it.--Smerus (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Started.--Smerus (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since a bone of contention seems to be redlinks, has anyone considered using {{ill}} like in the current nomination Departures? It leaves a redlink, with a blue link to a foreign-language article on the topic (assuming there is one), then erases said foreign-language link once an article has been created here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Gerda's comment above (the one beginning "My two cents"). --Stfg (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. Curly Turkey just showed it to me a couple months ago and I've fallen in love with it. I wouldn't consider redlinks part of the FA criteria, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
Resolved concerns from Dank
  • "Two Polish friends in Paris were also to play important roles in Chopin's life there. His fellow student ...": The first sentence acts like a topic sentence for the next three sentences. I usually insert a paragraph break before such a sentence; any objections? There are other ways to handle it, if you object to short paragraphs (this would make the previous paragraph two sentences long). - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Alkan's teacher Zimmermann": There's a probably a style guideline somewhere that advises against giving the last name only at first occurrence (unless they were known that way, and he wasn't, judging from the lead of the given link).
  • "soon found success with publishers, and in 1833 he contracted with Maurice Schlesinger, who arranged for it to be published also in Germany and England": I'm thinking maybe you meant "with local publishers", which would make that "also" more natural. N'est-ce pas? - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the winter of 1844/5 ... continued to deteriorate, particularly from 1845 onwards": Not taking a position, but copyeditors are going to have various problems here. WP:SEASON suggests not saying "winter" if you don't have to, though it's not a big deal if establishing the time frame isn't important. (You may want to check for "winter" and "summer" throughout with this in mind.) If you do go with "winter", I'd personally go with 1845 rather than 1844/5. And "particularly from 1845 onwards" is a little jarring because it implies we're at some point in the narrative earlier than 1845, which doesn't seem right. Maybe "from this time onwards".
  • "With this decline": Not taking a position here either. These are the first words of the section, and some don't like pronouns in one section that refer to nouns in the previous ones; others think that "With his decline in health" would be a little redundant with the previous section.
  • "In late October 1848, while staying at 10 Warriston Crescent in Edinburgh with the Polish physician Adam Łyszczyński": (I took a couple of commas out and rearranged ... 4 commas before the main clause is usually too many.) If Łyszczyński didn't live at 10 Warriston Crescent, then move him into the main clause. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What in the hands of others was elegant embellishment, in his hands became a colourful wreath of flowers.": 100 years ago, the word "elegant" meant something closer to "fussy, inelegant", so possibly this quote will give the reader the wrong idea. I don't know when the quote dates from.
  • "(See "Bibliography" below for some of these.)": An alternative, if you like, is to link to the section you want people to see.
@Dank: Many thanks for these helpful comments. I believe I have now resolved them all, except for Hiller's use of 'elegant'. Schlesinger required a bit more explanation to deal with your point, which I have supplied. Łyszczyński did live at that address, so I have left that sentence as it stands. I also rewrote part of para 2 of 'Travel and domestic success' as your coyedit of the comma placement there revealed, per User:Stfg, an inadequacy in the citation. As regards Hiller, the citation is from the musicologist Jonathan Bellman - Hiller would have been writing some time in the third quarter of the 19th century. Your point about the implications of 'elegant' is a nice one - in the nineteenth century use of 'nice' :-) - but as we don't have access to the original German (in which itself 'elegant' may or may not have had dismissive overtones) I think we had better leave the quote as it is rather than second-guess. Best, --Smerus (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes in response to my comments look great. We've all done a fine job here, notably Brian and Mike above, Stfg at the PR, and you and Blofeld ... kudos. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I am nonplussed that I have failed until this very hour to spot the progress of the article to the threshold of FA. I reviewed it at GAN and commented at the time that it had FA written all over it. The page is still finer now than it was then, and for what it's worth at this late stage I add my unreserved support. This is just the sort of front page article to enhance Wikipedia's standing. Marvellous stuff. Tim riley talk 17:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Although there's an outstanding objection, I think enough discussion has taken place and there's been plenty of time for other reviewers to consider the merits of those comments. Taking that into account, and after discussing with fellow coord Graham, I'm going to promote this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2014 [20].

The Boat Race 2012[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, earlier this year, ThaddeusB created an article about this year's "edition" of The Boat Race and managed to get it into the In The News section. Encouraged by this and passively goaded by Bencherlite, I've set about trying to create well written and well referenced articles about every running of this peculiarity of amateur sports held annually since 1829. This race, probably the most controversial of modern times, seemed like a good place to start. It's been through GAN and PR, so now it's here. Thanks to all who take the time to comment. And thanks to Mike Christie, Ruhrfisch and Dom497 for the various reviews that have got me at least this far... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review (prose review to follow once my image concerns are dealt with)
    • File:University of Cambridge coat of arms official.svg - The date of creation of the coat of arms itself is certainly not 2013. This should be updated to the correct date. Also, as the University of Cambridge is a British university, a UK PD tag is necessary.
      • I don't know the answer to the question. I've removed it until someone who is more knowledgeable than me can answer it and resolve your concern. Would you be able to help me with this? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at Commons:Coats_of_arms, I suspect that we'd have to ask the image lab to produce a rendering based on the blazon. Cambridge's coat of arms was granted in 1453, but according to Commons "Generally speaking, the author's right on a CoA is attached to the artist that draws a given representation, not to the CoA definition (the blazoning). Therefore, a CoA can be freely drawn after a model (without involving derivative rights), but a given picture "found on the internet" cannot be uploaded: it must be redrawn." In more simple terms, if the image is taken directly from an official website (like File:Oxford University Coat Of Arms.svg) it would be a copyvio, but if it were redrawn (say, at the image lab) based on the blazon it would be free. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • So are you suggesting that all usage of this existing image in Wikipedia is "illegal"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • To the best of my understanding of Commons:Coats_of_arms, yes. Nikkimaria may be more familiar with the technicalities behind this one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • So I guess it should be deleted from Commons? I'm no expert, as demonstrated above.... I suppose that means I need to remove them from the template at the bottom of the page as well? Or will a bot do that once the offending items are deleted at Commons? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Commons seems to be contradicting itself a bit there, but either way in this particular case given the age of the COA I'd expect that an image old enough to be free should exist already. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hmm... I guess that means checking Internet Archive for a pre-1923 rendition. If it's essentially the same, then we'd just have to colour it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same goes with File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg
    • File:University Boat Race Thames map.svg - What's the source of the base map (i.e. the shape and relative size of the river?), or, if there is no base map, the data used to make this map? Also, the link to PoL is dead, for me. This archive link works.
      • I'm not sure I can tell you the answer you're seeking. The image in its use on the article makes no claims of scale, accuracy etc, moreover it's simply there to provide context to the race description. I don't think "base data" is required. I generally avoid editing Commons, but will see what I can do about adding in the archive link. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm... perhaps a note similar to "the shape of the river can be confirmed from [link]". Not really worried about the base data, but just something that can vouch for the (relative) accuracy of the map. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added a note, is it sufficient for you? Did you see my request above? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Saw it. Haven't had much luck yet. Will get back to you on that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All photographs are okay (licensed freely on Flickr, no evidence of flickr washing) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments from Crisco
    • Despite having the heavier crew, Oxford were pre-race favourites having had a successful preparation period, including a victory over Leander. - Does BrE require a comma between favourites and having?
    • boats were titled - In Canadian English I don't think I'd say "titled", but "named". I assume BrE accepts "titled"?
      • Titled reads naturally to me, just as named would too. Interchangeable and a matter of preference I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shouldn't Goldie be linked on first mention in the Background section?
    • 1.45pm but 2:15pm: suggest standardizing time formats
    • won the toss - a coin toss? Perhaps link Coin flipping
    • Suggest having Oldfield's full name on first mention in the body (i.e. outside the lead). Also, might be better to say "protestor" or something similar so readers get a bit of context.
    • Charing Cross hospital - As this is a proper name (and the article is at Charing Cross Hospital), recommend having a capital H. Also, are you against linking the hospital?
    • President Nelson - To avoid possible confusion with University president for people who didn't notice the table, is there a way to make it clear that he was president of the boat club in-text?
    • suffragette Emily Davidson - I believe that BrE condemns the use of "false titles" like suffragette, and would keep "the" in front of it.
    • pay £750 costs. - perhaps "in fines"?
  • Very well written. Just a few very minor nitpicks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. A good read. The only remaining image issue is a bit complicated, but I'm certain we can find a way in which some version of the Oxford/Cambridge coats of arms can be used freely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I spot checked a couple of sources and found no cause for concern. I reviewed this at PR and I think it's in good shape. A suggestion: how about including Hudspith's comment that the Oxford team "went through seven months of hell, this was the culmination of their careers, and [Oldfield] took it away from them"? The Telegraph and Guardian articles both quote it and it would go well alongside the quote from Zeng. Just a thought. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, and thanks again for your help in the PR leading up to this. I've implemented your suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Checked most sources and and all is good. Nice article. NickGibson3900 (Talk - Cont.) 06:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I've reviewed a few of the races at GA, although not this one, and I'm happy to see one of them come up at FAC. Nicely put together, it covers all the points I would expect, and does so well and succinctly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this in PR and found some more free photos for the article on Flickr. The only change I can see on a re-read is to move the link for the Goldie boat to the first mention (up a section). Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EddieHugh

  • My main comment is on exactly what the article is about. The opening sentence states "an annual side-by-side rowing race", then the second para of the lead introduces the reserve and women's races, so it's not about one ("an") race. There's a full breakdown of the crews for the main race, but nothing at all on the crews for the other two (this info should be easy to find). Under "Races" there's some background on the women's race, then one sentence on what happened; for the reserve race there's a summary of what happened. Then "Reaction" is about only the main race. I think that the article should be a) on only what's now called the "main race", or b) on all three races, with proper coverage given to all of them. As it stands, it's somewhere between these two. EddieHugh (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typically the main race is the one given all the high profile coverage. The reserve race is normally covered in main press outlets with a single paragraph compared to a few columns for the main race. The women's race, until 2015, has had very little coverage but again, typically the press with cover it with a sentence or two. That's how this article is constructed, reflecting the manner of the way the race is covered traditionally. I understand your concern, and if it results in you not wishing to participate in this review any further, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that neglects criterion 1b: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". It's also confusing for readers with no background knowledge, as which of three races described is being referred to at various points in the article is not made explicit. (A further omission is that there were, in fact, four races, as there was a reserve race for women, too. Being particularly pedantic, there were six races, including the lightweight women's and lightweight men's races. Again, if the article is about "The Boat Race", then only one needs to be mentioned; if it's about all of them, then all should be mentioned and relevant information supplied. The current situation is confusing for the most important person – the reader. A possible solution is to re-structure, putting the main race and all its info first, then 'other races' or similar in a separate section, and then making explicit in the opening line that the article is about more than one rowing race.) EddieHugh (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The reserve/women's race is put in context from the background section. Of course, there were the minor lightweights and women's reserve races, but they are seldom, if ever reported upon. I could excise all mention of the reserves/women's race if that would alleviate confusion, but that'd be a bit of a shame, deliberately removing information which is delineated by the use of "women's" and "reserves". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A quick comment, since I supported above. I see EddieHugh's point, but I don't like the proposed solution, and to be honest I don't see an alternative article structure as fixing the issue. Almost all readers are going to search for this article because they're interested in the main boat race. Even if there's enough information on the subsidiary races for them to be notable in their own right, I think they'd end up being merged into this article. The title of this article should reflect the primary topic of the article, so I don't think those races should be mentioned in the title. Perhaps a couple of redirects could be created from e.g. "Women's boat race 2012", if there's a standard name that readers might search for. Overall, I think the article deals with the issue as well as it can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope to have time to give a detailed review of the content, but there's little point if my main comment is not addressed. A couple of early things: sentence 2 has "having the heavier crew" (should be "having the lighter crew") and the infobox has "John Garrett (Oxford)" (more detail needed: I believe that he was chosen by Oxford but previously rowed for Cambridge). EddieHugh (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing a "Cambridge" in the lead, so added, thanks. Garrett's () should have been Cambridge, he rowed for them in the 80s, so changed, and added a sentence in the article. Thanks for picking that up. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respone to EddieHugh - Featured Articles have to be comprehensive, but they also have to follow published sources and policies such as Neutral Point of view, which includes WP:WEIGHT, which says in part "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The 2012 Boat Race was an oddball with the swimmer stopping the race, so I looked at 2011 and 2013 coverage by the BBC: 2011 race and 2013 race. Each news article focuses on the main race, and mentions members of each team (2011 lists both teams in full, 2013 does not), while also briefly mentioning which university won the women's and reserve races. So this article follows the model of reliable news sources and NPOV (and the WP:MOS). I will also mention that the first sentence cannot have everything in it (though the lead should summarize the article as a whole) - please see WP:LEADSENTENCE. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. WP:NPOV is really about controversial topics; more generally, it's about views. WP:WEIGHT is also about neutrality of views. There aren't many views in the article: perhaps only what Cam and Ox people said about the race and comments by and about Oldfield. Which races were held is not a view, it's a question of fact: "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint" applies to viewpoints expressed in the article. Listing, for instance, the women's crews would not be giving undue prominence to a viewpoint (what would the viewpoint be?); it would be giving readers (neutral) information. Not mentioning, for instance, that there was a reserve women's race will lead the reader to conclude erroneously that there wasn't one. Surely what the reader takes away is more important than whether the article is representative of the quantity of information provided by the mainstream media?
Let me try again on the structure... here's the article's structure, with the terms used in each part:
  • Lead. The Boat Race.
the reserve race.
the Women's Boat Race.
  • Background. The Boat Race.
the Women's Boat Race.
the reserve race.
  • Crews. (not stated, but The Boat Race)
  • Races. the Women's Boat Race.
the reserve race.
(not stated, but The Boat Race, now named "the main race")
  • Reaction (not stated, but The Boat Race, now named "the race")

'It's not optimal' is my summary. EddieHugh (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But every mention of the other races is either in its own section with a header relating to women's or reserves, or explicitly referred to as such, all other instances (and you can refer to the same thing a number of ways), relate to the Boat Race. I don't see a problem. And just because something isn't mentioned in an article, it doesn't imply that it doesn't exist. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a problem understanding because we have enough background knowledge to allow filters to work automatically (e.g., "the race" = "the boat race" = the men's one; it's easily the most important, so "Crews" is about only that one); my concern is for people who don't have that knowledge. Mentioning the men's boat race, men's reserve race and women's boat race, but not the women's reserve race, runs the risk of people inferring that the last of those did not exist, I suggest. EddieHugh (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the women's reserve race exists and can be sourced, it should be mentioned -- I certainly hadn't realized it existed, and as EddieHugh suggests, I actually assumed it did not exist because it wasn't mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am OK with mentioning the women's reserve race (assume it would be maybe one sentence). I will point out that the women's races were held on a different day and on a different and shorter course, and that there can be up to SIX other races held with the Women's Boat Race - see Henley_Boat_Races#Events. I do not think all six other races need to be mentioned here - I think WP:WEIGHT applies when it says in part "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget this is an instance of a prominent race, whose result is widely publicised alongside the reserve race (usually a paragraph) and the women's race (usually a sentence). There are other races that exist between the universities, they are not covered here either. We have a main article to cover the panoply of other aspects of the annual event. I could list all the events that happened throughout the year in rowing that featured both crews, but none are particularly notable beyond the three I have already included in this article. As I said from the outset, the best I could offer would be to remove all mention of the reserve and women's race which, I believe, would be to the detriment of the article, so that's not going to happen. So, an impasse. If that results in the unsuccessful closure of the nomination, so be it. I'd rather not get the article "featured" if it doesn't make an attempt to mirror the high quality mainstream resources that have covered the race since 1829 and the other minor races since the 1960s. Thanks for your time, in particular the reviewers at GAN, PR and here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the current structure really clearer than the following possibility?
  • Lead. The Boat Race.
the reserve race.
the Women's Boat Race.
  • The Boat Race. Background. Crews. Race. Reaction
  • The reserve race. (probably 1 or 2 paras covering just background & race if you wish to omit crews)
  • The Women's Boat Race. Background. Race. (probably no more if you wish to omit crews)

This separation of main race and others is, incidentally, very similar to the structure of the main article you mentioned. If you think that the current structure is better, please answer:

Why is it better (for the reader)?
It's chronological. If you prefer to remove all mentions of the other races, please suggest that explicitly. It will then not exist in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological? The women's race (1) was on an earlier date (not mentioned in the infobox, adding to potential confusion); the reserve (2) was next, then the main (3). The current article structure, using those numbers, is: Lead 321; Background 312; Crews 3; Races 123; Reaction 3. My proposed structure would be chronological: 321! EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously mean chronological for each race. As I said, if you'd prefer to remove it all rather tag it awkwardly at the end, then that's a solution, but not one I'll be following up. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is the unknowledgeable reader to know that the "Crews" section is about the main race?
Because all other races are explicitly tagged with "reserve" or "women's". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the other race is named "The Boat Race" in the lead and background, but given no name in Crews. Anyway, this is a symptom of the overall article structure. EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, there's no confusion unless you're applying a forensic examination of the semantics of the article. If you have specific issues with confusion in specific sentences, I'll be happy to fix them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
e.g., "4.2 miles (6.8 km) Championship Course" (should be hyphenated and singular); "the race currently takes place" ("currently" is time dependent, so shouldn't be used); "However, Cambridge held the overall lead, with 80 victories to Oxford's 77.[5]" (80–77 is not in that source and contradicts the infobox numbers). And so on, but this is just detail, as I mention below. EddieHugh (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, are you going to look at the "and so on" now please so I can address the other specific issues with the article? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on criterion 1a, with a question mark against 1b and 1c. As I mentioned in my first post, doing a more detailed review would come after making larger changes. I haven't managed to bring about those changes and haven't been convinced that the current version is optimal for readers either, so, from my perspective, sorting out the small things is not what's required and would inevitably clash at some point with the structure/content, so couldn't be done satisfactorily anyway. More detailed reasons for my decision to oppose are on various parts of this page. EddieHugh (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A shame you seem prepared to allow factual errors to go uncommented however, but I understand that if you if can't have the changes you alone want to the structure, you're unprepared to help with the rest of the process. Nevertheless, thanks for your contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is the unknowledgeable reader to know that the "Reaction" section is about the main race? EddieHugh (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because all other races are explicitly tagged with "reserve" or "women's". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the main article has, in no way, any accreditation from me. It's something I may choose to work on improving in due course. It is, however, the place where generic information about the races should be contained. Its structure may, or may not, be similar to this article, if it is, it's a coincidence. If not, well, meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention, thanks for your interest and comments on this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I see that you've put in a huge amount of effort into Boat Race articles and assume (plus hope) that you'll continue to do so. I'm not being difficult for the sake of it – I'd like to see the articles be as good as they can be, with the reader at the centre (all of the details of text formatting that tend to be concentrated on here are technical details, really), hence my stressing of the overall structure (the level of detail is more a matter of opinion/policy, so I happily give way on that). I also recommend consulting some more specialist sources to provide more detail and accuracy. Here's one race report, for instance, which offers both. EddieHugh (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Detail and accuracy" with regard to what? If you're suggesting I could "rephrase" the source into the race section, sure, I'm happy to add more detail, although you're the only person claiming issues with "accuracy". Can you be more specific with any lack of "accuracy" you've alluded to in the article please, I'll certainly be looking into fixing that, considering variety of RS I've already used. You have confused me since you say "the level of detail is more a matter of opinion ..." then "I also recommend ... to provide more detail...". Mixed signals. Confusing. Mind you, any article claiming "accuracy" which capitalises the toss has lost my faith from the word go... and phrases like "appeared in the water ... immediately spotted" makes matters worse. Moreover, as well as changing tense at will, it completely overlooks the fact that Pinsent had to alert the umpire, but hey, which article is more accurate and detailed than the other? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Level of detail about the other races (opinion/policy) vs level of detail about the main one. Accuracy (coupled to detail)... e.g., "their coxswain Zoe de Toledo had steered too close to Cambridge and despite more warnings from the umpire there was a serious clash of oars" against "the crews drifted together". There are also specialist rowing magazines that may offer perspectives different from the mainstream UK media. EddieHugh (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and it will be impossible from an observer's perspective to easily determine whether a boat "drifted" towards another (unlikely) or was steered towards another (likely). The only way would have been to talk to the cox after the event to determine whether the boat moved autonomously or whether she steered it that way. I'm not sure how you would proceed, by writing all the possible intricate occurrences giving each possibility for each event being reported on, or reduce to it what was simply observable from television or the river bank. I've tried to steer a line between both. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being BOLD, I added the six-word sentence "Oxford won the women's reserve race." to the end of the paragraph on the Women's race. This is already in the cited source (so no new ref was needed). I do not think it significant enough to be included in the lead, and hope this resolves the dispute and allows this fine article to earn its well deserved FA star. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Late-to-the-party support (from the perspective of a Dark Blue to counterbalance TRM's Light Blue stance - and the perspective of someone who shared a flat for a year with one grad student who trained all year only to come 9th in the selection of 8 rowers for Isis...) The Ruhrfisch compromise is the way forward - frankly, very few even within Oxbridge (let along outside - family members excepted!) care about the result of the lightweights races or the reserve women's crews' race; the Isis—Goldie race gets a smidgen of coverage because it's the curtain-raiser to the main event; and so this article gives appropriate coverage. The only question for the hard-working TRM is whether there's anything in sources about whether security for the Olympics was enhanced in the light of the Oldfield incident. BencherliteTalk 14:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a good question. I can't find anything specific about it, the Financial Times had an article which referred to the more open events, such as road races etc which would be exposed to such "lone warrior" behaviour, but I guess it meant nothing more than a heightened awareness of such moronic behaviour. I'll have a further dig around to see if there's anything tangible. Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "They almost took his head off," said Sergeant Chris Tranter of the Metropolitan Police.: That's identical to the source.
  • "ending Oxford's challenge": I don't have any objection, but I think to American ears, that means the race stopped at that point ... "ending Oxford's chances" might get everyone on board, if that works for you.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've made a couple of adjustments per your notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Although there's still an outstanding objection, I think reasonable efforts have been made to address points raised and there's been plenty of time for all participants to consider the merits of others' views. With that in mind, and having discussed with fellow coord Graham, I'm promoting this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 01:23, 17 August 2014 [21].


Thief II: The Metal Age[edit]

Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One month after Thief: The Dark Project's commercially and critically successful debut, Looking Glass Studios started working on Thief II: The Metal Age. Eidos Interactive returned to publish the game, and it was produced—in what seems to have been a first for Looking Glass—almost entirely on schedule. Looking Glass stripped down the game's design to focus exclusively on stealth, partly at the request of their fan community. Unfortunately, a string of disastrous business mistakes had left Eidos and Looking Glass hemorrhaging money. Thief II was a success, but Looking Glass closed a few months after its release, after a buyout deal with Eidos fell through.

I started to overhaul this page back in April, as part of my push for the Looking Glass Studios video games GT. I realized a number of weeks ago that it was probably near FA quality, and that upgrading the GT to a FT wasn't unrealistic. So, hot on the heels of Flight Unlimited II's promotion, I present you with another nomination. I hope this one will be as trouble-free as my last, but I'll be on hand to address any concerns raised below. Thanks for reading. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

I feel bad that my FAC has drummed up two reviews and yours none, even though mine is more recent. I'll review this later today; I just want to crank out some work on a non-video-game article I'll be putting up at GAN soon. At first glance, this looks high-quality, although Gameplay's a little short and summative. Tezero (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was the 26th somewhere in the world then! Ahehe. Alright, initial comments, to be followed by more later:

  • Is it necessarily to note that the guards are AI-controlled? I mean, in what games aren't they?
  • That's a good point. Changed.
  • "While it is possible for the player character to engage in direct combat, he is easily defeated" - What weapons or other defense mechanisms does he have?
  • The bow and sword mentioned in the second paragraph. I thought this was clear, but, if it isn't, I'm not sure how I could change it.
  • Oh, I didn't notice. My mistake. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the game's higher difficulty settings, the player typically must avoid killing humans" - You mean you fail the mission if you kill one, or they make noise as they die, a la Mark of the Ninja, on the hard difficulty only?
  • You fail the mission. Clarified.
  • How many difficulty settings are there?
  • Three. I'm not sure that it's necessary to include the exact number, though, because I only discuss the settings in passing.
  • Well, then just say "medium and hard" and mention nearby that there's an easy one. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed.
  • "which connects to throwable "Scouting Orb" cameras that provide reconnaissance" - Can you only throw one at a time? If not, how do you switch between views? And either way, can you view both what the camera sees and what his biological eye sees at the same time?
  • You throw one at a time. When it lands, your screen changes to the perspective of the orb, and you can disable it at any time. After that, you can't reactivate the orb until you've picked it up and thrown it again. Stripping this down to "provide reconnaissance" seemed like a way to avoid cruft.
  • Eh, it's too vague, I think, and you're doing fine on cruft. (The section is quite short, actually, when you compare it to those of most VG FAs.) Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added something. See what you think.
  • Describe the Trickster a bit in Setting and characters. Defeating a god is kind of a big deal.
  • Thief II-related sources were a bit thin on this subject, but Ken Levine mentions in a Thief: TDP interview that he was based on Pan, so I added that. There aren't really any third-party sources that describe the Trickster's plan, and it wasn't a by-the-books world domination thing, so I'm not sure what else to include.
  • Third-party sources aren't necessary if you can provide a short overview from game quotes or the manual. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "The game's primary antagonist is the founder of the Mechanists, Father Karras (also voiced by Russell)" - Can you describe Karras a bit?
  • Added a bit. His defining trait is his crippling speech impediment, but none of the sources actually mention that, so I couldn't include it.
  • Again, you can use in-game dialogue to attest that. Tezero (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one in the game mentions his speech impediment. I added something else to flesh out his character.

Tezero (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More responses. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looks good. So, I could've sworn I'd written out more comments... and I had! Except they were on a different Google Chrome window, because I'd opened this one to pull up Amazon listings for my textbooks for this semester, so that my parents could see them but wouldn't carp at me for being on Wikipedia. Then I forgot about this window, so my comments remained but a preview. Here:

  • "a game that Thief II project director Steve Pearsall considered to be an experiment" - While he was making Thief I, or afterward?
  • It isn't clear in the sources, but the comments were made post-Thief: TDP, so I changed it to indicate that.
  • "Combat was minimized more so than in the original" - Awkward. What about "Combat was given less focus/was less emphasized than in the original"?
  • Tweaked.
  • ""sort of a 'Batman' feel"" - Minor, but you might want to add ", referring to the 1989 film" and place the link there. Otherwise, the reader might think you're just talking about Batman in general and not bother to hover over the link to disambiguate.
  • Done.
  • "during his vacation in Europe" - Is this vacation referenced elsewhere that I'm not noticing? If not, just say "a vacation in Europe", and give a time estimate for this vacation if one's available.
  • It isn't mentioned elsewhere, but "a vacation" is unnecessarily vague, I think.
  • "The technique had been developed for the original Thief, as an evolution of Ken Levine's suggestion to use motion comic cutscenes." - Ken Levine talked to them for the original game? Can you elaborate on the context?
  • Ken Levine was a project planner on Thief: TDP before he left to found Irrational. He's pretty well known for it. I added "designer" to clarify it.
  • "The team met their goal" - Weird to introduce that after the preceding sentence without a "However" or "Nevertheless".
  • Changed.
  • "Eidos expedited the company's payment for completing the game." - Doesn't this always happen? (If so, why's it necessary to mention?) Or am I not understanding what it means?
  • They expedited (increased the speed of) payment in that they tried to get them funds faster than normal. It's relevant because Looking Glass was falling apart by this time, and this was Eidos throwing them a bone.
  • The prose in Reception is okay, but I'm not a fan of organization by reviewers (rather than issues), as the paragraph divisions are inherently arbitrary. I won't object just based on that because it's a stylistic preference and a large task, but try to rewrite it if you can, and definitely if someone else objects.
  • I've done it both ways in past FAs (Flight Unlimited and Flight Unlimited II), and I find that reviewer organization is easier. Plus, it lends itself less readily to original research, since issue-organization typically involves OR summary sentences at the beginning of each paragraph. I'd prefer to leave Reception as it stands.

After this, I'll only have to go through the last section, references, and images. Tezero (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch:

  • "with Thief II Gold and Thief III cancelled" - These are elaborated on immediately afterward but never given as an antecedent earlier. Why mention it there?
  • This is the only place where Thief II Gold is mentioned, and it doesn't make much sense not to mention Thief III alongside it. I added a bit of context to make it seem less random.
  • You may want to place a "main" tag with Thief III and Thief the reboot so the reader doesn't have to pick through the text for them.
  • Done.
  • "but made an effort to avoid similarities to Mulan." - What similarities would these be? The fictional and real Mulan were Chinese.
  • The line is a reference to a design document published by PC Gamer UK. Here's the full context:
  • "She is about 18 years old. Dark brown hair, initially quite long but cut short after Mission 1 as a sign of grief for Kedar, whom she believes to be dead. She's about medium height, slender, pretty muscular for a girl. Features and skin tone lean toward an exotic, middle-eastern/north-african look with eyes slightly tilted and green in color. Graphics will be given a copy of the description and asked to solicit several character sketches. It's noted that we must avoid any strong parallels with Mulan."
  • Their reasoning is a bit strange to me as well, but the Mulan point was clearly important, so I decided to include it. Any suggestions?
  • Eh, if that's all that was given, it's fine. Strange, though. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dark Mod may be worth mentioning in the prose if it really is that closely tied to the source material.
  • It's only distantly related to the article topic, but I thought that it was probably relevant enough for a See also mention. If you think it isn't necessary, I can just remove it.
  • Nah, it's fine. I'm pretty liberal on what gets to go in a See also. Wikipedia's a ballpit of link-hopping fun at the greyscale formality convention anyway; we may as well grant the reader an extra hour. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And... that's it! The FURs look fine, and no sources jump out as unreliable or improperly formatted. Tezero (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. The article's size appears to be scaring away reviewers, so I really appreciate your taking a look at it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I hadn't thought of it as especially long, but I guess most game articles don't include a Post-release section or analogue. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice work. No further comments of mine are necessary. Tezero (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Taylor Trescott

I currently have a videogame FAC open, so I've decided to review the other ones.

  • "Eidos Montreal announced a reboot of the" – I think the "reboot" pipe is a little too eggy.
  • Tried to solve this.
  • Unlink Victorian era in Production - it's already linked in Plot (per WP:OVERLINK)
  • Oops. Missed that. Fixed.
  • Why bother to put (E3) and (AI) after those terms if you're not going to use them again?
  • Unlinked E3. AI reappears once in Reception, though.
  • Release date discrepancy - infobox gives February 29 but the Final months section says "the game was released on March 23, 2000."
  • Fixed.
  • PC Zone can be unlinked in "Sequels" (it's already linked in Reception)
  • Fixed.

That's it! Ping me when you respond. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 14:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support good work Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "The player assumes the role of Garrett as he unravels a conspiracy related to a new religious sect. Players take on missions such as burglaries and frameups, while trying to avoid detection by guards and automated security." The first sentence uses the singular form "The player". I am unsure why the second sentence uses plural. Perhaps change the start of the second sentence to either "The player takes" or "Garrett takes"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Gameplay", the screenshot seems to be very dark. I can see a row of white markers at the bottom-left, and a small patch of light at the middle-right. I certainly can't see a blackjack or a guard. I know that Thief II often has dark environments (I have played the game). I also realise that the dark appearance might be due to my display settings. Do other editors really see the details in the picture? In any case, I don't think that this picture is a good way to illustrate the game. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change from singular to plural was to add variation. I implemented your suggestion. However, I rolled back your syntax edit to Gameplay, which introduced a typo. As for the Gameplay screenshot, I intentionally captured a (relatively) bright area in the bank level. A brighter screenshot could only have been taken if I'd run around at high visibility, which would have misrepresented the game. I can see the guard and blackjack just fine on my monitor, in any case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am now logged in using a different computer and monitor. I can see the details now, although still a little dark. I don't think that anything else can or should be done about the picture. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Gameplay", last paragraph: "On the highest of the game's three difficulty levels, killing humans results in a game over, and certain missions require the player not to knock out any guards." The last part of the sentence is rather clumsy. I tried fixing this, but JimmyBlackwing was unhappy with my edit. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what's clumsy about it. Could you explain further? Also, your edit changed the final section to "and certain missions require the player must not knock out any guards", which makes no sense to me. That formulation would be grammatical if the sentence read "and in certain missions the player" (would you prefer this?), but it definitely doesn't fit the existing version. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know how to explain it further. I just think that the sentence does not flow smoothly. I am surprised that you think my suggestion "makes no sense". Of course I am open to other possible phrases that make sense and flow smoothly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "and some missions do not allow the player to knock out any guards"? - Dank (push to talk) 10:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Used Dank's suggestion. Anyway, I said that it made no sense because it was based on a misreading of the sentence. It was not "certain missions require [that] the player not to knock out any guards"; but "certain missions require the player [as in, 'I require you to do X.'] not to knock out any guards." I stand by the original formulation, but Dank's version is a compromise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that Dank's suggestion is accurate. Does the mission really "not allow the player to knock out any guards", or does the player fail the mission if a guard is knocked out? I suspect the latter. Two references are provided. Game Theory states "At a higher level of difficulty, you are often required to show even more restraint, completing your mission without leaving any trace of your presence. That means leaving everyone else alive and conscious." This supports the latter view. GameSpot does not support either interpretation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Does not allow" can be taken in two ways. Either it's impossible to use the blackjack, or it's just against the rules to use it. I don't see a problem. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to imply that there are two possible interpretations. (I dispute that claim.) Yet you seem happy to leave this ambiguity in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another rewrite. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Plot", subsection "Story", paragraph 1: "The game begins with Garrett back to his life as a thief." Was Garrett previously not a thief? If so, this should be mentioned. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Garrett was always a thief, but this sentence is intended to show that Garrett has gone back to normal thievery after fighting the Trickster. I wrestled with this sentence quite a bit, but I couldn't come up with anything better than this admittedly mediocre option. Any suggestions? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Axl: Still holding out for a response before attempting to address the points you mentioned. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "The game begins with Garrett continuing his life as a thief." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a high-quality article. (I have not checked the references. Of the two references that I did look up as part of the "knock out" issue described above, one of them does not support the statement.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! And, regarding the GameSpot citation you mentioned, that's a leftover source from before I rewrote the article (see [22]). It was never intended to support that sentence; I just left it at the end of the Gameplay section, long after the sentence it had been citing was gone. I went ahead and removed it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "Garrett and Viktoria learn that it is the Cultivators inside Servant masks which emit red vapor, a "rust gas" that destroys all forms of organic life.": probably doesn't need mentioning twice
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I'm impressed how easy it was for a non-gamer to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Did a little follow-up copyediting and attempted to address the redundancy issue you mentioned. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look great. "of ''Thief II, ''depicting" is a VisualEditor thing; I'll try and see if there's a way to get it to stop doing that. I didn't make the best choices when trimming your text, but the basic idea is that I try to get rid of any phrases (not individual words, usually) that don't seem to add to what's already there ... and often the result can be improved on, and I'm glad you did. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 03:51, 15 August 2014 [23].


Departures (film)[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) and Curly Turkey (talk)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen, we, the Canadian expat nominators, have prepared a little departure for you. Join us and NK Agency as we take you to uncharted lands, celebrate great victories, hear of harrowing experiences, and cross the threshold between life and death.

"What's that?", you may ask. "Life and death?" Why yes. We bring you: Departures, the 2009 Japanese ode to morticians, a tale of self-discovery and a critique of the death taboo in Japan. Aside from completely dominating the 2009 Japanese Academy Prize ceremony, the film was its nation's first to win an Academy Award for Merit in the Best Foreign-language Film category. It created a tourism industry and led to renewed interest in traditional death ceremonies. And now a word from our sponsors.

Departures, the article, was made possible by the GA review of Dr. Blofeld and the PR contributions of SchroCat, Tim riley, and Wehwalt. Don't miss out on Departures, the list, in stores now!  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support after so gripping a preview, and having my comments addressed at the peer review, what else can I say? I did enjoy it a great deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another satisfied customer! Departures, for YOU! (Psst... thanks for the review) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not only do I support this, but I support it, too, as well. Well, lookit there! WeYou have three supports! Fastest. Promotion. Ever. Kulukulu ⚞¡Hikimenntyou!⚟ 11:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you include locations for periodicals and how these are formatted
  • Check alphabetization of Works cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Questions and comments from Lugnuts
  • In the hidden categories the page is in Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL - I believe that's for when articles cite books and add an access date, so the access date needs to be removed.
  • It's also in the hidden category Category:CS1 errors: dates too.
  • And the last point - I notice it's written in Canadian English. What's the rationale for this? I guess it has something to do with Crisco's intro, above.

Thanks! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both Curly and I are Canadians, and Japan doesn't have particularly strong national ties to a particular variety of English, at least not as meant by MOS:TIES. The article was essentially reworked from scratch. The version we started with was not even 8k, and didn't have a particular lean in EngVar. As far as I can tell, the shift to CadEng is then supported by WP:ENGVAR.
    • The first category is coming from 光岡自動車の霊きゅう車　「おくりぐるま」を発売 and 米国アカデミー賞を受賞した、映画「おくりびと」待望の舞台化映画のその後を描く、新たな感動の物語 (why didn't I see that script earlier? Really nice). Curly-san, since you added these, could you give urls? Or were they paper sources?
    • Second one is from the Sharkey reference, which is fixed, and the Film Comment review (bimonthly edition, May/June 2009), which doesn't seem fixable without misrepresenting the source. Or would an ndash be accepted by the code? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Code accepts an ndash, so long as it's the unicode symbol –. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archived URLs that are alive currently should use the "|deadurl=no" parameter
    • Not required by the MOS or template:Cite web. The documentation for the template says it's optional, and my previous FAs have never used it. More a matter of style than policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because someone can read Japanese here, I would suggest creating the articles here you link to from the Japanese WP (i.e Aoki Shinmon (ja)). At least a stub is better than requiring our readers to read another language for context.
    • We (as in Crisco) have actually been working through them bit by bit---there were a lot more before. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Always so modest. Kundō Koyama, Sakata Minato-za, and Akira Sasō used to be redlinks. Personally, I'd rather write an article from scratch than translate the Japanese ones. The referencing in the Japanese ones might not be enough for an article to survive AFD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until 1972, most deaths were dealt with by families any particular reason for the year 1972?
    • 1972 is the year when it went from more than 50% to less---when it went from being a majority to a minority. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a particular reason for the change? Seattle (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I assume the rapidly increasing economy, urbanization, and pace of life, but the source is not explicit. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Belief in the existence of a soul (54%) and a connection between the worlds of the living and the dead (64.9%) was likewise common. among the young, or the general population?
  • In note "C" the ref should not be in all-caps
    • While written in Roman characters, the all-caps is actually part of the Japanese title. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • See MOS:ALLCAPS point one. Seattle (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't understand---it's not Japanese written in Roman script, it's a Japanese title in Japanese script which happens to incorporate Roman characters---the Roman characters are only part of the title. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, I think MOS:ALLCAPS' first point (about newspaper headlines) would apply to the title too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The international success of Departures was big news in Japan ""Big" is a Word to watch, "big" is not universal. I would suggest attributing the word to Ide if said there.

I haven't got through all the article, but that's some of the review. Seattle (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Seattle (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; I was one of the happy reviewers at PR, and this article has only strengthened since then. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And thank you, once again, for your fantastic assistance! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – from another of the peer reviewers. Clearly meets all the FA criteria for prose. A remarkably enjoyable read, evidently comprehensive, well proportioned and balanced. A fine page. Tim riley talk 14:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coming from the author of twenty-three magnificent featured articles, that's no small praise indeed. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Has improved since the GAR I did and looks worthy of an FA now. Well done!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for all of your help reviewing, Dr. B. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
De nada. I've just killed two red links anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_altar_of_the_Japanese_Buddhism-style_funeral,saidan,japan.jpg: given the limitations on freedom of panorama in Japan, I don't think this would be covered. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm... are flower arrangements considered artistic works? I don't think I've ever come across that, but if we have precedent I'll remove the image. The 100% definitely copyrightable thing (the photograph) is de minimis and blurred. The altar looks more like a standardized presentation than a work of art... is it considered an artistic work? Also, Curly, do you know how common such altars are, and if variations are common? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely not an expert. I don't know how much creativity goes into these things, nor where the threshold of creativity lies for them. I can say that none of the funerals I've been to had an arrangement like the one in the picture (aside from the general idea of a photo in the middle and lots of flowers). It could be that funeral service chains, for example, may have copyrighted designs that then get repeated for thousands of funerals. A quick Google isn't turning anything up for me. It'll suck to have to lose another image. Maybe throw in a map of Yamagata's location in Japan? Mountains in Yamagata? Or maybe we could have a map made up showing the realative locations of Tokyo and Yamagata? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm... I can't think of anything that would be more than decorative. Sucks, but I guess for now we'll have to lose the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even a map? Most readers won't have a clue as to the geography. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • We don't have prose about the distance between Tokyo and Yamagata. If we had an image of the burning ceremony in Varansi, that would work nicely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've reworked the images. Now to go shopping for lunch for my wife. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "Takita explained that a younger actress would better represent the lead couple's growth out of naivety": This is my version, but I'm not sold on that wording. Maybe "would be more appropriate to portray"? - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Allow better representation", perhaps? Pretty sure the Mika character was meant to complement the Daigo character, rather than bear the burden of "growing out of naivety" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note after "trans woman" is missing a }}. There's a sentence fragment there too; I don't know what's missing.
  • "Several critics related Departures to the theme of death": Ugh.
  • "¥3.2 billion": Probably go with "3.2 billion yen" at first occurrence, per WP:$. (I know that might not feel right, but MOSNUM is what it is, and I don't think it hurts.)
  • "As such": Just a note that most style guides don't consider this a synonym for "therefore". I've rewritten a couple of these, but I won't push it.
    • A little more on that one. In the very next article I came to: "Plagis considered himself a Rhodesian flyer and wore shoulder flashes on his uniform denoting him as such." If you tend to use "as such" to mean "therefore", then in my experience, readers won't get the meaning here ("as a Rhodesian flyer"); they'll think it means something like "that way". Your use is common enough that I'm not comfortable prohibiting it (particularly because I'm trying for a small copyediting footprint) ... just be aware there's a price to pay in losing the original meaning of a sometimes-useful phrase. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was at once understated and pushed emotions across": Ugh.
  • "with humour which perfectly complimented the moving and meaningful story" but": quote marks missing
  • "nurse-cum-entrepreneur": As I was saying to Crisco ... in scholarly writing, sure. Wikipedia readers will giggle and scratch their heads.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Masterful handling of reviews and quotes. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for having a look at this, and your edits.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 03:46, 15 August 2014 [24].


Katsudō Shashin[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'll take you longer to read this blurb than it will to watch this film—the oldest surviving example of Japanese animation, from possibly as early as 1907. Actually a printed filmstrip fastened together at the ends to be viewed endlessly, I suppose it may qualify as both the shortest and longest Japanese film. The depth of characterization and subtely of the intricate plot make the film a rewarding experience, especially upon re-viewing, but no more so than your inevitable review will be of this most special Candidate. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from the unfathomably vexed Crisco 1492
    • Katsudō Shashin (活動写真?, Moving Picture) ... who writes "活動写真" (katsudō shashin, or "moving picture"), - Do we really need the translation twice in the opening paragraph?
    • whose ends - I don't think 35mm film is a person
      • We've disagreed about inanimate whose before. It'll take considerable peer pressure for me to budge from this. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't budge, "whose ends" is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • the oldest to survive is Hanawa Hekonai meitō no maki - from what year?
    • Live-action films for these devices were expensive to make; possibly as early as 1898 animated films for these devices were on sale, and could be fastened in loops for continuous viewing. - Don't think these two are related enough for a semi-colon
    • an old Kyoto family - are they named?
    • Any other critical reception? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • A number of short articles proclaiming the discovery, but none of them fall under the what you could call "critical reception". The English ones can't even get their facts straight ( a lot of claims that it was hand-drawn, when the briefest peak at the severely off-register red dispells that idea). I'd be thrilled if anything else interesting turned up. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our article on Jun'ichi Kouchi has him as a possible creator for the film. Can we source this? Or other speculation?
      • Added by an IP 30 July (two days ago) without a source. Given it predates Kouchi's work by up to a decade, and the styles are drastically different, I'm calling BS until someone can provide a source. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review - spotchecks not done


Support I only have two comments, and they're so minimal that I don't even care if you fix them or not.

  • Any reason two captions have "c. 1907"? It seems like only one is needed.
    • I removed both, since they're both redundant and the actual date isn't known. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 02:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An IMDB external link would be nice [25]

Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is good, but not flawless. First of all, as per Litten's most recent research explicitly states it " was originally a 35mm celluloid loop film with Edison perforation (it has now shrunk to 33,5mm)" - This means the Clements' source is actually incorrect in the identification - and I doubt that Clements every examined the film in person - so its not likely his mistake. He may be an apologist, but its not fair to label it his error. Though I think the fact that the production was decidedly amateur (according to Litten) that it should be added to the "creator unknown" sentence because it is a well-educated observation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first point has gone over my head—what are you asking me to change? For the second point, I don't see Litten calling the film "decidedly amateur", but rather low-quality, which Matsumoto says suggests it was from a smaller company. I've added that to the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gladly support. It's nice to see a short article getting credit for it's detail all the same. I made a small change (Now lost → Now lost), which you're welcome to undo, it just came across a little odd to me. Otherwise, this article is well-researched, informative, and very well-written. Including the full film is a very nice touch. Excellent work! Sock (tock talk) 12:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 03:56, 15 August 2014 [26].


Kedok Ketawa[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Union Films' first production, The Laughing Mask. Although modern sources don't have a plot summary (see Biran [2009] and the Indonesian Film Catalogue), I was lucky enough to find a review which went into some detail on the story. This is easily the most complete source on this likely lost film, in any language. I hope you enjoy the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately captioned. Licensing is fine as-is, but it's nearly at the PD-text level. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora

Not a bad article! It's interesting, but the prose could be spiced up a bit.

1. The first paragraph in the lede introduces us to four actors who are unknown and destined to remain so. I don't believe these guys are so central to the article that they warrant inclusion in this prime piece of Wiki real estate.
2. The clause "The first production of Union Films" is awkward.
3. The final sentence in the lede tells us that the film is likely lost. Note the word "likely".
4. PLOT. This: "a rich man is interested in taking Minarsih to be his wife". The prose strikes me as rather childlike.
5. PLOT. "Basuki is unable to fight them back, but he is soon joined by the a masked vigilante".
5.1 Basuki + a redundant "he".
5.2. Is it "the masked vigilante" or "a masked vigilante"?
6. PLOT. "Basuki and Minarsih can live together in peace". Is that it? Nothing else?
7. PRODUCTION. "Fatimah and Basoeki were nobles with relatively extensive educations". What's an extensive education? Why not show rather than tell?
8. RELEASE AND RECEPTION. In the second paragraph you use the verb "praise" three times in just four sentences. How about "laud" or "commend" or "commented positively on"?
9. LEGACY. In paragraph two you talk again about how the film is "likely" lost and observe that "visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider suggests that all Indonesian films from before 1950 are lost". No. Mr Heider writes that movies made before 1950 have been lost. He's not suggesting anything, nor is he talking about probabilities. I think you should contrast Heider's claim with a while construction:
9.1 While American visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider has written that all Indonesian films from before 1950 are lost, J.B. Kristanto's Katalog Film Indonesia records several as having survived at Sinematek Indonesia's archives. Furthermore, film historian Misbach Yusa Biran notes that several Japanese propaganda films have survived at the Netherlands Government Information Service. (Note: you don't need definite articles when introducing Heider and Biran.)
9.2. So in whose opinion is the movie "likely" lost? Are you sure this isn't simply your own opinion?
10. See this URL for Heider's book: http://books.google.ca/books?id=m4DVrBo91lEC&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false. It points directly to page 14. Use this instead of the URL you've currently got.

Good luck!!

Singora (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review, glad to see you're back at FAC. Replies follow:
  • 1: Of the four, Basoeki Resobowo is probably the only one likely to get an article (though that would mostly be for his work as an artist and not his acting). But since WP:REDLINK is against RL-ing biographies, I haven't done so. As for removing the names entirely, that wouldn't fly. I'd consider removing Eddy Kock, since his is the only role not explicit in the plot summary that has surfaced... but wholesale removal would go against expectations for a film. If this was something like Eulis Atjih, in which the actors names aren't even known, sure... but not for something with a definite cast.
  • 2: Reworked.
  • 3: See reply below.
  • 4: Reworked a little bit. The source doesn't go into any more detail, sadly.
  • 5: Nixed "he". I think from a purely grammatical POV both are acceptable, but I feel as though "a" is more natural.
  • 6: That's where the review stops. As I mentioned in my nomination statement, that's already more than any source I've seen since.
  • 7: In the source, Fatimah is only said to be "educated", while Basoeki is confirmed to have graduated from AMS (equivalent to senior high school). I've removed "relatively" and added a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8: Now only one.
  • 9: The direct quote is "films made before 1950 have been lost and the few films preserved from the 1950s are rarely seen". The contrast between the unqualified "films made before 1950" and "the few films preserved from the 1950s" suggests that there is an implied "all" in that sentence. I'm not the only one with this reading of Heider's text, see Jean Gelman Taylor's article in Fantasizing the Feminine in Indonesia. As for the second point, I've changed to "may" rather than "likely", as in the historical context the possibility is far too likely to simply ignore it and remove the paragraph (and thus imply that the film is still extant). Sadly, there are no sources that say explicitly that it is lost, which would make my job a lot easier. I think the only Indies film which sources explicitly state to be lost is Terang Boelan. To be honest, I think "likely" is still defensible, as the proportion of films which we can verify have survived (through Kristanto's catalogue, or elsewhere such as in Sinematek's inventory [which I have a copy of, although it's technically unpublished]) is considerably lower than the number which we cannot verify.
  • 10: I prefer not pointing to single pages using Google Books, as it keeps it simpler and easier to read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Singora

1. RE: "Union Films' first production, it was directed by Jo An Djan and starred Oedjang, Fatimah, and Basoeki Resobowo". Isn't this a non-sequitur?
1.1. How about "The movie was Union Films' first production and directed by Jo An Djan; it starred Oedjang, Fatimah, and Basoeki Resobowo"?
2. RE: "The film follows a young couple who face off against criminals". Is "face off" truly encyclopedic?
3. RE: "Basuki is unable to fight them back, but is soon joined by the a masked vigilante". What's wrong with this?
4. RE: "emphasising the quality of its cinematography and acting". I like that! Much better.
5. RE: "may now be lost". This still strikes me as bordering on original research. It's your opinion: it's a conclusion you've drawn from the sources.
6. RE: Google Books. Why does not pointing to the page you're referring to keep things "simpler and easier to read"? Why should I (your intended audience) have to search the book to find the passage you're quoting?
7. RE: anarthrous nominal premodifiers. Wow! That is vastly superior pretentiousness!

PS. Do you need the full stop after "sweet romance"?

As I said before, it's a good article. I guess you now need a few more guys to come along and give opinions and feedback.

Singora (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1. Tried reworking in a way which avoids "movie".
    • 2. Have gone with "fight off"
    • 3. It hasn't won a Pulitzer? (fixed by removing "the")
    • 4. Thanks!
    • 5. Short of a complete (or, relatively complete, considering how documentation from Indonesia ends up in the weirdest places... I recall hearing that a nearly complete collection of the first 10 years of Soeara Moehammadijah was in... Chicago, of all places) inventory of what films are now extant (none existent, as far as I've seen; to make one as a journal article would be on my to do list if I could find a backer, since such an endeavour would mean the Netherlands, Jakarta, and Japan, at the very least, and probably Singapore) there appears to be little chance of a solid "yes" or "no" either way. I believe the sources support a "may" or "might", and that implying that the film is still extent by omitting such information would be a poor overview of sources. I would welcome any way of phrasing this that does not violate your understanding of OR, but I cannot abide by wholesale removal. Perhaps something like "JB Kristanto's Indonesian Film Catalogue does not record the film being held at Sinematek Indonesia", but then people would ask "so what?".
    • 6. At the code level, it's simpler and takes up less space. It is also less likely to confuse people if the book is not previewable in their area (as Google sets it by location... there are a lot of full view books that I can't access from Indonesia), since they shouldn't expect to go straight to a page.
    • 7. I agree, a little, but if that's the preferred form in BrE (and style guides support it) I guess that's how it must be for formal writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments to follow a.s.a.p. – If (said he, peering censoriously over the top of his reading glasses) the mention of the undersigned was merely to point out what a prim and proper native English writer would write, I shall be dishing out 100 lines for your impertinence. If, on the other hand, as I strongly suspect, it was a crafty ploy to get me to join this review it has succeeded admirably. Give me till tomorrow, please, and I'll review and pitch in here. Tim riley talk 19:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank ye, oh great and fair school master of the three Wikis — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. On first looking at it I was rather taken aback at the brevity of the article, but having read it carefully I can't think what more could usefully be said. The text is clear, the sourcing is thorough and broad, and I imagine in the circumstances described in the article that it is as well illustrated as it could possibly be. If we're playing the false title game, there is one at "While American visual anthropologist Karl G. Heider", but we shan't fall out over that. The lead is short, but then so is the article, and it would be foolish to pad the lead out just to meet WP norms. As far as I can see this page meets the FA criteria, and I see no reason to oppose. Tim riley talk 15:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review. Blast! One lousy mistake away from no comments! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More from Singora -- the Dracuala connection

1. See this link https://www.google.com/search?q=Kedok+Ketawa+dracula#q=Kedok+Ketawa+dracula&tbm=bks
2. I'm searching Google books for Kedok Ketawa dracula
3. See what comes up ..............
4. East-West Film Journal - Volume 6, Issue 2 - Page 102: This lesson was applied religiously until the arrival of the Japanese army in 1942: Tar- zan became Alang-Alang and Dracula became Kedok Ketawa and Tengkorak Hidup. This tradition is still part of Indonesia's film business culture.
5. Malaysian Films: The Beginning: The influence of Dracula films was seen in the birth of Kedok Ketawa or Topeng Ketawa produced by the Union Film Company in 1940 which was considered to have vastly improved in terms of quality and, hence, went down well with the ...
6. Shadows on the silver screen: Kedok Ketawa (The Laughing Mask) were mere imitations of Dracula films which were in circulation before the beginning of the Japanese occupation in 1942.

Your article claims the film "may" have been influenced by Dracula. Singora (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, these sources are a bit more affirmative than the one I'd cited. I'll see if I can get the full article of the East-West Film Journal at WP:RX, as that connects it to the cultural context. Thanks for the link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worked in, although I've also left a note that neither of these sources "show" and not "tell". Said note may be made a footnote if you think it's distracting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nicely put together, well-supported and no issues that I could see. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Taylor Trescott
"Starring Oedjang, Fatimah, and Basoeki Resobowo." Awkward
  • Fragment nuked, and reworked in alphabetical order. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"performed by S Poniman" if Poniman is a surname, the S should be dropped since it's already mentioned
Why do you wait until Reception to link Hollywood when Production mentions it twice?
  • Those mentions were added considerably later. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ref 4 has "232–33", ref 7 has "232–233"

Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reviewing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support looks good - but in the refs abbreviation of page numbers is still not consistent (just #9). Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for reviewing, and I've gotten that last one. If this is a source review, could you note that explicitly for the delegate? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "critic-cum-screenwriter": In scholarly writing ... sure. On Wikipedia ... most of our readers will giggle and have no idea what you're talking about. Actually, I'm not always sure what it means ... "as", "with", "and" and "in the role of" are common meanings. I went with "and".
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I might overuse "-cum-" a bit. Thanks for the copyedit and support! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

So why did I choose this particular FAC to review? Well, firstly, Crisco 1492 is assiduous in reviewing other people's nominations and secondly, its a nice short article! A few points on the prose:

  • "Basuki is unable to fight them back, ..." - This may be idiomatic in some versions of English but it sounds odd to me (UK).
  • "... revived the ailing domestic film industry." - Domestic to where?
  • "... were nobles with formal educations." - I would use the singular "education" here.
  • "Following the success of Terang Boelan (1937; based on The Jungle Princess), the domestic film industry began to model their productions after Hollywood works. This was expected to ensure financial success." - The second sentence is a bit short and could be linked to the first with an "as".
  • "Tan's Film had released Gagak Item (The Black Crow), with Rd Mochtar as the masked Black Crow, in 1939, and later releases, including Java Industrial Film's 1941 release Srigala Item (The Black Wolf), continued the trend." - Too many "releases" in this sentence.
  • "Accord to the review, the film surpassed expectations ..." - Don't you mean "according"?
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm happy with the alterations you have made and support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I missed a lot here, I'll go back through the ones I've done the last couple of days. - Dank (push to talk) 10:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, Dan. You did/do great. I'm partly to blame too; I missed that the copyedits introduced an error. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support not really much to quibble about.

Production
  • "film following a masked hero" possibly "featuring" for "following"
Release
  • A translation of the Dutch title? I'm pretty clear on what it means, but is the reader?
  • Added as a footnote, since the translation for both is pretty much the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, as always, for your review and support! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 03:57, 15 August 2014 [27].


Portrait of a Young Girl (Christus)[edit]

Ceoil (talk), Johnbod (talk)

This portrait often appears in popular overviews of 15th century art, but has recieved relatively little scholarship. Painted around 1470, it contains many Early Netherlandish and Gothic characteristics, and sits uneasily between the two. This was a terribly difficult article to write. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

It would I think be wrong to call the article by such a common title, especially one made up by modern curators. In fact we don't have any other articles on paintings called this, so there is as yet no disam page. There's a case for lumping it with Portrait of a Young Woman (a disam page). I don't think she is in fact what a "young girl" normally means, but I suppose Berlin in 1820-odd had no word for teenager. Perhaps we should do a stub on the Durer of the same name, as it happens in the same museum. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll leave that to you to deceide, but why (Christus, Berlin) rahter than just (Christus)? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is often refered in the literature as the Berlin portrait. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the inline cites are not required in the lead; it would be nice (cleaner & friendlier) to see them moved out
They are MOS compliant, and the quote at least requires one. Typically, reviewers are more likely to complain in the opposite direction. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know they're MoS compliant, and I wouldn't oppose over them, I just think it would be more reader-friendly without them. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "Background" section would be nice---there's a lot of background taken for granted in the prose, not just diretly with regards to painting, but also stuff such as "the patronage of the newly emerging middle class, secularising portraiture, and removing it from the preserve of royalty"
That's all in the FA Early_Netherlandish_painting; I've made the link clearer (lead 1st line). One could add a bit. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it would be, but it shouldn't be assumed that many have clicked through before reading this article. If it could be summed up in a couple of sentneces, I think it would be helpful. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MoS recommends "c." with a period, but doesn't specifically say to avoid "c" without a period ...
Done. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waagen associated lettering; Joel Upton supports; Max Friedländer proposed: Who?
Gustav Waagen link moved to first mention, and explained. I don't like saying that people who one would expect from the context to be art historians are in fact just that. Of course if they are not that's a different matter. Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead[edit]
  • a small oil on oak panel painting: "oil-on-oak" should be hyphenated here, but I think it would read better as a small oil panel painting on oak or a small oil painting on oak panel
Done Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • that of Netherlandish portraiture: is there something good to link to here?
Early_Netherlandish_painting#Portraiture , done Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wall sets her in a recognisable interior: recognizable as an interior, or as a particular interior? What is "recognisable"?
Gone now, I think. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is both a major stylistic advance in Christus' oeuvre and that of Netherlandish portraiture, not just that the sitter is no longer set against a flat, neutral background; here she is placed in an airy, three-dimensional, realistic setting.: the "not just" signals to the reader that something like a "but" would follow, but instead we're greeted with a semicolon in a somewhat jarring manner. It also makes the assumption that the reader would know that earlier paintings had "flat, nutral background"s.
Redone. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • her complex stare is reserved, but alert and intelligent: does "alert and intelligent" contrast with "reserved"?
Enough, I think Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art historian Joel Upton described the lady as resembling "a polished pearl, almost opalescent, lying on a cushion of black velvet.": I'm not a fan of these kinds of quotes in the lead. Is it widely quoted on the literature on the painting, so that it would somehow constitute part of the "overview" of the subject that the lead is supposed to be?
No, but since one is never able to say anything enthusiastic about works thanks to the ever-vigilant PEACOCK patrol, this is best done by quotation (would be in any case) and it is best done at the start. No, the quotation is not well-known, but little is about this work. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at the very least, the quote should also appear in the body that the lead's supposed to summarize. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it works like that. Obviously, one only needs it once (like the measurements, which often appear in the lead for painting FAs). Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Northern Renaissance article capitalizes "Northern Renaissance". Is the lowercase a common, accepted alternative?
Caps added. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the most significant successor of the second generation: at first blush, this reads as if he had succeeded the second generation.
Rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Description[edit]
  • naturalistic enough to be a space within her home: what about being "naturalistic" would classify it as a space in her home?
rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • which Sterling notes is indebted to van Eyck: I assume the influence of van Eyck rather than the man himself?
Yes, is this unclear? Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oriental eyes: link to Epicanthic fold? and isn't "oriental" kind of old-fashioned?
  • the Gothic ideal: something good to link to here?
Don't think so. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and seems possessesed by an unusual elegance: "unusual" in what sense?
Reworded to make clearer. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • some art historians have described as unnerving.: such as?
  • virtually unprecedented in Italian portrait painting at that time: aren't we in the Low Countries?
Clarified Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rarely found, if at all,: is there some question as to whether it's found at all?
Reworded Ceoil (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the male chaperon hat, which always has a long tailing cornette, sometimes worn in this way: I was going to link to cornette, but the article says it's "a piece of female headwear". Do you know more about this?
Well yes, as I wrote chaperon. Not sure what the question is. The female wimple cornettes are different. Here the girl wears one of the male scarf-like sort, which is not that unusual on women too. Added a bit. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • almost white skin and almost sculpted bone structure: "almost ... almost"
Now "almost white skin and strong bone structure" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and even Robert Campin: this is jarring—we shouldn't assume the reader knows what Campin's advances were or what their relation to Christus' work might have been
Cut "even" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • in favour of an elongation of form; emphasised by way the narrow, slight upper body and head are, according to art historian Robert Suckale, "heightened by the V-shaped neckline of the ermine and the cylindrical hat.": I'm having trouble parsing this. Something's wrong; I'm not sure what.
Rewritten (a "the" was missing for a start). Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Identity[edit]
  • of the English Talbot family: which English Talbot family?
There is Baron Talbot, but the relevant ones are the 1st & 2nd Earls of Shrewsbury, both linked when mentioned just after. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has just been introduced, though, wouldn't "an" be more appropriate? Otherwise it sounds like the article's namedropping a family we should be expected to know (like "the Medici"). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redone Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archibald Russell establishes: maybe "has established"?
Changed to "established" Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joel Upton supports Waagen's: maybe "Joel Upton's analysis supports" or somesuch? Otherwise the present tense seems weird.
Rewritten. There is another "analysis" just after. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provenance[edit]
  • it commanded an unusually high price: is the price known?
Yes, but it's not much use by itself - I think it was 40 florins. Stapleton publishes and translates the whole thing, which known from a later copy. Maybe could do a note comparing it with other works priced up in the inventory, but this is fiddly. I think we are working from google preview, which gives the introductory essay but not the list itself. in UK anyway. In fact, with a Van Eyck, it was the most expensive of the 42 Netherlandish paintings recorded. See here; the top price was 100 florins for the Fra Angelico tondo now in Washington, but a small Fra Angelico was only valued at 5 florins. Rewritten a bit; the identity of the 1492 work with that in Berlin is not certain. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe best to shove it into a footnote? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • indicating that their interest: is "they" the Medici?
Yes, rewritten Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok in a picture caption, but could go to "showing". Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • northern painter: should "northern" be capitalized here?
Usually not I think - like "N/northern Europe". Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • also identified the Saint Eligius panel: the Saint Eligius is also by Christus?
Yes, but... Now: "In this way, Waagan also identified Christus' so-called Saint Eligius panel, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (and seen as just a portrait of a goldsmith)" Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a number of paintings had been attributed to Jan van Eyck: meaning paintings by Christus, or paintings in general?
Added "his", though until this date anything from northern Europe before about 1520 was liable to be attributed to Jan van Eyck (after that it was all Durer). Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • hence the confusion with the older painter who often signed his work with similar phraseology if signed with separate names, why would there be confusion?
  • Taking this out for the time being. The sources are a bit confusing as to why anyone thought this. Ceoil (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now excised. Ceoil (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dating[edit]
  • hidden comment: lots of blanks to be filled in here; Sterling assumes familiarity with the literature: are there still lots of blanks to be filled in, or can this comment be removed?
  • as executed later: or "to have been"?
Notes[edit]
  • Frère, Jean Claude. Early Flemish painting. Terrail, 2007: no pages?

File check[edit]

Feel free to disagree with anything here, or any of my copyedits. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never quite understand the issue here re "sources", as on the Fouquet Madonna. This is a museum photo of a famous painting, which has its own category at Category:Madonna_lactans_by_Jean_Fouquet. This is the best of the many versions we have, sourced from some website, which is now defunct. Anyway, I've now swopped for a brighter version uploaded by the photographer. Johnbod (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to File:Triptyque de Jean Witte (1473).jpg from the museum.(Oh, it's been removed anyway) I think we may have to let the x-ray go, Ceoil. Can we link to it? (was also removed anyway)Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I still think it's odd to have a disambig like (Christus, Berlin) (wouldn't just (Christus) or (Petrus Christus) be better?), but I woudln't hold this up over titling. It's a fine article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Curley for your close reading and very detailed review :) I'm ok with moving to (Christus). Ceoil (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of sources
  • One three-author work uses et al in short cites, while the other lists all three - be consistent
  • FN18: author name doesn't match that given in Sources
  • Missing bibliographic info for Sterling
  • Nash is a book and should have its title italicized
  • Upton: check location. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Nikki; all resolved now. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle comment[edit]

  • I'd not ever read this article until tonight - very nice! And interesting to read that it's dated based on the style of the hennin. I've made a few very small tweaks; no prob to revert if not okay. One quibble is this sentence (and I might try to fix myself if I get the time): "The subject no longer sits against a flat, neutral background but is placed in an airy, three-dimensional and realistic setting" >> per the inline I left, sounds like she was sitting against a wall but now isn't. Also, is this Christus portrait the first to use such a convention? In other the words does "The subject" refer specifically to this girl or to Christus' innovations in general?
  • Support. Nicely done, as usual - a gem. Victoria (tk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Victoria, and well spotted. I've clarified that sentence now. Ceoil (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley Miles[edit]

  • A very good article. A few points.
  • The placing of images seems arbitrary. For example the Melun Diptych is at the beginning of Description although it is not discussed until Provenance. It would be easier for the reader to see the relevance of comparisons with other pictures if they were in the same section. Also why have the Portrait of a Woman, which is not discussed, and not the Arnolfini Portrait, which is?
The Melun is there to illustrate by comparison "She reflects the Gothic ideal of elongated facial features, narrow shoulders, tightly pinned hair and an almost unnaturally long forehead, achieved through tightly pulled back hair which has been plucked at the top", which the caption should perhaps clarify. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Caption amended now to reflect this. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again the relevance of the Van de Weyden portrait to the nearby text needs explanation in the text or caption. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added now in the caption. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his former master van Eyck" I think it is worth saying in the lead that Christus was a pupil of Van Eyck.
I don't know - it would have to go in the first sentence I think, which seems excessive. The relationship lacks documentation, though it is usually accepted. I've left it where it is and softened to "...Jan van Eyck, who is often regarded as Christus' master." Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be cautious also, this seems fine. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of Waagen's comments would be helpful.
Done (1825) Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the discussion of the inscription confusing. It is not clear until the second paragraph that the original was in Latin, and English and German translations are being given. Why not give the original Latin at the start rather than the German?
It's not clear that it has actually survived, even as text (the frame itself has disappeared, which I've clarified) - Ainsworth doesn't quote it, which you'd think she would if she had it. What about Upton, Ceoil? Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will recheck Johnbod and post latest monday night (off to Dingle for long weekend). Book is to hand but exhausted after rubbish week. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I made myself clear. The first paragraph says interpreted lettering as suggesting, which is vague. The second says he may have misinterpreted nepos in the signature (should not this be mistranslated nepos in the inscription?). If I have got it right and the argument is over the translation of a Latin inscription, it would make things clear to say at the start "Waagen translated a Latin inscription as...", even if the wording in Latin is not available, rather than the unclear (to me) interpreting as suggesting. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten somewhat, and expanded in a note. I think both Waagen's transcription and translation have been put into question, inevitably on a speculative basis; then there may be questions as to the date of the inscription in any case. Johnbod (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks fine to me now. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, Archibald Russell established that Grymeston had not married into the Talbot family" It has not previously been made clear that the identification was based on the assumption that he had married into the Talbots. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was - that was just a guess that would have neatly tidied up the theory, if true. The Talbots came from Waagen's reading of the vanished frame, Grimeston from the apparent match with his portrait, now in the NG on loan. I agree it is confusing. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These are all good points Dudley that we are working with; many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have covered all these now, but please say if not. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is just the last point, that Grymeston had not married into the Talbots. I would delete it, but if it is kept I think its relevance needs to be clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, I don't think Ainsworth clearly has Scharf tying Grimston in with the Talbots. Does Upton? Johnbod (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was poorly phrased, what was intended was eliminated the posibility. I'll remove this. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed review, its always gratifying when someone looks so close. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dating[edit]

"In the early 20th century works then attributed to Christus were challenged." - What is being challenged here, the dating or the attribution? I assume the former, but the current sentence structure makes it unclear. Kafka Liz (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz, have clarified that now. Ceoil (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As expected, there was very little for a copyeditor to do, and the writing is superb. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Have the issues raised in he image check been resolved? I still see dead links for sources and we need clarification regarding the X-ray image, which alone is not a work of art. Graham Colm (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done, mostly by removing pics. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes and support Dan. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:48, 15 August 2014 [28].


Development of Grand Theft Auto V[edit]

Nominator(s): CR4ZE (t • c) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The development of Grand Theft Auto V was one of gaming's biggest undertakings. Developer Rockstar North are based in Edinburgh, but they've always done American cities justice. Making GTA V's open world required visits to California, with photo and video footage documenting the journey. An entire score was written. All of the main parts were mo-capped. This article covers all bases, thanks to the developer's many interviews with journalists. I feel it's written well enough to be up to scratch with other featured articles. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from URDNEXT[edit]

  • Support! I love Grand Theft Auto and I was wow'd by how well it's written. It has more info then any other website on the subject. URDNEXT (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX[edit]

  • Can't wait. You were a big help with the main article's FAC, too. CR4ZE (t • c) 23:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my pleasure helping you get GTA V itself to FA :). Now for the commentary on this.....
  • Give a time range in the lead for when the development began
  • "published by Rockstar Games"..... released
  • "its release was widely anticipated"..... something about this just doesn't feel right. I'm not doubting its factual accuracy, but it seems either misplaced or poorly phrased.
  • "sources allegedly close to the developer"..... how about giving the names of these "sources"?
  • "first acknowledged the existence of"..... maybe first confirmed would be better
  • "did not meet its original projected release date"..... here you should include what date this was scheduled for
  • "Early in Grand Theft Auto V's development" → "Early in the game's development"
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, a ref should not be used more than once in a row per paragraph (i.e. don't use ref#90 more than once in a paragraph without uses of other refs in between the uses of ref#90)
  • Metro is not a reliable source
  • When using multiple articles from a common source (i.e. multiple IGN refs), only link the work in the first ref used from the common source
  • "Buzzfeed" is not a reliable source
  • The Hollywood Reporter should be italicized
  • Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, ′ should be ' (check the refs for this)
  • Do not use stylizations
There's my 2¢. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 06:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've taken care of everything above. Some feedback—the development timeframe is murky territory. I'm seeing sources that say four years (putting it at 2009-13), but others say immediately following GTA IV (2008-13). BuzzFeed are direct interviews with key people involved in the game, and the facts being cited are coming out of their mouths, not the journalists'. Hollywood Reporter was, but it was using the wrong field. Couldn't pick up quote mark violations, can you point them out? Stylisations pertaining to what? Cheers, keep the comments coming. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay. I've taken another look through the article and it seems to all have been taken care of. I was referring to different capitalizations in terms of stylizations, but now can't see it. I'll take your word for the Buzzfeed links and ambiguous starting time, though would ideally link to a different site. In any case, I now officially support! Outstanding work. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 14:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

Not sure if I'll post a full review, but I do have a few comments:

  • Given that it's been recently announced that this game is being ported to PCs, is this nomination premature?
  • The article appears to have been written entirely from the perspective of the game's developers (complete with lots of quotes from them). Surely industry experts, reviewers and critics also have perspectives which should be included (eg, was the development process unusually smooth or difficult? Why are all the three playable characters male?, etc)
  • Watch out for peacock prose and corporate jargon. From skimming the article I spotted stuff like "Grand Theft Auto V was envisioned to exceed the core mechanics of the Grand Theft Auto series", "The three interwoven stories had a positive critical reception and confirmed the team's confidence that building Grand Theft Auto V around this model was an innovative decision" and "co-opted a number of other studios owned by parent company Rockstar Games to facilitate development"
  • "Rockstar North, the core 360-person team behind the game" - exactly 360 people all the way through the development of the game? Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recently-announced port is covered in the main article, and main development (as covered in this article) has been complete since 17 September 2013. There could be merit in having something on the port here but there's no real development information out there yet.
  • Third-party sources can't give as much insight into a game's development because they aren't in any way involved with it. They can comment on the game's development, like estimating the development budget and time, both of which are covered. I don't see any scope issues, because I haven't seen any solid development information come out written from an objective third-party.
  • I don't think the examples you cite are peacock, but they're on the border of jargon, yes. Is there more throughout? I'll likely run through a self-copy-edit and have your point in my mind.
  • The source unambiguously says 360. If it was 360 all the way through or not is irrelevant because that's what the source says, and going beyond that would be WP:OR. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

  • the article does not clearly give a framework for when the development started. It just says after GTA4, but when was that without clicking on links?
    • Actually it does that but only very late in the article
  • I would find it interesting for the intro to estimate the number of people involved in creating the game
  • aren't there pics of people involved in creating the game?
  • potential power of both consoles => ????
  • the first section quote needs quotation marks
  • the collapsed table needs a title
  • I think promotion and delay and leaks should be moved at the end of the article
  • Grand Theft Auto V was developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360.=> but was released on other platforms too
  • Is the name Los Santos just random, or was it chosen for a specific reason?
  • shouldn't be there some form of concluding section like criticism or acclaim?

Nergaal (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Nergaal!
  • This has been mentioned above; sources are saying different things about the exact development time frame. We'll look into it.
I meant say that you should have: "GTA5 started being developed right after GTA 4 was released in 20xx"
  • We can't really estimate how many people were involved in creating the game; we must rely on references.
Article says somewhere that over 1000 people were involved in programming? Say in the intro something along the lines "over 1000 ppl were involved in the programming alone"
  • Pictures of the development team definitely exist. I'll look into adding some, if you wish.
  • I'm unsure as to what you're confused about; "potential power of both consoles" seems like a fairly straightforward sentence. Please elaborate.
"potential power of both consoles" is in the text. which 2 consoles? gen 7 or 8? wii or not?
  • Added quotation marks.
  • Added title.
  • Promotion" and "Delay and leak" are both related to the Business part of development, which is why they are at the top.
What i meant is sthe article should start with a background, then with the actual development, then with the promotion. I don't see the point in splitting the article into 2 sections when you can have 3 chronological ones. isn't this article about the chronology part of the series?
  • That statement remains true; the game was developed for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360. When it is released for other platforms (or when development information of such is released), then more information shall definitely be added to the article.
What I meant is that the article needs to clarify that the game went beyond the 2 consoles
  • I'm not sure where the name "Los Santos" came from; it's been used since Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004), so it's unlikely that you'll be able to find the source of origin.
give it a shot
  • The Reception of the game can be found at the main article. This article is about the development only, so there's no need for critical response here.
-- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 11:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try and track some free shots of the developers/key people. If not, are you cool with non-free? On the article's structure, I wrote this using Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, whose layout I like. I'm open to deviating from that. I doubt there's anything on the origins of Los Santos's name, because I've read possibly every interview and feature and found nothing. If there was, it'd probably be something from a GTA San Andreas interview back in 2003, and using that would broach WP:SYNTH imo. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

CR4ZE, do you need more comments? If so, I can look the article over and give some. Tezero (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tezero, sorry didn't see this. I'd love to get some comments from you if available. Cheers, CR4ZE (t • c) 03:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I remember passing this for GAN, and now, after a few minor wording and grammar (yes, I know it's UK English) changes, which you can revert if you'd like (please look at all of them first, though), I'm confident in giving this my approval. Well done. Tezero (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Grand_Theft_Auto_V_development.jpg: FUR could be expanded, particularly to fill in the "n.a." parameters
  • File:GTA_V_Main_Theme.ogg's FUR also should be expanded, and what is the length of the original piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. I think I've taken care of everything. CR4ZE (t • c) 16:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite: you've indicated that the 30-second non-free sample is from a piece with a total length of 2:34. Per WP:SAMPLE, "samples should not exceed 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter" (my emphasis). 10% of 2:34 is only 15 seconds. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review from JimmyBlackwing

My main focus at FAC is criterion 1a, so that's what I'll be reviewing here. Since this article is extremely long, I'll take a page from Tony1's book and base my review on the lead and on samples from the body.

  • "began following" — This wording makes it sound like GTA V is stalking GTA IV. "Began after" is a possible alternative.
  • "its predecessor" — Grammatically, this entails that GTA IV was the predecessor to GTA V's development, rather than to the game itself.
  • "Grand Theft Auto V was released ... It was released by Rockstar Games" — Repetitive phrasing like this is like whiplash to the reader, and I'm noticing it throughout the article. Try to change up the sentence structures.
  • "entry into" — "Enter into" means to become involved in something. GTA V is the fifteenth entry in the GTA series.
  • "the core team" — Where was this team located? If it was at Rockstar North, then that isn't made clear by the word "oversaw".
  • "spiritual successor to previous projects" — Should be mentioned that these are non-GTA products, and the relationship between the team and the products in question needs to be clarified.
  • "A widely-anticipated game, Grand Theft Auto V's promotion began with its unexpected announcement in 2011." — This sentence structure does not deliver its contents (widely-anticipated game, GTA V's promotion, unexpected announcement) cohesively.
  • "the draw distances it could render" — Dangling participle, since it's not made clear whether "it" is the engine or the game.
  • "their system architectures" — Ditto. Try "the systems' architectures".
  • "multiple character design" — Unclear as to whether the character design are [sic] multiple or the design includes multiple characters.
  • "uses ... to record the voices and movements" — Unless the voices and movements are being recorded in real-time, then this should be in past tense.
  • "who collaborated closely for many years" — Is this relevant for the lead? Either way, it doesn't make much sense in its current form.
  • Besides these issues, the lead's flow is a bit rough overall. Sentences don't flow or flow together as well as they should. Definitely a job for a copyeditor.
  • A few samples from the body:
  • "Houser said ... He said ... He said" — When three sentences in a row begin with "X said", the page starts to read a bit like slam poetry, rather than an encyclopedia article.
  • "The central theme ... The mission content ... The team's decided" — Ditto. (Also, the third contains a typo.)
  • "they had become familiar with the hardware" — The game's hardware?
  • "the first game in the series ... because it would be a first for the series" — The repetition problem again.
  • From randomly scanning the article, the prose isn't too bad, but it's high on repetition and rigid phrasing. I recommend getting a copyeditor to go over it—particularly the lead, which was the roughest part I saw. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, JimmyBlackwing. In preparation for this FAC I sent this article to WP:GOCE. Baffle gab1978 did some extensive work. Do you mean to say the article might be in need of another copy-edit to the same degree? I can go through and self copy-edit or perhaps ask at WPVG. Pinging Czar if you're interested. re: overuse of "said", prior to the copy-edit the article almost always used variations of "said", but Baffle gab changed them to "said" in good faith knowing I had intentions for FAC, which lead me into thinking "said" is the most neutral term to use. If you're finding it over-used, I can go through and try to balance by introducing some variation. I think I've taken care of everything else. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work on the lead. Seeing that, I think you could probably just self-copyedit the article; don't bother calling in the GOCE. As for "said", that's certainly a neutral term, but there's nothing wrong with swapping in "commented", "stated", "opined", "noted" or even "felt" from time to time. Variation (within limits) livens up prose and makes it more compelling to read. Anyway, the body's prose is generally solid: it's definitely not in "total rewrite" territory. However, it has rough patches here and there. For example:
  • "He expressed plans to co-write a thousand-page script and said the company's workflow when creating a new game in the series typically was creating the game's city and developing the lead cast based on the chosen city." — A huge snake, and very difficult to read because of unnecessary word repetition (creating, game, city).
  • "an announcement ... the announcement ... the announcement" — From the third paragraph of Rumours and announcement, another example of unnecessary repetition.
  • "It was narrated by one of the protagonists, Michael De Santa (Ned Luke) and depicted several shots of the game's open world accompanied by the song "Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake" by English rock band Small Faces playing throughout." — Should be present tense if the trailer still exists. Also, the grammar entails that "depicted several shots etc." is one of the protagonists; and "playing throughout" can be cut without any loss.
  • "it introduced back-stories of the lead protagonists and featuring" — "Back-stories" should be prefaced with a "the", unless the "of" is changed to a "for". Also, "featuring" should be "features".
  • The article mentions "September 2009" and "November 2009", even though changing the second to "that November" (with relevant tweaks to make that phrasing fit) would improve readability without sacrificing clarity. Lower down, I see 2 November 2012 and 14 November 2012 mentioned within three sentences, when the second could be replaced with "November 14", "the 14th" or even "12 days later". Unnecessarily long dates (which I see throughout this page) can make an article read like a dry business file. When it comes to dates, shorter is always more readable.
  • Basically, it needs a bit of grammar and punctuation cleanup, alongside some general loosening-up of the prose. Add some variation where words or sentence structures repeat themselves unnecessarily. The bones are there, but they're a bit robotic right now. After you've finished, I'll give the article a thorough read to make sure everything's in order. Good work so far. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an update to say that I have seen this, and I've been very busy these past few days but will have more time to work on this soon. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, JimmyBlackwing, I think I've solved everything above. Care to take a look? I'll have another run-through of the article tonight as well. CR4ZE (t • c) 00:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great. I notice that the date overkill is still around, though. Here are a couple of rules of thumb. If multiple dates from the same year appear consecutively, axe the year after its first mention in that chain. Readers will just presume that the year is the same. If multiple dates from the same month appear consecutively, it can be best to axe the date entirely for something more casual, like "later that month", "X days later", etc. I'll give the article a top-to-bottom read now and fix any small problems I come across. I'll leave you to handle the date issue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just finished reading it. Made a few tweaks, but it's a really fantastic article—the kind of thing that'll be used as a model in the future. Clean up the date issue and I'll support in a heartbeat. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done! (I think). Please take a look. CR4ZE (t • c) 08:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm very impressed with this article. An incredible piece of work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for the editions table?
  • FN12: why the duplication?
  • be consistent in whether you include location and publisher for periodicals
  • Be consistent in how IGN is treated
  • Compare FNs 1 and 42 and 59 (and others)
  • FN21: missing italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Nikkimaria. Let me know how you find the changes. If you find everything up to scratch, this should be good to go for FA. Cheers. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to promote this now as it looks to me like pretty well all of this has been addressed, however pls double-check IGN in FNs 19, 20 and 72 -- you seem to use italics and publisher Ziff Davis elsewhere but in these three you're missing Ziff Davis and two don't use italics.
  • Don't know how I managed to miss those! Duly noted. Thanks Ian. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • Working now. Please don't edit; VisualEditor doesn't have true section editing so I'm afraid I have to tie up the whole page. I shouldn't be too long, but there's a lot to do.
  • "The development of Grand Theft Auto V": I changed this to "The development of Grand Theft Auto V". WP:LEAD says to avoid bolded links, because it won't be obvious to non-Wikipedians what a slightly different shade of blue means.
  • "a spiritual successor": I don't know what that is.
  • "environmental tasks": ditto.
  • "based on Los Angeles": "based on" is vague; I'm substituting more exact descriptions. Our Los Santos article says the city has "similar landmarks and districts but in different locations and under different names." - Dank (push to talk) 18:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a team of producers": I'm not sure what that means: musicians? music producers? financial supporters? If the point here is to say they hired several people, it's usually better to say how many people were hired. the game producers? How many? - Dank (push to talk)
  • There were a lot of things in the lead that I knew I didn't like, but wasn't sure how to reword. I had to guess in some cases. If I got anything wrong or you don't like what I did, revert it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to stop there without supporting or opposing. I hope the work on the lead was helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: I didn't love your changes to the lead if I'm to be honest, but if it works for you, it works for me. "spiritual successor" is a pretty common term, but it's wikilinked anyway. Not sure how you want me to approach that. Everything else is done. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's why I stopped; as I read through the article, I decided we probably weren't going to see eye-to-eye. Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • But are you good with what I've done insofar? I need an okay so the delegates don't read it as an outstanding objection, or would you like to continue the review on? CR4ZE (t • c) 15:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • FAC coords: I don't oppose the promotion of this article. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Colm (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2014 [29].

Fluorine[edit]

Dean of the Chemistry Department: Parcly Taxel (+R8R Gtrs) 04:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorine. Atomic number 9. The lightest halogen, most reactive element, an extreme challenge to isolate… yet it is found everywhere from toothpaste to uranium enrichment plants. I've been working from the suggestions of FAC 3 and Sandbh, fixing the article refs and performing a whole-article copyedit. I've also introduced a few new references to fill in unreferenced statement gaps. So here we go. Fourth time lucky, eh? Flevoland Parcly Taxel 04:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard errors (resolved)[edit]

The HarvErrors script suggests that 21 of the references listed in the Indexed references section are not cited. These should be deleted or moved to a Further reading section.Aa77zz (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done in double quick time. Parcly Taxel 11:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still one to sort out: Audi, G.; Bersillon, O.; Blachot, J.; Wapstra, A. H. (2003). --Mirokado (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an error. I used the {{NUBASE 2003}} template in the citation, which HarvErrors mistakes for a redundant citation when in fact it is cited in the Isotopes section. Parcly Taxel 00:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the template and the article. --Mirokado (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John (support)[edit]

I have never seen the word monoisotopy before. Is it a real word? --John (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. @R8R Gtrs: mentioned it in the article's talk page as part of his pre-FAC check, all but one of whose suggestions I've weaved into the article. Parcly Taxel 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? It doesn't seem to exist on the Internet except on a couple of Wikipedia articles. --John (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even I think "monoisotopy" is a highly technical term. It's been swapped out now. Parcly Taxel 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just copied the words from the part of the article I quoted. I am clearly not to be the judge of how Englsih words are formed/used, since I wasn't born in any English-speaking country, and I haven't lived in any, nor am I now.--R8R (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it out. Here's another nitpick:

Annotated periodic table colored mostly gray and green
Periodic table colored by how elements are treated in this article.
  Metals
  Nonmetals
  Noble gases
  Hydrogen
  Carbon
  Unknown properties

What is this table actually for? It does not mention halogens, though they are discussed in the article and its subject is one. Are noble gases also non-metals? Etc. --John (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a byproduct of the cumulative edits between the last FAC 3 years prior and now. From what you've said I also think that noble gases should come before nonmetals in the compounds section. That has been done, along with the legend's removal: the latter is all too redundant. Parcly Taxel 10:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This table is for a clearer difering the sets of elements discussed under each subheader. For example, antimony is mentioned among nonmetals, even though it is chemically closer to metals. The reader is explained what the borders between groups of elements under each header are via that table. Earler, those unobvious parts were explained in a note; that note is gone now for some reason. I'll get it back, compare with what we have now. Also, regarding the categories of the picture: each category of elements on the picture (metals, nonmetals, noble gases, hydrogen, carbon) coresponds to a category described in a subsection (Metals, Other nonmetals, Noble gases, Hydrogen, Organic chenistry). I hope that makes the purpose of the picture clear. Since it was obviously not as clear as intended (because of the missing note), I'll get the note back; if it's still unclear, please help make it more understandable.
Regarding titles: they are secondary to facts described under them. And it makes most sense (as I see it) to go in the order of hydrogen -- metals -- nonmetals -- noble gases -- organic chemistry. Then we can adjust the titles to the story. For example, nonmetals (other than noble gases and hydrogen) can be called "other reactive nonmetals," and the meaning is still clear. Or, if that's not good enough, we can add a line written in italics under the header explaining that, similar to {{redirect}}. There are options.--R8R (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the legend is back as a note; I've touched up the English as well. And then I realise we need more relentless critics, so this nomination won't stall. BANZAI! Parcly Taxel 04:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I now support. Nice work; here are the trifling copyedits I performed. --John (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbh (support)[edit]

I'm reasonably satisfied that this article meets all the FAC criteria bar (1a) prose; (2c) consistent citations; and (3) media. On prose I made some edits to the lead however User:Parcly Taxel has rewritten some of these, more or less back to the way they were. That is fine, however I remain personally dissatisfied with the standard of prose. Given any more of my edits to prose may be rewritten I will stop here. May I ask another editor to review the prose, in case I am being too pernickety? Re 2c, consistent citations, I have not looked closely at these to determine if they are satisfactory (I did see some Lide 2004 citations which need a pp rather than a p; and Burney 1999, which needs a p rather than a pp). Media looks OK but I haven't checked copyright status. 05:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, tillie. I "reverted" some of those copyedits (@Sandbh: yours) because they actually made the prose look worse, not better (indeed, I noticed the fragmented nature of the sentences introduced – stoppy-movey). John knows better; I've left his copyedits as they were. As for the single and double p-letters, yes, that has been fixed. Parcly Taxel 09:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noted and understood. I look forward to further developments. Sandbh (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the media, none of them are fair use, the authors are properly cited and everything's fine under the sun and moon. FACR#3 is all smiles. Parcly Taxel 09:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"…the rest is converted into corrosive hydrogen fluoride, a precursor to various organic fluorides and the critical aluminium refining flux cryolite.'
  • The location of cryolite as the first word in a five word descriptive phrase is too far away. By the time you get to the end of the phrase it doesn't make sense.
    • Changed to read "...organic fluorides and cryolite, the critical aluminium refining flux": is this better? Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need a semicolon after fluorides Sandbh (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Organofluorine compounds persist in the environment due to the strength of the carbon–fluorine bond, but the potential health impact of such compounds is unclear."
  • The use of but in this sentence doesn't make sense; there is nothing needing to be said that needs a 'but'.
"A few plants and bacteria synthesize organofluorine poisons to deter herbivores, but fluorine has no known metabolic role in mammals."
  • Use of a 'but' here is awkward. Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed these two consecutive sentence to read "Organofluorine compounds persist in the environment due to the strength of the carbon–fluorine bond. The potential health impact of such compounds is unclear: a few plants and bacteria synthesize organofluorine poisons to deter herbivores, though fluorine has no known metabolic role in mammals." Is this better? Double sharp (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somewhat although the second sentence mixes concepts. Joining the concept of 'health impact' to the concept of plant-generated herbivore poisons is a long bow; and then to add that fluorine has no metabolic roles in mammals is another obscure connection. Sandbh (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electron configuration

"…two electrons in a filled inner shell and seven in an outer shell one short of completion."
  • Last phrase, 'outer shell one short of completion' is grammatically awkward.
"Fluorine's first ionization energy is third-highest among all elements, behind helium and neon, so removing electrons from neutral fluorine atoms is very difficult.
  • The 'so' does not read well.
"Fluorine has a high electron affinity, second only to chlorine, preferring to capture an electron and become isoelectronic with the noble gas neon…
  • Sentence doesn't read well: finishing with 'affinity' and starting on the other side with 'preferring' doesn't flow very well. Sandbh (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All problems above this line have been fixed. Parcly Taxel 09:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactivity

"The bond energy of difluorine is much lower than those of Cl2 and Br2, similar to that of a weak peroxide bond, which accounts for its high reactivity and easy dissociation."
  • Awkward due to mixing of quantity tenses (singular value of F; mutiple values of Cl and Br). Suggest: "The bond energy of difluorine is much lower than that of either Cl2 or Br2, and is similar to that of a weak peroxide bond; this accounts for its high reactivity and easy dissociation."
"Bonds to other atoms are very strong because of its high electronegativity."
  • The 'its' does not make sense; the EN of fluorine is that of the F atom, not difluorine.
"Reactions of elemental fluorine with metals require varying conditions: alkali metals cause explosions and alkaline earth metals display vigorous activity in bulk, but most other metals such as aluminium and iron must be powdered to prevent metal fluoride layers from passivating, and noble metals require pure fluorine gas at 300–450 °C (575–850 °F). Metalloids and some solid nonmetals (sulfur, phosphorus, and selenium) burn with a flame in room temperature fluorine. Hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide combine readily with fluorine, the latter sometimes explosively, but sulfuric acid exhibits much less activity."
  • The "buts" are awkward. Both can be replaced by semicolons. The order of metal fluoride layers and passivating is the wrong way round: "to prevent passivation due to the formation of metal fluoride layers" is the sense of what needs to be said.
"Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide react at room and slightly higher temperatures.."; "...and other organic chemicals beget..."
  • Suggest: "Carbon dioxide reacts at room temperature; carbon monoxide at a slightly higher temperature"
  • Kill the 'beget'; replace with a more modern word
"nitrogen requires electric discharge and elevated temperatures for reaction"
  • Suggest: "nitrogen requires an electric discharge"
"ammonia's reaction is potentially explosive"
  • Awkward construction. Suggest: "ammonia may react explosively."
"Oxygen does not combine under ambient conditions, but can be made to using electric discharge at low temperatures and pressures…"
  • Oxygen does not combine with what? But can be made "to" what? Sandbh (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? Just put all your prose mistakes here and say that you'll support once everything is resolved. I want this article through and promoted as fast as possible. The problems in Reactivity have all been fixed. Parcly Taxel 06:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: @Sandbh: Done now with your copyedits? I'd love to have this article promoted quickly to avoid stalling – we've got so much support for all the criteria now. Parcly Taxel 23:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. No. Not done. I have eight three zero sections to go. Given the other supports, there is no need necessarily to wait for me, subject to the views of the FAC coordinators. I support in spirit, in any event, as per my earlier comments. I'm confident I'll be able to address all of my prose concerns. Sandbh (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished my section copyedits; and checked the lede, the notes and the captions. Sandbh (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
поддержка (Support!) Sandbh (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (support)[edit]

Support. I stumbled here from my own FAC, and was quite pleased by the article! Just a few comments.

  • US$15 - this should have a link to USD. Throughout the article, you're inconsistent whether you use $ or US$
  • Organofluorine should perhaps be linked in the last paragraph of the lead
  • "Fluorine has high reactivity because compared with Cl2 and Br2, difluorine's bond energy is much lower, similar to a weak peroxide bond,[18][19] allowing elemental fluorine to dissociate easily. " - I get what it means, but I think it could be explained better with a better sentence structure
    I can only suggest separating the "allowing ..." part into a separate sentence, and a slight rewording, which I did, but it would be nice if someone else gave it a look.
    I reworded the sentence, now it's two sentences and reads all fine. Parcly Taxel 00:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fluorine is highly toxic." - this sentence is pretty short. Perhaps add "to living organisms" afterward, to give it a bit more girth?
    The short sentence makes the statement stronger, doesn't it? Regardless, doesn't the word "toxic" already imply that the toxicity is a property only living organisms interact with? (I can't word it better, sorry.) I mean, wouldn't "toxic to living organisms" be just the same as "toxic" (and thus also a tautology)?
No, and some people use it when referring to (poisoning) a catalyst. Nergaal (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get the idea, statement has been "inflated" for clarity per the original request. Now! @Nergaal, Hurricanehink, John, Aa77zz, and Sandbh:! You support the nomination? Parcly Taxel 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure you link ppm and explain what it is.
  • "−188 °C" - this and all other temperatures should have conversion to Fahrenheit per WP:ACCESS
  • Note 5 looks like the image should be first, with the text following, but right now it looks messy
    I did what I could, set the image before the text. It's the best thing that came to my mind.
  • "Hydrofluoric acid, aqueous hydrogen fluoride," - I don't think a comma is appropriate here. I think you should either add "acid, which is aqueous...", or make it a dash.
  • "3 kg" - in lbs?
  • When was the "Montreal Protocol"?

All in all, a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Your comments are valid and good (really), so I followed them except where noted.--R8R (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for the quick replies, they all look great! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mirokado (support)[edit]

Just a few comments.

  • Reactivity:
    • "a weak peroxide bond": as opposed to a strong peroxide bond, or intending to clarify that peroxide bonds are weak? I think the latter, in which case "the weak peroxide bond" would be clearer
    • "nitrogen requires an electric discharge at elevated temperatures for reaction due to its very strong triple bonds" The N2 molecule has one triple bond, so I think it will be better to use the singular: "nitrogen requires an electric discharge at elevated temperatures for reaction due to its very strong triple bond"
  • Occurrence / Earth: There is no explanation of the thousand-fold increase in relative abundance between the universe and Earth : how does this relate to the mentioned cosmic rarity of fluorine compared to neighbouring elements?
    • Explanation not required. Rare in the universe does not necessarily mean rare in Earth's crust. @R8R Gtrs:: mind if you wanna pull out a ref of some sort for this?
    • This comes from two reasons: fluorine's reactivity, which makes fluorine, which leaves stars and comes to Earth, chemically react with rocks, after which fluorine becomes a part of rocks and doesn't leave the Earth; and the fact fluorine which stays in stars is not safe there, and may undergo nuclear reactions with other elements (which makes it not fluorine anymore). Besides, the rarity of fluorine in stars is explained, with this very argument :) --R8R (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compounds / Metals: "Alkaline earth difluorides possess strong ionic bonds as well but are insoluble": I find myself asking, why?
    • No need to ask about that. There already is a reference and that's freely available – have a look at it. That's what they were for, after all.
    • This once was in the article when it was 90 KB of text alone and was cut when making the article have a readable size; the reason is low (high absolute values, but negative) lattice energies, which are lower (larger absolute values, but negative) than sums of hydration energies, making it more favorable to stay undissolved, as the undissolved matter has the lowest internal energy. (I remember, I was intrigued with this at some point as well). I understand why you're asking, but I wouldn't add this, as this seems more of a detail, and this is an overview article.--R8R (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Environmental concerns / Biopersistence: "... since their biological metabolisms are hard." : sounds clumsy, how about: "since they are not readily biologically degraded"
  • Biological role / Natural biochemistry: I couldn't find a nice simple definition for "ω-fluoro" by following the fatty acids wl or googling, can you clarify somehow?
  • Note 17: Perhaps it would be better to use the French spelling for Nicklès since it changes the pronounciation a lot: either Jérôme Nicklès or his full name François Joseph Jérôme Nicklès (I looked here while checking this)

-- Mirokado (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado: Fixed all problems you mentioned, with accompanying commentary. Parcly Taxel 01:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I've left the two points where where I think the content could be a bit more stand-alone in case we can think of any change, but they are pretty minor and should not affect featured article status, so supporting now. -- Mirokado (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Isotalo (toxicity, headings; support)[edit]

An informative, well-illustrated and ambitious article. Some things are not quite clear to me, though:

The first thing I tried to look up was what makes fluorine toxic in what I assume is its pure form, and at the same time beneficial to oral hygiene. This information is somewhat disjointed and slightly contradictory, though. Under "Toxicity" it's claimed to be toxic. Period. No qualifications, but much later "Biological role" explains exactly how it isn't toxic. Later still, "Precautions" goes back to toxicity again. I understand that there's a difference between various compounds and whatnot, but the article isn't quite stating the obvious.

Would you try to explain one more time, I'm not sure I get it? I specified under "Toxicity" that elemental fluorine is toxic, because the whole "Characteristics" section discusses elemental fluorine only, as done with any other element article; "Biological role" discusses (obviously) some organic compounds, and "Precautions" discusses effects of HF and fluoride ions. There is no contradiction I see; but would you point me to it?
"Elemental" helps, but why not point out in the section heading as well? "Elemental characteristics" perhaps? If the standard formula is unclear, it doesn't hurt tweaking it.
If "Biological role" is actually about organic compounds, why isn't it under "Organic compounds"? Does that also mean that "Industry and applications" is about inorganic chemistry? This may be obvious to you, but not to everyone.
Peter Isotalo 14:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As explained below, this disjoint information problem should have been solved with my restructuring of sections. In particular the parts saying that fluorine is toxic and those indicating otherwise have been split into distant sections. Parcly Taxel 14:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't understand the table of contents. Why are medical and agricultural applications placed under "Biological role" rather than "Industry and applications"? They're very clearly about industrial applications, not biology per se. The sub-heading "Natural biochemistry" hints at the rather artificial separation of the biochemical industry from steel, polymers and whatnot. And why the manual-like "Precautions"? Why isn't this grouped with "Toxicity" or the likes? Peter Isotalo 11:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. Sandbh's framework of the article which I copyedited really was disjointed in several places. Now I'm considering a substantial rearrangement of sections based on the zinc article:
  • Two sections of applications, the medicinal and the industrial (the latter includes agriculture), since we have so much.
  • Unification of the Toxicity subsection from Characteristics, the Biological role section and the precautions – there's so little about them.
…and in fact, I've done it already. I think it makes the contents more coherent; what do you think Isotalo? Parcly Taxel 10:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to put precautions, HF (aq), and F− (aq) under "Biological role": they're more about toxicity than about F playing a positive role in biochemistry. Also I would not call the section "natural occurrence", which sounds to me as though it was talking about F in the earth's crust, the Solar System, or something (which is already above).
Since F is the subject of the article, the primary focus, I feel, should be the element (F2). So I think the scheme should be that toxicity without qualification is on F2, and if you are talking about other F compounds, you must have the qualification.
I agree with moving the medicinal and agricultural applications out of "biological role".
I've made a couple of edits to make this new scheme better. Nevertheless, I would like to also hear what R8R has to say on this. Double sharp (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am too late to see any changes being done, but I think the page as of now is pretty fine (except I moved the Environmental concerns section from between Medical applications and Biological role to the bottom, as the former clearly wasn't the best place to keep it, between two interrelated sections) --R8R (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you give me a couple of days so I could get a great reference book I have so I could check it and (thereafter) think what should be done best?--R8R (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No rush on my account.
Peter Isotalo 13:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor issue, really, but rearranging the information improves the article quite a bit. Support.
Peter Isotalo 05:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAC coord notes (reference and image reviews)[edit]

Coincidentally, Parcly pinged the FAC coords for an assessment just as I was looking over the review and adding the following:

  • Looks like image licensing and source reviews needed -- will list at WT:FAC.
  • It also looks like this would be the first (potentially successful) FAC nom for both Parcly and R8R, so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; will likewise request at WT:FAC.
  • There are many duplicate links in the article. Given its length and technical nature, some may well be justified but pls review. With Polytetrafluoroethylene, for instance, we not only get three links but also duplicate abbreviations "(PTFE)" in the first two instances and then a brand name "(Teflon)" for the last, although the brand name had already been mentioned. You can use this script to highlight the repeated links.
    It was done once before, but it's good that you noted it, since, yes, that has shown to be useful, thanks. I've removed all duplicate links, except for a few compound links in the Compounds (where they totally make sense) and Industrial applications (when discussing some (not all mentioned) compounds with a role in the text) sections. The word "Teflon" is mentioned twice, once just standing alone in parentheses when mentioning the history of it, and once mentioned in Industrial applications. Both times, the word is relevant to the text surrounding it (industry). Is this not okay? (As for the other two points, it's for an external reviewer to judge, not us, but this has been looked at previously, so I think it should be mostly or even completely fine)--R8R (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, all points resolved at 06:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC) - spotchecks not done

  • Quote-initial and -terminal ellipses should be omitted
    Done
  • FN22, 27, 174: pages?issues
    Done; for sources where I couldn't easily find those placed, I've replaced them (also changing the numbering scheme)
  • Gribble: are there two editors or just one?
    Done
  • As I understand it, PRWeb doesn't author their content, they just publish it
    Currently, not the reports as such serve as refs, but the PRWeb pages that link to the reports. I think this is okay?
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher location
    Removed all of them – they are made redundant by the publisher anyway. Location details are now included unless the source is available online. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper titles like Boston Globe should be italicized
    I have checked ref formatting. I have not found any further mistakes in format except for the Chiste ref, which was corrected
  • European Commission: ordering of the directorate name affects alphabetization - with the European part first, this is out of order
    I've moved the European part to the end, because the directorate part is more important
  • Brantley formatting is quite strange
    Done
  • Burney: be consistent in how initials are punctuated
    Done
  • Be consistent in whether/when you include states for US locations, and whether these are abbreviated
    No mention of the state or country anywhere. Thank you.
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals
    Done. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of references list
    I've checked, a few swaps were required, thank you
  • Meyer: location formatting
    Done
  • Preskorn: can you verify that this title is correct?
    I've corrected the title, thank you
  • The two dissertations are formatted quite differently
    Are the Lagow and the Rhoades refs meant? If so, they look quite similar and both use {{cite book}}
    Now formatted consistently. Sandbh (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sidgwick: use title caps
    Done
  • Why do some refs have month and year in the first set of parentheses, while others have only year and then a later set with month?
    Done

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandbh and R8R Gtrs: You're to blame for this. I need you now! (And the issues with 0 after them have been fixed.) Parcly Taxel 07:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add this to my list and cheerfully decline your serving of blame-pie :) Sandbh (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced bold zeros with "Done" messages _only_because_ it's easier to see what's been done and what's not that way. The remaining part should be easier. (Also, you got me, why are Sandbh and I to blame? Reply on my talkpage, please)--R8R (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now the unresolved issues are bolded; that's a better idea. And I'm going to call out for all the FAC reviewers here. @Hamiltonstone, Secret, Dirac66, Dan56, Dank, Sandbh, and Farrtj: if you're pinged here, you're needed here. I need a thorough image review and reference spot-check. And maybe @R8R Gtrs: can join in the fun as well – I'm the nominator, not him. Parcly Taxel 07:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say I will not :) Also, I de-bolded two "kind of complete" issues -- I think they are done, but would want some confirmation. One issue left -- doing great so far--R8R (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we've got two issues to do, not one. My edit on making locations consistent got reverted by S&bh. Parcly Taxel 22:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood there was only one (?) reference missing a location, of the references normally provided with locations, which I added as part of the reversion. Sandbh (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved as per above comments. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partial image review. Too many for me to do the whole lot.

  • File:Liquid fluorine tighter crop.jpg - derivative of an OTRS ticketed work - looks OK
  • File:Fluorine shielding.svg - derivative of Commons-licenced work - looks OK
  • File:Beta fluorine unit cell.svg - looks OK
  • File:Fluorite-270246.jpg - OTRS ticketed looks OK
  • File:Apatite Canada.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Ivigtut cryolite edit.jpg - looks OK
  • File:Book9-25.gif - reproduction of out-of-coyright work - looks OK
  • File:Recherches sur l’isolement du fluor, Fig. 5.PNG - as above
  • File:Henri Moissan HiRes.jpg - as above
  • File:Uranium hexafluoride crystals sealed in an ampoule.jpg - US PD licence - looks OK
  • File:Sodium-fluoride-unit-cell-3D.png - looks OK
  • File:Bismuth-pentafluoride-chain-from-xtal-1971-3D-balls.png - looks OK
  • File:Rhenium-heptafluoride-3D-balls.png - looks OK
  • File:Chlorine-trifluoride-3D-balls.png - looks OK
  • File:Xenon tetrafluoride crop.gif - US PD licence - looks OK
  • File:FluorocarbonCrabFish.JPG - looks OK

Can someone else go on from here? Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued image review by Curly Turkey[edit]

{{multiple image | footer = U.S. hazard signs for commercially transported fluorine<ref name="NOAA data sheet">[[#NOAASheet|National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]].</ref> | width = 90 | image1 = DOT hazmat class 6.1.svg | alt1 = A diagonal placard with warning poison | image2 = DOT hazmat class 5.1.svg | alt2 = A diagonal placard with warning corrosive | image3 = DOT hazmat class 8.svg | alt3 = A diagonal placard with warning inhalant | image4 = DOT hazmat class 2.3 (alt).svg | alt4 = A diagonal placard with warning oxidant }}

) I don't know which is better.
You might want to go with {{multiple image}} until it's sorted out. There may be some claim for copyright in the arrangement of images or something. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've changed that picture to {{multiple image}}. I don't really expect an answer, given the last edit from that account was done in 2013.--R8R (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Schmelzflusselektrolyse von Aluminium.svg it says it was derived from an original by Andreas Schmidt. What evidence is there that Schmidt has made this free?
    I suspect this is not subject for PD either per this. Am I right? If so, I'll change that as well.
    Under PD-textlogo? It's not a logo, and not very simple. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But the text of the template doesn't require it to be a logo? (however, I am unsure what the criteria for simplicity are. I've asked the German uploader about Schmidt, and am waiting for him to reply)
    An image on the HH process article is explicitly freely licenced. Maybe that will work @Curly Turkey:? (It's PNG, but I have the skills to vectorise it. Tell me if SVG would be preferred for this article. @Ceranthor: get over here and do some reference spotchecking. Parcly Taxel 09:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it's SVG or PNG makes no difference to FAC---I think it's a matter of optimizing file size. The file's not pretty, but if it bugs you, you can hunt around for someone to make something prettier---but it's sufficient for an FA. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the vector version myself and it is now live. Parcly Taxel 04:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecking[edit]

  • Comment - I notice I was pinged about a source review. I'm away, but if no one comments in the next day or two, I'll see what I can do. Sorry I can't be of more help. ceranthor 12:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ceranthor: Nikki has obliged with a source review for formatting/relaiability but if you could spotcheck a few sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked twelve sources from the 11:32, 6 August 2014‎ version, starting with #11 and going up in increments of 11. I found one one apparently unsubstantiated source (#55); one minor doi inconsistency (#66a); and one missing page number (#77a). The first of these anomalies may represent a misplaced source, given the extensive development and copy editing this article has been subject to. The second and third anomalies are not serious. Overall, this appears to be a satisfactory spot check, although I will take advice from the FAC coordinator on this point. Conflict of interest declaration: I participated in the copy-editing of this article; I am a member of WikiProject Elements. Sandbh (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source: #11, Cheng et al. 1999
Claim: the magnetic ordering (susceptibility) of fluorine is 1.2×10−4
Source check: Confirmed

Source: #22a, Wiberg, Wiberg & Holleman 2001, p. 404
Claim: "Some solid nonmetals (sulfur, phosphorus) react vigorously in liquid air temperature fluorine."
Source check: "Sulfur and phosphorus react vigourously with fluorine at liquid air temperature."
Conclusion: Confirmed; it is a close paraphrased sentence in my opinion, but it is attributed.

Source: #33, Emeléus & Sharpe 1974, p. 111
Claim: "Oxygen does not combine with fluorine under ambient conditions, but can be made to using electric discharge at low temperatures and pressures; the products tend to disintegrate into their constituent elements when heated."
Source check: "The synthesis of various oxygen fluorides has been accomplished by flow reactions via electric discharge methods at low tempertures and low reactant pressures."
Conclusion: Confirmed to the extent of no inconsistency, noting there are two other sources for this claim. No close paraphrasing.

Source: #44, Müller 2009
Claim: For further detail on the concept of disorder in crystals, see the referenced general reviews
Check: Confirmed

Source: #55, Lodders 2003
Claim: "Fluorine is the thirteenth most common element in Earth's crust at 600–700 ppm (parts per million) by mass."
Check: Anomalous: source makes no reference to crystal abundances, as far as I can see?

Source: #66a, Schmedt, Mangstl & Kraus 2012
Claim: "The existence of gaseous fluorine in crystals, suggested by the smell of crushed antozonite, is contentious."
Check: Confirmed; no close paraphrasing detected. The reference is to the English version of the article whereas the doi given (doi:10.1002/ange.201203515) is for German edition; for consistency the doi should be doi:10.1002/anie.201203515

Source: #77a, Kirsch 2004
Claim: "Andreas Sigismund Marggraf first characterized it [Hydrofluoric acid] in 1764 when he heated fluorite with sulfuric acid, and the resulting solution corroded its glass container"
Check: Confirmed; no close paraphrasing evident. The page numer (2) is missing.

Source: #88a, Okazoe 2009
Claim: "The Frigidaire division of General Motors experimented with chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants in the late 1920s, and Kinetic Chemicals was formed as a joint venture between GM and DuPont in 1930 hoping to market Freon-12 (CCl2F2) as one such refrigerant. It replaced earlier and more toxic compounds, increased demand for kitchen refrigerators, and became profitable; by 1949 DuPont had bought out Kinetic and marketed several other Freon compounds"
Check: Confirmed, to the extent of no inconsistency, noting there are three other sources for this claim; no close paraphrasing detected.

Source: #99a, Pauling 1960, pp. 454–464
Claim: "Hydrogen and fluorine combine to yield hydrogen fluoride, in which discrete molecules form clusters via hydrogen bonding. Hydrogen fluoride thus behaves more like water than hydrogen chloride."
Check: Possibly OK; I cannot see all of the pages of the source; no inconsistency or paraphrasing detected.

Source: #110, Babel & Tressaud 1985, pp. 91–96
Claim: "Rare earth elements and many other metals form mostly ionic trifluorides."
Check: I can see five of the six pages listed. Confirmed to the extent of no inconsistency, noting there are two other sources for this claim; no close paraphrasing detected.

Source: #121, Lide 2004, pp. 4.72, 4.91, 4.93
Claim: "Covalent bonding first comes to prominence in the tetrafluorides: those of zirconium, hafnium and several actinides are ionic with high melting points, while those of titanium, vanadium, and niobium are polymeric, melting or decomposing at no more than 350 °C (660 °F)."
Check: Confirmed, no close paraphrasing detected

Source: #132, Chang & Goldsby 2013, p. 706
Claim: Boron trifluoride is planar and possesses an incomplete octet. It functions as a Lewis acid and combines with Lewis bases like ammonia to form adducts
Check: Cannot access source; comparison with an earlier edition of Chang confirms content; no close paraphrasing detected.

Supplementary spot-check

As I had already ordered two tomes at the British Library, and as the nominator has asked me to add any further comments I might have about spot checks, let me add that I have checked refs 18, 58, 85, 102, 118, 120, 122 in Greenwood and Earnshaw and all are OK; in the same book I checked ref 25 but found no mention of hydrogen on that page (though as a layman I may simply have missed it); ref 102 is OK, though with a page range of five pages it took a bit of finding; I could not check ref 125, because it is too vague; and I flatly decline to check ref 140 – it is too much to ask anyone to wade through a total of twelve pages. I seem to have ordered the wrong version of Wiberg et al – what I have before me was published in 1995 – and so I am afraid I can't check any of the refs to the 2001 book. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank[edit]

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

  • I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for your edits! They are useful and nice, as far as I can judge.--R8R (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I groan when I hit chemistry articles, they're way over my head, but this one was very lively and readable, thanks for that.
    That was the intention; nice to know it worked.--R8R (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "themselves scheduled for substitution by 2030–2040 by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) with no chlorine and zero ODP. In 2007 this date was brought forward to 2020": If substitution is mandated (where?) by 2020, then it's not scheduled for 2030–2040. (2030? 2040? different dates in different countries?) Also, if everyone has agreed to 2020 already, then I'm not sure if the later dates are interesting enough to include.
    Yes, a good catch. 2020 is when the developed countries have to complete the phaseout; developing countries have to complete the phaseout by 2030, with a small share allowed to be used until 2040.--R8R (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it should first be rinsed under a jet of water for 10–15 minutes to prevent further damage and any clothing worn should be removed": A more encyclopedic tone would be something like: further damage can be reduced by rinsing it under a jet of water for 10–15 minutes and removing contaminated clothing.
    Agree. I've changed that sentence to: "If skin has been exposed to HF, damage can be reduced by rinsing it under a jet of water for 10–15 minutes and removing contaminated clothing."--R8R (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note that I'm personally agnostic on "[with] noun plus -ing" following a comma, but many style guides, a lot of the reviewers, and one of the FAC coords don't like it, so I've reworded throughout. (For instance, "production peaking" became "peaking in production".)
  • Soliciting opinions: I changed the % in "supplying 6% of the global population" to "percent". WP:% isn't clear on whether to switch over to "percent" in more narrative text, after using "%" in more scientific contexts.
  • "metspar": This word appears to be used in only two Wikipedia articles, so consider substituting "metallurgical grade fluorspar" (both times it occurs in the text). If you'd rather not, then don't italicize it, and I'd recommend either defining it as metallurgical grade fluorspar at first occurrence, or creating a stub and linking the term. In addition, using a phase like "metspar grade" would at least give the reader a clue to the meaning (although there's an argument that that's redundant). Same goes for "acidspar".
    The other article is a spin-off of this one (just in case you're interested). I've removed italicization; just before the words "acidspar" and "metspar" were first introduced, they were described as "grades," which I changed to "metallurgical grades." I believe that is okay?--R8R (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, good enough. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The text says "An enzyme that binds fluorine to carbon – Adenosyl-fluoride synthase – was discovered in bacteria in 2002." This isn't sufficient to support the statement in the lead section: "a few plants and bacteria synthesize organofluorine poisons to deter herbivores."
    But the sentence: "The most common is fluoroacetate, which is used as a defense against herbivores by at least 40 plants in Africa, Australia and Brazil." is?--R8R (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because it doesn't indicate that the bacteria use it as a defense against herbivores. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the statement of bacteria in the lead – they are only mentioned in one sentence in the corresponding section. Parcly Taxel 07:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most wikiprojects object to multiple uses of "US$", and many don't even use "US$" the first time. I'm not familiar with your wikiproject's thoughts on this; fill me in? My read of the first bullet point at WP:MOS#Currencies is that this isn't okay per MOS, and therefore not okay at FAC.
    My impression is opposite. I believe the first use is regulated, and the following ones are not at all. A reader from any other country using dollars might find multiple repetition of "US$" useful, as they won't even accidentally confuse it with their own dollars even though it was once shown U.S. dollars were used. Also, what if a reader does not wish to read the whole article, looking for some specific info only? The wikiproject has no standard on this.--R8R (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we've also got WP:$ to contend with: "In general, the first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier (e.g. A$52), with subsequent references using just the appropriate symbol (e.g. $88), unless this would be unclear." I'll be happy to ask around at a few wikiprojects if you like, but I've rarely seen this at GA, A or FA level. - Dank (push to talk)

These are some of the changes I made while copyediting. I'd appreciate knowing if anyone can think of any time we wouldn't want to change the "before" phrase into something like the "after" phrase:

  • en route: not italicized, since it has entered the language (SOED, m-w.com)
  • Given lighter elements show greater abundances, fluorine's value ... is exceptional: other elements ... are twenty or more times as common.: Among the lighter elements, fluorine's abundance value ...
  • its role as an additive to: its role as an additive in
  • [A sentence with two semicolons separating three independent clauses]: [lose one of the semicolons]
  • About 180,000 metric tons of fluoropolymers and over US$3.5 billion revenue per year were made in 2006–2007: ..., generating over US$3.5 billion revenue per year.
  • rooves: roofs
  • fluoridation against tooth decay: fluoridation to fight tooth decay
  • for humans or mammals: for humans or other mammals
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but the repetition of "US$" seems counter to WP:$. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note - The remaining issues appear to be minor and these can be attended to post FAC. Please attend to these a.s.a.p, (the query about reference 55 for example).

As for me, I am unfortunately unable do that at the very moment, but (of course) will do that as soon as I'm able to do that (can sit in front of a computer connected to the Internet), in a week or so. Not much longer.--R8R (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@R8R Gtrs: I believe that source #55 can be found in Emsley 2011 (I returned that book to the library already). Parcly Taxel 11:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@R8R Gtrs: No wait, Ullmann has it, #55 patched. Parcly Taxel 11:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2014 (diff).

Lost Luggage (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Atari 2600 game. I used to play this game all the time, but it didn't have an article, so I made it. Now it's passed a GA review by Zanimum and has been peer reviewed by PresN. So it seems only logical to bring it here next! Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JimmyBlackwing

Made a few copyediting tweaks, but it looks solid. My biggest concern is that there are only two contemporaneous reviews. If you can up it to three, or if you can convince me that no other reviews exist, then you have my support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are three - two of them are by Weiss (the Allgame and book). I couldn't find any others. The only other slightly-useful hit VG/S gives is this which is plainly unreliable. Thanks for looking, Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I could have been clearer. I meant that I'd like a third review from the time of the game's original release. Two reviews (TV Gamer and Electronic Games) is a bit thin. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I can do that. There aren't many reviews as long as those, but contempary opinions can be added. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing: I've added two sentences detailing two other reviews. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good to me. Really appreciate your work on overlooked Atari 2600 articles. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a look! I intend to keep working on A2600 games... doubt this will be the last to appear at FAC. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I review this at DYK and it was already a very nice article. It is an even better article now and deserves a FA star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickGibson3900 (talk)

Thanks Nick. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Indrian

A nice little article about one of the more obscure games of the era. I think it's really close, but I have a few prose concerns:

  • "developed by the Texas-based video game studio Games by Apollo and released by them" That reads a bit awkwardly, perhaps "developed and released by the Texas-based video game studio Games by Apollo" instead.
Fixed Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gone amok" is a bit informal and cheeky for an encyclopedia article.
Reworked Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the game took around four weeks to make under Apollo's 5-person staff" This phrase is awkward
Removed "5-person staff"
  • "from a wildly unpredictable baggage carousel gone amok" Again, this is a bit hyperbolic and informal for an encyclopedia article. If this is a direct quote from the manual or promotional materials it might be okay to keep it as a quote (something like: from what the manual describes as "a wildly unpredictable baggage carousel gone amok"), but otherwise I think its best to tone it down.
Reworked Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player starts with three suitcases already collected, and whenever a suitcase hits the floor, the player loses one" I understand what this means, but the language is unclear. It implies that as you collect suitcases they are added to your total in the corner. Really, the three suitcases are stand ins for player lives and the player loses a life each time he misses a suitcase. I think this can be worded a little better for clarity.
Tried clarifying Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Depending on the difficulty level selected" If there are difficulty levels, you need to explicitly state how many there are.
Just two - added Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enabling this mode will cause black suitcases to appear" Again for clarity, this should make clear that not all of the suitcases in this mode are "terrorist suitcases."
Clarified Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neither Salvo nor Runyon knew about either version." This sentence makes no sense. It should be changed to something like "Neither Salvo nor Runyon were aware a second version of the game had been released."
Tweaked Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon release, the game received negative reviews." I do not believe this statement is supported by the evidence. A negative review would be critical of the game design or playability and offer few, if any, redeeming comments. Electronic Games deemed the game playable and the setting inventive, but felt there were better cartridges available. TV Gamer likewise felt that younger players would enjoy it and merely felt a similar game offered superior game play. The other two reviews were largely positive. I would call these mixed reviews rather than negative.
Fixed Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. Once these concerns are addressed, I would be happy to support. Indrian (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Indrian. I don't know if I'll be able to fix these today but as soon as it's possible I'll patch these up. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian: I think I've fixed these. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I took the liberty of making a couple of additional minor changes and am satisfied that my concerns have been addressed. Nice work on the article. Indrian (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and support! Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. I've just come here from your link at Sonic: AtS's FAC, and after a small copyedit, I believe this meets the FA criteria. Nicely done. Tezero (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit and the support! Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shrunk Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "terrorist suitcases" - are these supposed to have bombs in them or something?
I don't know. They're just called terrorist suitcases.
    • Salvo had difficulties with collision detection synchronizing with the joystick movements, which took one week to fix. - don't get what you're saying
Reworked Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • and Runyon wrote that, "I really don't know or remember where it was intended for use - when did he write this?
Reworked Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Salvo wrote that he did not - when?
Reworked Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't actually have Allgame cited when you quote Weiss' review there — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cited Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two follow ups: people do not "write" in interviews, generally, and perhaps you mean "Salvo had difficulties with collision detection and synchronizing the movement of (sprites? did they use sprites in 1982?) with that of the joystick" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Tezero[edit]

  • 1. good
  • 2. Is Atari Age a reliable source? It's not listed at WP:VG/RS one way or the other. Why not just use a different page of the instruction manual?
  • 3. good
  • 4. good
  • 5. good
  • 6. good - had to look a bit, but "all 5 of us" is there.
  • 7. good
  • 8. good
  • 9. good
  • 10. good
  • 11. good
  • 12. Why is "Internet Archive" part of the citation? Why not just use the traditional "Archived from the original on..." format?
  • 13. good
  • 14. good
  • 15. good

Tezero (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero: Fixed ref 12. The reason I didn't touch AtariAge is because I know it's a verified reproduction of the manual (I know because I have a copy). If you want me to make it an offline reference I can. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer making it an offline reference but using the AtariAge page as an online backup - basically, just don't put the word "AtariAge" in the source and you'll be good. It's like how editors sometimes link Google Books scans of print sources they're using, but you wouldn't put "Google Books" in the citation, would you? It's... unprofessional. Tezero (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Source review passes. Tezero (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2014 (diff).

California Chrome[edit]

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a California-bred racehorse who won this year's Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes, and his owners, all from humble roots and with interesting personalities. The horse is very popular, since the article's creation in March, it has had over 500,000 hits. Montanabw(talk) 22:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Go Phightins!

I'll get the ball rolling here for all those watching with popcorn as per Montanabw's suggestions .

Lead
  • "California Chrome was the first foal of his dam, Love the Chase, who was injured giving birth to him, requiring the mare and foal to stay in a stall for a month while she underwent medical treatment." - sounds kind of "run-on/splicey" to me. Could this possibly be split into two sentences, or reworded such that dam becomes the appositive rather than Love the Chase? Not a huge deal; just struck me as awkward when reading.
  • Reworded. Better? --MTBW
  • "California Chrome was sent to the Shermans' training stable as a two-year-old, selected for its reputation for patiently developing young horses." - the second part here is bothering me ... selected for its reputation comes immediately after the part about the horse being two years old, not after Shermans' training stable, about which it is talking. How about " ... was sent to the Shermans' training stable, which was selected for its reputation for patiently developing young horses, when he was two years old" or similar?
  • Done --MTBW
  • "As early as the Santa Anita Derby, dedicated fan base, who came to be known as "Chromies", actively supported California Chrome, who was called "the people's horse"." That's a crap-load of commas and whatnot. Can it be simplified? "As early as the Santa Anita Derby, a dedicated fan base known as "Chromies" actively supported California Chrome, who was called "the people's horse." or similar?
  • I like your suggestion and killed a comma, but a minor nuance is that they weren't called "Chromies" at the SA Derby yet, the nickname appeared closer to the Kentucky Derby, hence the "came to be known" bit - I'm open to further comments to fix this, though. --MTBW
  • "Arriving at Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby, having won his previous four races by a combined total of 24 1⁄4 lengths, he was the morning line favorite." Start the new paragraph by using his name rather than a pronoun.
  • Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
  • "But taking the lead in the homestretch, he was ahead by five lengths until Espinoza eased him up for the final 70 yards (64 m) to not over-exert him, and he won by 1 3⁄4 lengths." This sentence is confusing to me ... so Chrome took the lead during the homestretch and was ahead by five lengths, and then he slowed into the finish so he would not be exerted? If so, then how about something like - "After taking the lead during the homestretch, he was ahead by five lengths until Espinoza eased him up for the final 70 yards to avoid over-exerting him; ultimately, he won by 13⁄4 lengths" or similar?
  • Yup, exactly. The jockey slowed him down on purpose (and was so sure he won that he stood up in his stirrups and saluted with the whip BEFORE crossing the finish line!) I took most of your suggested wording and tweaked a couple other things. Better? --MTBW
  • "...and fifth in the world in the World's Best Racehorse Rankings in their June 12, 2014, listing" I am sorry; that's too many "ins" for one sentence ... can we remove one or two?
  • Killed some "ins" and reworded slightly. Better? --MTBW
  • I am to the end of the lead, and will pick up this review in the near future, but wanted to get the ball rolling for you. Go Phightins! 02:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I think I addresssed your questions - at least parttly - and I appreciate any more comments, follow up, and further review.. Montanabw(talk) 19:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Lead
  • Not sure why " Both the mare and foal were required to stay in a stall for a month while she underwent medical treatment, during which California Chrome imprinted on humans owing to the extra attention he received from people who came by to treat his dam several times a day. His people-focused attitude was later viewed as a useful trait in his training as a racehorse." is really essential to lead. It's a lot more wordy than I think you really need to be. Perhaps trim it a bit?
    • Touched up some, if not enough, I am open to HOW to reword or trim; I've gotten a bit bleary-eyed and tunnel-visioned with this article after living with it since early April. You may be right that it isn't crucial, but that said, his behavior and quirks are part of the story, and (other than the flehmen response thing) mostly seem to be linked to his fondness for people. Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arriving at Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby" -can you add the date or month?
    • Rephrased, scratched my head a bit before putting date at end of sentence. Better? --MTBW
Background
  • "After her win, Steve Coburn and Perry Martin became her official owners." -when was this?
    • Added date of race. Don't have date of actual purchase. Better? --MTBW
  • Curious as to what "horse cookies" are. An article on them would be great or a footnote explaining what they are might be useful. I gather they're not Oreos or Jammy Dodgers LOL.
    • Actually, they are pretty close! LOL! [31] But I'll add more to the note that's already at the end of the sentence. Better? Montanabw(talk) 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observers have commented that California Chrome appears to be a very intelligent horse.. this paragraph shold probably go under a sub section title Behaviour as it needs too specific to really be general background.
    • OK. --MTBW
  • "Are the details like 28th anniversary and all that really essential? Some of the info given seems a bit more detailed than needed for the owners. Some of the info and quotes read like something out of a horse magazine rather than an encyclopedia article like " "[Coburn] was at the heat of the moment. And don't forget, he's a fairly new owner. Sometimes the emotions get in front of you ... He hasn't been in the game long and hasn't had any bad luck." ". and "Art Sherman liked the enthusiasm of Martin and Coburn,[22] but when Martin emailed his plan for which races California Chrome should run in to reach the Kentucky Derby, Sherman was dubious. Nonetheless, after the horse won the Preakness, Alan Sherman stated, "[Martin] mapped out a trail for this horse; it's actually worked to a 'T', so it's kinda amazing."[25] Art Sherman downplays his role in training California Chrome, saying "This horse is my California rock star. I'm just his manager."[60]" It reads as too wordy for an encyclopedia article I think which should really be stripped down to the essentials and get straight to the point.
    • I'd like to maybe move this bit to talk and discuss details of how to chop it; I agree that there probably is some cruft in here, as I was updating the article in real time as it developed. That said, the people story is a big deal, but per BIO1E, other than Art Sherman, these people are probably not likely to warrant their own WP article. It's virtually unheard of for all that stuff to have come together - first time breeders, all but first time owners, predict they had a Derby horse practically from birth and then win it, the huge fan base (even Secretariat didn't have people showing up wearing tinfoil and tattoos) and so on. The story here is basically that Coburn shoots his mouth off a lot but the Martins are the brains of the operation but so press-shy that I think they've had maybe one TV interview, two at most. Coburn's Belmont outburst (on National television) was a really big deal and the press is still ranting about it. --MTBW
    • I chopped the anniversary thing but it mattered at the time because Coburn said (also on national TV) at the Preakness that the Martins avoided the Preakness because they were pissed at how they got treated at the Derby when they said is was just their anniversary... So let's workshop that bit --MTBW
  • "Sherman viewed the colt's "rough trips" in perspective" -not sure what you mean here
    • Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
  • "In December, California Chrome was switched to a new type of horseshoe" -perhaps "began wearing a new type of horseshoe" would fit better here?
    • OK. --MTBW
  • "It may have been a contributing factor to California Chrome's subsequent series of wins." -according to whom?
    • Sources got mixed up in a rewrite, put the proper source that attributes the streak to the shoes at the end of the sentence. Better? --MTBW
Racing history
  • "Sherman was impressed with Espinoza's riding, and Espinoza was impressed " -rep of impressed.
    • Agree it's awk, do you have a suggested rewording for the mutual admiration society that developed? Rephrased. Better? --MTBW
  • "assigned 124 pounds" -I gather this is common horse terminology but I'm not quite sure what it means. Given a weight classification or was weighed at that and classified as such or what?
    • It's a Handicap, but I wikilinked to impost because the races in question were not called handicaps and I didn't want to create even more confusion. The weight is how much the horse carried on its back. Jockey and saddle plus any extra weight needed to even out the horses -better ones get more weight. At first use, I reworded a couple of times to "He was one of four horses to carry 120 pounds (54 kg), the highest impost assigned in the race..." Is that better? (Open to further ways to improve so long as we don't have a digression into what a handicap race is, except that a Maiden special weight isn't technically a handicap... you get the idea... ) --MTBW
  • "In a post-race press interview, Sherman said he had visited Swaps' grave at the Kentucky Derby Museum prior to the Derby: "I said a little prayer and it came true, I said I hope he's another Swaps." Trainer Dale Romans, who had asserted that California Chrome had no chance to win, said, "I was very, very wrong ... We might have just seen a super horse and a super trainer. You don't fake your way to the winner's circle at the Kentucky Derby."[120] Dallas Stewart later admitted, "Oh, yeah, I was wrong."[10" -not sure you need this here, "In a post-race press interview, Sherman stated that he had visited Swaps' grave at the Kentucky Derby Museum prior to the Derby and prayed for success" should do.
    • I chopped the Sherman bit. Dale Romans was one of the biggest naysayers and is one of the most famous trainers in the country, so admitting he was wrong was sort of a big deal; people who follow the sport know who he is and why his quote was selected. I chopped Stewart, though seeing him eat crow was rather satisfying because he was such a jerk before the race. --MTBW
  • "California Chrome shipped via air to Baltimore for the 2014 Preakness Stakes" -when was this?
    • About a week out. Does it matter? --MTBW
I think so, yeah, because it's really very soon afterwards and readers would probably want an indication of timeline.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, done. That said, there was only two weeks between the two races, so they sort of split the difference. Montanabw(talk) 23:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a rather a lot of quotes towards the end of Preakness Stakes which I'm not sure are all essential.
    • I trimmed some. Bob Baffert is probably the most famous race horse trainer in the USA, so him throwing in the towel was big deal, but I trimmed some of his stuff too. Better? --MTBW
  • ""Hey listen, we'll be here to fight another day, I'm just happy he's all in one piece." -not really needed.
    • Yeah, OK, but it's charming.  ;-) --MTBW
Pedigree

I gather that the guidelines for horse articles state that this should go in the bottom section. It's just the history background of the horse breeding lines I'd probably expect to see first in the background section.

    • Pedigree charts are always at the bottom. Not all articles have the detailed narrative, but when reading the details it helps to have the pedigree right there to refer to, and also, to put all that analysis in the "background" section up at the top would make the casual readers' eyes glaze over. (Kind of like the "begats" in Genesis!) Usually the background section has a short summary about the sire and dam's personal history, as here. The stuff of primary interest to horse aficionados can go a bit farther down because they will dig for it!  ;-) Better?--MTBW
Refs
  • Why is ref 51 all in lower casing?
    • Fixed --MTBW

Overall it's very informative and obviously has had a lot of effort and love go into it, but IMO it's too informative and long. 135kb is very long for an article on a relatively young racehorse. It contains a lot of details which I don't think anybody other than a "Chromie" would want to know. A lot of the details read a little like a magazine story on the horse; a lot of the quotes don't really help this. I understand that you'd be reluctant to condense it down too much but I think you could go through the article and pay attention primarily to giving the reader the basic facts and strip down anything which you think might detract from it or not be essential this would be an immediate improvement. Look at any paragraph and think how you might relay the same info in less words and detail and eliminate anything which you think might affect the reader getting a basic grasp of what is being said. I say this as in some sections there is so much detail on what the trainers said and did etc that I had to double check again and try to glean from it what the horse did and what happened. I'd lean towards support if you could strip it down a bit and make it more concise. I think you could get it down to 100kb without too much difficulty, certainly 120kb. If not possible, then anything you can do to shorten it and make it more concise without losing the important facts would be an improvement. If you're not convinced that it needs trimming feel free to ask the opinion of Eric or anybody else, it might just be me!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: I agree that this is a bit bloated, but compare to Mucho Macho Man, which passed FAC a few months back. It's hard for me to determine precisely what to trim at this point, as noted, I've just become bleary-eyed. Your idea of trimming quotes is a good one, I'm open to other ideas. Maybe give me 24 hours and then take a look. That said, given American race horse careers, unless something really odd happens, (Or Coburn shoots his mouth off again in an even more colorful fashion) the rest of his racing career is apt to be summed up as "at the end of his three year old season, he did or didn't win the Breeders' Cup Classic and Horse of the Year. In his four year old season, he won races X,Y, and Z and then his owners retired him to stud, syndicating him for X million dollars." It's actually rare for a Derby-winning stallion to run past his 4-year old year - too much money to be made in the breeding shed. --MTBW
  • Follow up: did some chopping, we are using different measurement tools, but using the User:Dr_pda/prosesize javascript tool, I've trimmed readable prose from 49K to 46K which was a chop of about 500 words, mostly quotations. Let me know if you have some areas you'd like me to scrutinize further. Montanabw(talk) 02:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I still think you could lose another 10 kb without too much difficulty though. I'll give it a read again later this week and try to be more specific with what I think could be cut. The content is certainly all there for FA anyway but my feeling is that as an encyclopedia article it needs to be more punchy and concise. On raw kb it's nearly twice the length of your Macho Man article! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of looking at quotations was a good one and I saw several that were chopable. Point me to other places where your eyes glazed over and I'll focus in. MMM was pretty cool, but he basically won one really big race but with a cool back story. CC won six in a row with an even quirkier back story. Montanabw(talk) 07:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what could be removed then:

  • ""Fans are coming out of nowhere", said Perry Martin."
  • Chopped--MTBW
  • "Perry Martin has an MBA,[11] a degree in applied physics from Michigan Technological University,[31] and an advanced degree in solid state physics from the University of Illinois-Chicago.[25] Denise Martin is MTL's senior chemist, managing the company's fatigue testing and thermal analytics.[24] They celebrated their 28th anniversary on the weekend of the Preakness, thus missing seeing the race live.[32] They married in 1986,[32] and moved to California in 1987, where Perry Martin was employed as a metallurgist by the Air Force and Denise briefly job shadowed a racehorse trainer in the Sacramento area.[25] Perry Martin performed testing and analysis work, including work on Air Force weapons systems.[33] He wrote the Electronic Failure Analysis Handbook, published by McGraw-Hill in 1999.[34]

Steve Coburn, characterized by the media as "loquacious",[35][36] describes himself and his wife as "just everyday people".[21][24] He grew up in central California and was familiar with horses. He worked herding cattle at a feedlot,[11] participated in rodeos, and worked at some ranching jobs.[37] He now is a press operator for a company that makes magnetic strips.[22] Carolyn Coburn retired in March 2014 from a career working in payroll in the health care industry.[24] Carolyn introduced Steve to horse racing, and when he was looking for a tax write-off, she encouraged him to buy into a racing syndicate instead of purchasing a small airplane"

The article is about the horse not the owners. While some very briefly would be relevant, I'd create articles on them and remove all of this or trim to barely a sentence or two. I'd create an article on DAP Racing and include their bios in it if you think they're not notable enough individually. This was the most problematic part for me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've heard this mentioned by multiple reviewers, and I DO see your point to some extent, but as I have also fought and lost battles on the drama boards in BIO1E land, and I am pretty certain that the deletionist warriors would not allow a stand-alone article to exist. If they win the Oaks in two years with 'Chrome's little sister, then we probably could justify it. But at the moment, given that the horse is their ONLY race horse and the first horse they've ever bred, it's actually kind of difficult to separate the people from their critter. All that said, we can chat about it some more and see if we can reach a solution. Perhaps I will also post at WP horse racing and see what folks there think. The project's notability criteria for horses is winning a grade 1 race, for trainers and jockeys it's a little more; Sherman becomes notable enough for his own article for both 'Chrome plus his connection to Swaps on top of a 50+ year career. --MTBW
Reading a horse article though I don't care when the owners got married!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I trimmed this a little, per comment above, I am concerned that the BIO1E police would not consider these folks "notable." I've fought and lost a couple of these, I can just hear them now saying "merge to California Chrome." The owners are a big part of this story, but not as big as Claiborne Farm. (Few racehorses have owners notable as owners, unless for other reasons, such as, for example, Jim Rome --MTBW
  • "Art Sherman's assistant is his son, Alan,[57] who is also a licensed trainer.[23] Alan was a jockey for three years in the 1980s until, as he put it, "I ate my way out of that job." As a jockey, he rode in southern California for trainers such as Charlie Whittingham and won over a million dollars in purse money, while closely observing how his employers trained their horses, anticipating that some day he too would become a trainer. Rather than run an independent training stable like his brother Steve, Alan has worked with his father since 1991." - Could be trimmed to "Art Sherman's assistant is his son, Alan, a licensed trainer who was a jockey for three years in the 1980s". Merge with previous paragraph.
    • Another BIO1E problem. In theory, some of that could go into the Art Sherman article, but as Alan Sherman has basically let his dad take all the credit while, especially now, he is doing most of the work, I'm not quite sure what to do, want to be sure credit is given where credit is due - somehow, the guy definitely deserves more than just a passing, "is the assistant." Thoughts? --MTBW
  • "Art Sherman liked the enthusiasm of Martin and Coburn,[22] but when Martin emailed his "Road to the Kentucky Derby" plan outlining which races California Chrome should run, Sherman was dubious. Later, Alan Sherman stated, "[Martin] mapped out a trail for this horse; it's actually worked to a 'T', so it's kinda amazing."[25] Art Sherman downplays his role in training California Chrome, saying "This horse is my California rock star. I'm just his manager."[59]" None of this is really essential or that encyclopedic.
    • That I think should - mostly - be kept, though I'm open to streamlining the prose. The email is a big part of the story - that a first time breeder creates a plan and it happens. Really almost Twilight Zone-ish. --MTBW
  • "Steve Coburn said he had a dream not long before California Chrome's birth that the foal would be a colt with four white feet and a blaze.[43] California Chrome was relatively large for a newborn horse, weighing 137 pounds (62 kg). Martin described the foal as "running circles around Momma" within two hours of birth.[44" -trim to simply "California Chrome was relatively large for a newborn horse, weighing 137 pounds (62 kg)."
    • The dream thing is a part of the horse's story, it was out there over and over again. Explained why the other is in there. The dam was injured, but the foal was fine and athletic from early on. Rephrased it a bit though. --MTBW
  • " Alan Sherman said, "My jaw dropped",[86] while Art Sherman joked, "I'm glad I'm training at Los Alamitos, because he looked like a 350 [yard] horse coming out of the gate",[87] a reference to Quarter Horse racing distances. Espinoza simply remarked, "I wanted to let him enjoy his race,"[88] later adding, "I wanted to see if he [could] go wire to wire ... that was the day I found out how much he loves to run."[7" -not really encyclopedic
    • ."Encyclopedic" doesn't have to mean "boring." The truth was that the horse really blew away the field and even shocked his trainers. But to say "he blew away the field and shocked his trainers with his speed" would be WP:SYNTH. So let them tell the story and the readers can draw their own conclusions ;-)--MTBW
  • "Once on the ground, their van had a police escort from the airport to the track.[120] Just as before the Derby, the horse galloped on the Pimlico track, but had no timed workouts.[121][122] Delgado, who had previously ridden and trained in Maryland, compared the long and narrow Pimlico oval favorably to the colt's home track at Los Alamitos.[123] Sherman did not like that the horse had to run again with only a two-week break, but was confident that California Chrome was eating well, had gained back any weight he had lost running the Derby, plus had gained another 35 pounds (16 kg) by Preakness day.[121] When he arrived at Pimlico to prepare for the Preakness, the management at that track welcomed him with two saddlecloths for his workouts, one with the "Califorina" misspelling and the other with the correct spelling,[109] because the misspelled cloth was starting to be viewed as a good luck token.[110]

News stories prior to the Preakness discussed the relatively slow pace of the Derby and the low Beyer Speed Figure of 97 earned by California Chrome in his win, saying the fresh "speed horses" who had not run in the Derby would challenge him over the shorter distance of the Preakness. Manny Azpurua, 85-year-old trainer of new rival Social Inclusion, who ran third in the Wood Memorial, asserted that the Preakness field would be stronger than the Derby field, saying, "California Chrome has to prove again he's the best 3-year-old."[124][125] Sherman responded, "He's got enough lick that he can stay with any horse in the race. He likes a target to run at."[126] California Chrome was assigned the number three post position and was the morning line odds-on favorite at 3–5.[124] Sherman was not troubled by the inside spot.[127] Followers noted that Secretariat had also run the 1973 Preakness Stakes from the number three post.[128] Owner Coburn was optimistic: "One race at a time, but I'm still thinking Triple Crown."[129] The Thursday before the race, California Chrome was observed coughing four times after his morning gallop, prompting media speculation about his health. He had a small blister in his throat, which he also had prior to the Kentucky Derby, both times treated with a glycerine throat wash. When the condition first appeared in Kentucky, Alan Sherman stated that a veterinarian had checked the horse and performed blood work; other than the "itchy" throat, he was in good health.[130] The intense press attention paid to the relatively minor issue was dismissively dubbed "throat-gate" by sportswriter Bill Dwyre of the Los Angeles Times.[131]" I'd condense all of this down to:

"Once on the ground, their van had a police escort from the airport to the track.[120] Just as before the Derby, the horse galloped on the Pimlico track, but had no timed workouts. Sherman did not like that the horse had to run again with only a two-week break, but was confident that California Chrome was eating well, had gained back any weight he had lost running the Derby, plus had gained another 35 pounds (16 kg) by Preakness day.[121] When he arrived at Pimlico to prepare for the Preakness, the management at that track welcomed him with two saddlecloths for his workouts, one with the "Califorina" misspelling and the other with the correct spelling,[109] because the misspelled cloth was starting to be viewed as a good luck token.[110]

California Chrome was assigned the number three post position and was the morning line odds-on favorite at 3–5.[124] Sherman was not troubled by the inside spot.[127] Followers noted that Secretariat had also run the 1973 Preakness Stakes from the number three post. California Chrome was observed coughing four times after his morning gallop, prompting media speculation about his health. He had a small blister in his throat, which he also had prior to the Kentucky Derby; it was treated with a glycerine throat wash. The intense press attention paid to the relatively minor issue was dismissively dubbed "throat-gate" by sportswriter Bill Dwyre of the Los Angeles Times."

    • Tightened some, not quite as much as you have, but chopped several quotes. Better? --MTBW
  • "Sherman said California Chrome was "tired" after the race but that he would be "fine" for the Belmont. " -not really needed.
    • Hmm. Debatable. Rephrased a little to tighten, but the point is that he probably didn't lose the Belmont because he was tired out. Thoughts? -MTBW
  • "California Chrome galloped daily for up to 2 miles (3.2 km) and Delgado commented, "I can tell you he loves this track, and I don't see him (having) any problem getting a mile and a half."[150] Alan Sherman commented on California Chrome's conditioning: "He's never taken a step back, he just keeps getting better and better and improving. It's kind of scary, really." He added, "This horse has just taken us on the ride of our lives."[151] Fisher flew to New York to put on a new set of horseshoes,[77] and Espinoza arrived to give the colt a short workout known as a "breeze", on May 31. Horse and rider were greeted by a large contingent of fans and press at about 6:30 a.m., and ran a half-mile (0.80 km) officially clocked at 47.69 seconds, a time described as "sharp" by the press, and "exactly what we wanted" by Alan Sherman. A clocker for the Daily Racing Form stated, "He's going to be tough to beat. I think we're going to have a Triple Crown winner."[152]" -could trim to:

"California Chrome galloped daily for up to 2 miles (3.2 km) and Delgado commented, "I can tell you he loves this track, and I don't see him (having) any problem getting a mile and a half."[150] Horse and rider were greeted by a large contingent of fans and press at about 6:30 a.m. The horse ran a half-mile (0.80 km) in a brisk 47.69 seconds, leading the clocker for the Daily Racing Form to state, "He's going to be tough to beat. I think we're going to have a Triple Crown winner."[152]

    • He galloped daily where zillions of press watched, it was only at the breeze with Espinoza that kazillions of fans showed up to. But trimming and tightening some. --MTBW
  • "Eleven horses entered the Belmont Stakes, and California Chrome drew post position 2, which was also the post position of Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont.[154] Ride On Curlin and General a Rod also entered;[h] these were the only other horses besides California Chrome to contest all three legs of the Triple Crown. Returning from the Kentucky Derby, having skipped the Preakness, were Commanding Curve, who was second in the Derby, along with Wicked Strong, Medal Count, and Samraat. "New Shooters" who had not run in either of the previous Triple Crown races included Tonalist, Commissioner, Matterhorn, and Matuszak.[155] Tonalist and Commissioner had run first and second at Belmont Park in the Peter Pan Stakes on May 10.[136] Matterhorn had run fourth in that race.[155] Statisticians noted that no Triple Crown-winning horse had competed against more than seven other horses in the Belmont, and only two, Seattle Slew and Citation, had faced that many.[156]

Prior to the race, the trainer of Wicked Strong, stated, "One of our horses will have to run the race of his life, and California Chrome is going to have to throw in a clunker."[157] Laura Hillenbrand, author of Seabiscuit: An American Legend, noting the "odd cast of characters around him," was a supporter.[110] Anticipating the possibility of a Triple Crown champion, several people connected to the last three Triple Crown winners announced plans to be at the Belmont, including 92-year-old Penny Chenery, owner of Secretariat; Patrice Wolfson, who co-owned Affirmed; and some of Seattle Slew's connections—trainer Billy Turner and co-owner Jim Hill. The jockeys of the three past winners, Steve Cauthen, Jean Cruguet, and Ron Turcotte, also announced they would attend. Cauthen, jockey of Affirmed, stated, "This horse has got a great chance of pulling it off," but added, "you never know, that's why they have to run the race."[158]" -this is really excessive wording I think I'd trim to:

"Eleven horses entered the Belmont Stakes, and California Chrome drew post position 2, which was also the post position of Secretariat in the 1973 Belmont.[154] Ride On Curlin and General a Rod also entered;[h] these were the only other horses besides California Chrome to contest all three legs of the Triple Crown. Anticipating the possibility of a Triple Crown champion, several people connected to the last three Triple Crown winners announced plans to be at the Belmont, including 92-year-old Penny Chenery, owner of Secretariat; Patrice Wolfson, who co-owned Affirmed; and some of Seattle Slew's connections—trainer Billy Turner and co-owner Jim Hill. The jockeys of the three past winners, Steve Cauthen, Jean Cruguet, and Ron Turcotte, also announced they would attend. Cauthen, jockey of Affirmed, stated, "This horse has got a great chance of pulling it off," but added, "you never know, that's why they have to run the race."[158]"

    • Chopped some of that, kept what I think was relevant. It was one of the "new shooters" who won (prompting Coburn's rant) and another who stepped on Chrome at the start. Take a look. --MTBW
  • "Sherman was relieved that the tendon injury was superficial, and when asked if the heel injury had cost the horse a chance to win, replied, "It couldn't have helped him any."[162] Sherman explained that he saw the horse throw his head up in the homestretch and knew that something was not right. He later speculated that the sand and dirt of the racetrack were causing pain in the open wound.[164] The following day, Sherman assured the press that both injuries would heal up, and that the heel injury was, luckily, not a quarter crack in the hoof.[165]" - could trim to

"Sherman speculated that the sand and dirt of the racetrack were causing pain in the open wound, and knew that something wasn't right when he saw the horse throw his head up in the homestretch. The following day, he assured the press that both injuries would heal up, and that the heel injury was, luckily, not a quarter crack in the hoof.[165]"

    • Diced and chopped a little, reworded. Better? --MTBW

That should be the bulk of it. If you can respond to most of those the article should read and flow a lot better I think without losing anything really vital. I'll support once it is condensed down further.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dr. Blofeld: I'm whacking at the material, but on the ownership sections, maybe let's take that to the FAC talk and sort out if we have grounds to make it an independent article per my comments above. Montanabw(talk) 19:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: now at 44 kB (7700 words). per Dr. pda tool. Was 49K. Have chopped about 700-800 words. Montanabw(talk) 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to look better. Sure, discuss that on the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the question of a spinoff to DAP racing at WP:Horse racing. If you can think of some other appropriate WP:GNG venues that aren't haunted by trolls, let me know. I'm very reluctant to chop too much unless it can be moved without being viewed as a Fork or a BIO1E thing. Montanabw(talk) 00:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thanks for a detailed, informative article. A few comments for now:

Lead

  • I suggest a new paragraph for "When two years old", - I thought it was still about the owners.
    • Reworded; already am at four paragrpahs. Better? --MTBW
      • yes --GA

Background

  • I don't like any image directly under a heading, and I think this one, showing the grown horse, would fit better in the next para about behaviour.
    • Blofeld just made me add a subheader, it will wind up under a third level heading now if I move it. Can you live with it where it's at? --MTBW
      • It's not a question of life and death, but the image of the grown horse - while he is just born - is strange, also traditional me still follows former imagelocation ideas. --GA
        • No baby pics are available with a free license. This one is a photo of the horse showing his friendly character; it's actually a crop of File:CalChrome and MD Gov.jpg but I chopped out the politicians, who needs 'em?  ;-) I can't really say in the caption, "see how friendly this horse is" because that's OR, but if a picture is worth 1000 words... ;-) I DID add some more dates. Montanabw(talk) 02:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I moved it bit, revert if you don't like it ---GA
            • It's OK. If someone moves is back, that's OK too. As they say, "Whatever" ;-) --MTBW
a smiling elderly man in a gray suit, wearing sunglasses
Art Sherman, 2014
  • I tried to move Art the same way, and got his son right below (left) to look "inward". For the small pics, I suggest to just mention the year, not the race. Especially the son could be anywhere. Btw: "alt=a smiling elderly man" made me smile ;) ----GA

Ownership

  • I almost feel that the owners deserve their own article. (Love DAP)
    • They could, but the WP:BIO1E bandits will probably AfD it. I don't need the drahmahz!  :-P --MTBW
      • with you on that --GA
  • How about dates with the quotes, for people who are not so familiar with race names? In general.
    • Will better wikilinking do the same? I tend to disfavor a wall of dates...? Ah! The quote boxes! OK, done! --MTBW
  • Same for images, in general.
    • Ditto? --MTBW
      • For both the above: linking helps me who can hover and see, - but asking the reader for an extra click is asking a lot. If I see a man, I would like to know if that photo is recent or twenty years old, - but it's also not a question of life and death. --GA
        • Added 2014 to some of the images, does that help? -MBBW
          • yes ---GA
  • The reactions to the Belmont are not easy to understand before we know more about it.
    • I could move the Coburn stuff down to the Belmont section. Give me a bit and see what you think. --MTBW
      • Good idea! --GA
        • Done, Better? --MTBW
          • yes ---GA

Need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See you tomorrow --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
back ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early years

  • An image of the farm would be nice, ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not impossible for me to grab a screenshot, I got File:Lucky Pulpit.jpg 01.png from here and they do have ranch shots. They show the place itself from about 0:20 to 0:53. See anything there worth trying to pull a still shot from? --MTBW
  • "racehorses such as two-time Breeders' Cup Classic winner Tiznow", racehorses such as two-time, what do you think of "racehorses such as Tiznow, a two-time Breeders' Cup Classic winner"?
    • OK. --MTBW
  • It's a bit confusing to me to first read about the 2010 breeding, then about the (failed) 2009, without indication of "previously", then 2014, then dream, then back to born.
    • Put 2009 and 2010 chronologically and threw the rest into a footnote. Better? --MTBW
      • Yes. Consider to move the Lucky Pulpit pic to here, show dad where he's mentioned first, ----GA
                • OK, did so, but now have a left-facing image under a level three header again. Hope you can live with that, as no good way to make 2 paras there, I don't think. (We could toss the "behavior" subheader, though...)--MTBW
  • Can the naming come sooner? Perhaps already in the Background section?
    • He didn't get his "official" name until 2013, just before he raced as a 2-year-old. I clarified the chronology. If you still think that paragraph could go up to the beginning of the background section, I can do it, but it would throw the timeline off - is is OK as is? --MTBW
      • yes ----GA
  • "Because many Thoroughbred trainers are unfamiliar with the Los Alamitos facility, the success of California Chrome, who was conditioned there, created good publicity for the track." - "Because"? not a reason.
    • Clarified. Any better? --MTBW
      • yes ----GA

2013

Barefoot hoof, lateral view. Coronet band (1), walls (2), toe (3), quarter (4), heel (5), bulb (6), P2 (small pastern) (7 (comment: heels are a little bit too low)
A horse hoof that's healthier than the one in the chart above, does NOT have low heels
  • "low heels"?
    • Complex concept, let me think about it. I wish horse hoof was a better article, but I'll put up the photo they use to show you the parts and another one that I took of a healthier hoof. If I explain, perhaps you can help think of better wording: A horse's hoof is, basically, a gigantic fingernail that has to be trimmed periodically and the horseshoes repositioned. (see also farrier). Sometimes the hoof wears or grows unevenly and, on Thoroughbred race horses in particular (for reasons too complicated to explain here) their heels tend to grow slower that their toes, getting out of proportion and balance, which can make them go lame. Short of a dissertation on hoof care here's one, though, help me determine what would improve this and make it clearer. --MTBW
      • Follow up: The news stories all just say variations on "developed low heels." It's so common in Thoroughbreds, I'd be venturing into OR or SYNTH to explain what I know - any thoughts on how I can clarify without rousing the ALLCAPS police? --MTBW
        • What do you think of some of this in the hoof article, then link to the section? Or Wiktionaire? It's not a term I heard before. ----GA
            • Hoof does need work. Let me think about how much time I have. --MTBW

Fine story to the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC) End of round three ----Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, my points were addressed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Broken links
    • Fixed two now, will get the rest in a bit. --MBTW
  • Quotes should be cited immediately in the lead, even if cited later
    • Not my read of MOS, these are "scare quotes" indicative of neologisms more than people's direct quotations, but cite to the exact policy/guideline and I'll look at it. --MTBW
  • FN4: which Lexington?
  • Courier-Journal or The Courier-Journal? Herald-Leader or Lexington Herald-Leader? Baltimore Sun or The Baltimore Sun? Paulick Report or The Paulick Report?
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • Be consistent in when you include locations for publications
    • Tossed them all --MTBW
  • FN19, 39, 98: publisher?
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • Several LDR cite errors
    • Any places other than something already listed? If more errors than these say so. --MTBW
  • FN75, 160: work?
    • Fixed --MTBW
  • FN79: why include publisher here and not for other newspapers?
    • How about you reword that "FN79 is inconsistent because it lists publisher when others don't?" Tossed --MTBW
  • FN83: verify title spelling
    • You could also say, Title appears to have a typo. Fixed. --MTBW
  • FN82, 84: need endashes not hyphens
    • I think I fixed them but I honestly cannot distinguish a hyphen from an endash in the editing window, so any you want to fix yourself in the future, go for it. (No, still haven't had the cataract surgery yet) --MTBW
  • FN85: this doesn't match other Blood-Horse refs
    • Fixed--MTBW
  • Associated Press is an agency not an author
    • Well last FAC I had you were OK with that. And it isn't in the web template. So say what you think will fix it --MTBW
  • FN147: why no accessdate here when other newspapers have them?
    • That's snarky, just say "missing access date." Fixed --MTBW
  • Is Fox Sports a publisher or a work? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a snarky question. Just point out the error. I made it a work, but whatever. You could have said "multiple Fox Sports refs - they are inconsistent if work or publisher" --MTBW
  • FN126: use work instead of publisher
    • Fixed --MTBW
    • @Nikkimaria:, I think all done, save for the couple I commented on. Your comments would be easier to fix if they were less cryptic in places and all issued with less condescension and sarcasm. I made a few simple suggestions above and will fix everything that you have flagged or comment further if I think it's fine. Montanabw(talk) 16:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No condescension or sarcasm was meant: I phrase some points as questions because there are occasionally reasons to format things in a certain way, and I don't know whether you chose to do that deliberately or not. If you check the rest of the FAC page you'll find that I do this on many reviews. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, keep working on those people skills! As for here, did I fix everything that needed to be fixed? Montanabw(talk) 00:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. Broken links still there, still a number of LDR errors, still inconsistencies in publication titles (ex. The Courier-Journal in FN 32 and just Courier-Journal in 99), still inconsistencies in italicization (ex. ESPN italicized in 164 but not 139) - generally a number of inconsistencies needing correction. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you list the footnotes by number, that helps, because I honestly do not see "a number" of the errors sometimes, and it is truly a vision problem in part when scanning massive amounts of small text. (as my constant two-edit-to-fix-typo pattern shows). I know I fixed two broken links, I'll check the link to see if there are more? I also do not object if you want to make these minor fixes when you see them, might save time. Montanabw(talk) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Follow up: I think I got all the broken links now, I had to purge your above link and reset, but now I think I have them all. Please advise if otherwise. Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still two dead: "As for Preakness stories..." and "Accidental Favorite". As to the rest, because many of the issues were with consistency rather than accuracy, you will need to check my changes to make sure you're okay with the options I chose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll figure out those (why they don't archive those with redirect links is beyond me, sigh). As for the refs, I really think must of that is an issue of style over substances, so your version is fine. Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria:, I think all done now- did wayback links to the two dead ones. Anything else you can find? Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco comments - This will quite likely take me a few days. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the comments above that the owners are likely notable enough for an article. (And I think "Dumb Ass Partners" in a DYK will be quite interesting).
        • If all of you help me if the deletionists attack, I'm in. stay tuned. --MTBW
    • I feel as though the lede could be trimmed a little. It is 662 words, or 3,904 characters with spaces. That is almost 10% of the article. Perhaps tighten the prose and remove information not all that pertinent to Chrome? (For instance, the meaning of DAP and the men's wives also being active in racing)
          • Reasonable. I'll see what I can do. --MTBW
    • All of this information about Lucky Pulpit shouldn't follow a "who" construction, I think.
        • Horses are living creatures not inanimate things, and in particular, named creatures are individuals. I loathe using "it" under such circumstances. I'm actually rather fierce about that.  ;-) --MTBW
    • the Martins - who are they?
      • Perry Martin and his wife, Denise -- where was that unclear? I'll fix. --MTBW
    • Wouldn't there be enough on Love the Chase to have an article on her (and thus save us another hundred words here?)
        • No. California Chrome is her only racing foal, the other two are still babies. We DID create a new article on Lucky Pulpit, however
    • Why the white space in #Behavior?
            • Was trying to keep photo from bleeding into next section. I'm going to move the Lucky Pulpit photo down, now that the other has been tossed, so that issue should be resolved. --MTBW
    • <shudder>Marriage info? Anniversaries? Pretty darn irrelevant to Chrome.
      • Background on owners, but main issue was that Coburn shot off his mouth at the Preakness, saying the Martins were skipping the race because they got pisssed at how rudely they were treated at Churchill Downs, the Martins said it was just their anniversary. But per above, I'll figure out how to trim it. --MTBW
    • Perry Martin performed testing and analysis work, including work on Air Force weapons systems. - redundant to what you already wrote above
        • OK, will fix--MTBW
    • A lot of the information about the owners jumps from place to place. I'd expect their year of marriage to be before the mention of their anniversary, etc.
        • OK, will fix--MTBW
    • Lots of sentences beginning "He" in the paragraph beginning "Steve Coburn"
        • OK, will fix--MTBW
    • Tiznow - worth a redlink?
      • Hm. He should have his own article, won the Breeders' Cup Classic. So yes. --MTBW
    • imprinted - worth linking?
      • Yes, not all people know what that is. --MTBW
    • they had kept horses at Hollywood Park, but when it closed in December 2013, Los Alamitos Race Course picked up some of the racing trainers who had stabled horses there, including Sherman Training Stables. Los Alamitos is better-known as a track for Quarter Horse racing, but took over some of Hollywood Park's Thoroughbred racing dates in 2014. - Some redundancy (implicit) that could be worked through with reworking
        • OK, will fix, open to specific suggestions--MTBW
    • Is his early life and training quite "background" information? In an article on the horse, I'd expect such information to actually be rather important. Section may need to be retitled.
        • "Background" is sort of the standard header for these sections throughout the WP Horse racing articles. Not opposed to something better, but it would be different from the other several thousand horse "biographies" that have this section title. --MTBW
    • Skipping ahead and looking at the nearly incomprehensible (to me, as I my first response remains "who cares", although I know on the logical level why it's necessary for the article) Pedigree section, I wonder why the information on sire and dam cannot be focused here instead.
              • Also standard layout for horse racing biographies, summary of horse's over all life other than race record at start, with pedigree at end. The pedigree analysis may make non-horse-owner's eyes glaze over, which is why it is toward the end, but keep in mind that I have the same reaction to baseball statistics and car engine specifications. --MTBW
    • If he is 4 × 5 to Northern Dancer, then shouldn't this inbreeding be marked in the (considerably more simple to understand) table?
      • Pedigree chart in article only goes back four generations, but can do it once, though possibly confusing without the other ? Thoughts? --MTBW
    • The woman in tinfoil and the man with the ass tattoo... wouldn't they both be WP:UNDUE here, considering how many Chromies there are?
        • Demonstrative examples of particularly dedicated fans! --MTBW
    • grumbling - don't find this very encyclopedic
      • Suggest preferred phrase: "Tempest in a teapot" ? "whining" ?" "Kvetching"? "Public is bored and needed to be upset over something?" (grin) --MTBW
    • had little patience the horse's story - missing something?
        • DeFord's radio commentary positively dripped with sarcasm... he said, " the whole thing is a ridiculous reverie", want to present balance and convey the tone of the NOT-Chromies - DeFord's piece was the most striking. Suggested way to rephrase?
          • I was thinking of the fact that "with" seems to be missing between "patience" and "the horse's". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Crisco 1492: for little typos and other small stuff, I don't mind if you just tweak them of pop in hidden text that pinpoints a problem. Faster for both of us than telling me to. Sometimes I've stared at an article so long that I'm a little dense, as my comments to Nikkimaria's review may indicate. If you actually mess up something, I'll tweak your tweaks, but also take it as evidence that something was screwy and needed fixing Montanabw(talk) 04:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've expressed elsewhere, I'm concerned about the length of this article. California Chrome likely has several further seasons to go through, and yet this is already longer than many biographies of humans. I'd recommend a very critical reread of the article, to see what can be pruned
        • Working on it, per Blofeld's comments above, I've already chopped about a thousand words so far. --MTBW
    • I'll try and do the racing career tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the last race for Alberto Delgado as the horse's jockey, but Sherman did not link the horse's performance to the jockey, stating that California Chrome was still growing and learning how to be a racehorse. - Any way to avoid "jockey ... jockey"?
    • Will tweak, stay tuned. --MTBW
  • the only other horses to win both the Santa Anita Derby and the Kentucky Derby were I'll Have Another, Sunday Silence, Winning Colors, Affirmed, and Majestic Prince. - That's a lot of horses to use "only" for
    • five in 140 years?? --MTBW
  • schooled in the saddling paddock, - Schooled?
    • PING FOR ANSWER: In that case, it means they led him around in circles to get him used to the place. "Schooled" is a term of art in horse land for training -- how can I fix this for you? --MTBW
  • Who tag added
  • Previously, Charlie Whittingham held the record when at age 76 he trained Sunday Silence to win the 1989 Kentucky Derby. - If this should be included at all, it should be as a footnote. It's not really pertinent to the narrative
    • Big news at the time, given Art Sherman's age and how famous Whittingham was in horse racing circles...could live with efn but Whittingham was a big deal. --MTBW
  • California Chrome shipped on May 12 via air to Baltimore for the 2014 Preakness Stakes, traveling on the same plane as the other two horses from the Derby to also run in the Preakness - I sense this could probably be tightened a bit (maybe "California Chrome, together with two other Derby racers, shipped on May 12 to Baltimore for the 2014 Preakness Stakes"
    • Will tweak --MTBW
  • Do you have the script to check for duplicated links? I sense you need it here.
    • PING FOR ANSWER: Don't have the script. Is there a toollabs link I can run? --MTBW
  • security - I'd call this overlinking
    • Heh, depends on the reader -- you wanted clarification of "schooled"! (smile) --MTBW
      • Physical security is general. Schooled in the most literal sense clearly wouldn't apply to a horse. Unless Mr. Ed went through Grade 3. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In search of interesting stories, the press ran a piece on the Toner stable's barn cat, Mademoiselle. - I see where you're going here, but ... seriously.
    • It was THAT BAD! The press scrutiny was pretty ridiculous. I didn't mention the stories on the groom, the exercise rider's kid, how Ride on Curlin's trainer and Sherman were chanting "1-2, 1-2" in the bar at night... really, there was restraint!  ;-) --MTBW
  • moved in and accidentally stepped on California Chrome's heel as both horses broke from the gate. - Accidentally? What does this add? One would expect sentience a prerequisite for deliberately doing something, and thus also the corollary
    • It's wasn't because he stepped on himself, which was the original theory, and it also wasn't because anyone (jockey, gate assistant, etc.) deliberately did something...nor did the other horse misbehave as far as anyone can tell, it was just a "shit happens" thing. Horses CAN do weird stuff on the track - not to screw over another horse on purpose, but they can dislike the jockey, spook at something, stand funny in the gate... --MTBW
  • luckily, - feels like editorializing
    • Clarified. --MTBW
  • Very well written, although pruning is still possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pruning some more, will take me a couple days to whack at it now that I have DAP racing live. Montanabw(talk) 08:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Froggerlaura comments
    • The La Troinne photo was a copy vio, so had to tag for deletion at Commons. Stay away from anything from the non-existent "Gooreen collection" as most of the photos are copyrighted and taken from elsewhere on the internet. Froggerlaura ribbit 15:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. There is a "fair use" exception, but if these are controversial, I'll avoid those. Can you find anything "legal" on any other horses in his pedigree this side of the Darley Arabian? Swaps maybe? --MTBW

Thanks Crisco and Froggerlaura, I'll address these issues and get back to you. Montanabw(talk) 17:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To all: DAP Racing now live. I need to tweak it some more, anyone else is welcome to dive in over there (no GA/FA yet, DYK hook ideas welcome at talk there) but should soon be able to chop some stuff from 'Chrome. Give me about 24 hours to digest edits and let me have new eyes on the article. Montanabw(talk) 03:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • @Dr. Blofeld:, @Crisco 1492:, @Nikkimaria:, @Go Phightins!: All right everyone: It's now whacked down to 41 kB (7152 words) of readable prose size. That's down from 48K and over 8400 words. I've had enough time and distance now to see some of the things you wanted me to chop and I think I managed to agree with many of your suggestions. I also moved around a little bit of stuff to improve flow, but the substantive content should be all the same. The biggest thing I did was to put the "Behavior" subsection at the end of the background section; seemed a better lead in to his racing career. Y'all realize I created four other articles as spinoffs from this one? (Art Sherman, Nasal strips, Templeton Thompson and DAP Racing)? And, @Gerda Arendt:, I see you have supported but see if my changes raise any concerns for you; also note I linked to hoof anatomy on that "low heels" bit you wondered about. (And Crisco, I did chop the bit on the barn cat...just for you!) Montanabw(talk) 06:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better, giving a read through now. Lead could still use a trim. I think you could remove "Both the mare and foal were required to stay in a stall for a month while she underwent medical treatment, during which California Chrome imprinted on humans owing to the extra attention he received from people as they cared for his dam. His people-focused attitude was later viewed as a useful trait in his training as a racehorse." from the lead though as it comes across as a bit trivial to read so soon in the article. Also "He is owned by Perry Martin from Yuba City, California, and Steve Coburn of Topaz Lake, Nevada, who named their partnership DAP Racing, standing for "Dumb Ass Partners"—a tongue-in-cheek response to a passerby who questioned their wisdom in purchasing Love the Chase.", I'm not sure you really need to state what it stands for in the lead, "He is owned by Perry Martin from Yuba City, California, and Steve Coburn of Topaz Lake, Nevada, who formed the partnership DAP Racing" should suffice, now you have an article explaining it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. The lead now is about 200 characters shorter than was the lead for Mucho Macho Man, which was (as you pointed out) shorter. Someone else, somewhere else, felt something on babyhood was necessary to properly summarize the article. I'll chop, but can you help me defend if others feel differently? --MTBW
    OTOH, the "Dumb Ass Partners" thing is sort of a big deal, all the 'horse of the people" thing and all that. I believe it is important enough to keep up front. --MTBW

"The Martins, from Chicago, shared an interest in horse racing.[19] They moved to California in 1987, where Perry Martin was employed as a metallurgist by the Air Force and Denise briefly job shadowed a racehorse trainer in the Sacramento area.[19] Today they own and operate Martin Testing Laboratories (MTL).[22] MTL tests items such as automobile airbags and medical equipment. Perry Martin described the items MTL tests as "the kind where somebody dies if something goes wrong".[23] He also wrote the Electronic Failure Analysis Handbook, published in 1999.[24] Denise Martin is MTL's senior chemist, managing the company's fatigue testing and thermal analytics.[18]

Steve Coburn, characterized by the media as "loquacious",[25][26] describes himself and his wife Carolyn as "just everyday people".[15][18] He grew up in central California and was familiar with horses, herded cattle at a feedlot,[11] participated in rodeos, and worked at some ranching jobs.[27] He now is a press operator for a company that makes magnetic strips.[16] Carolyn Coburn retired in March 2014 from a career working in payroll in the health care industry.[18] Carolyn introduced Steve to horse racing, and when he was looking for a tax write-off, she encouraged him to buy into a racing syndicate instead of purchasing a small airplane.[14"

This is still way more than you really need now you've got the sub article. You could certainly remove " Perry Martin described the items MTL tests as "the kind where somebody dies if something goes wrong".[23] He also wrote the Electronic Failure Analysis Handbook, published in 1999.[24] Denise Martin is MTL's senior chemist, managing the company's fatigue testing and thermal analytics.[18]" without losing anything really of value about the horse... I'd change it to "Today they own and operate Martin Testing Laboratories (MTL), which tests items such as automobile airbags and medical equipment" and remove the rest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's doable, thought the "somebody dies" quote of his was repeated in virtually every article the profiled the owners, just saying - chopped most, reworded a wee bit to put back in some older material that was ther pre-quotation --MTBW

Support. I've been through the article, nose to tail, a few times now (and recently again) and fixed everything that struck me or put my nit-pickery in commented out notes that Montana addressed every time. I think it's a thoroughbred article, neigh, dam excellent, and having nothing left to nag about; I am happy to support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Much better. Trimming a bit about Sherman and DAP is probably preferable, but at least I can handle this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Agreed, much improved now. Some further trimming could be done as Crisco says but it's acceptable to me now. Excellent work Montanabw! Thanks for bearing with me on this!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Owner_DAP_back.svg: source? The front design is PD, but this is moving towards creative work. (And the garment itself appears to be a front view, not a back...). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:JockeyColours does these up for dozens of horse racing articles (see User_talk:JockeyColours, and s/he apparently doesn't have a template for both front and back, as traditionally they are supposed to be identical so yeah the template makes both look like the front. I do not believe that racing silks are copyrighted, though they are registered as unique to the owner. (see, e.g. Calumet Farm, Godolphin Racing, etc.) I'm looking up info on copyright of silks, the rules vary from state to state, and Europe has its own rules, but this article states (last paragraph) that silks cannot use copyrighted images, at least in New york state, which coordinates with the Jockey Club. As 'Chrome ran in the Belmont, DPA racing's silks were approved, even with the different front and back design, and thus the donkey is an "emblem" and not copyrighted. DRF is a reliable source on horse racing. The front and back are equal in terms of copyright. Note here how the silks are used almost like a national flag to identify stables. If it's a huge deal, we can chop the image, but given that we have tons of these racing silks images (looks like over 1000) used in a ton of articles, I think the copyright issue was addressed long ago, But @Froggerlaura: who is up on copyright stuff and @Tigerboy1966: who use these a lot, for further comment. Montanabw(talk) 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: User:JockeyColours fixed the racing silks image so it is front/back. I thing all other issues are now addressed. Montanabw(talk) 23:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given precedent for use of such images in WP, I think any further discussion should be pursued post-FAC. If something did in fact have to change -- which doesn't seem terribly likely to me based on the info above -- it would appear to go beyond this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnboddie[edit]

Support on prose. This is beautifully written and fun to read. I looked hard for something to change and couldn't find anything. Johnboddie (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

Made some changes to the lead. Skimming, it looked great. Can't argue with any of the above. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2014 (diff).

Megadeth[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second nomination of this page for FA. I have addressed the prose issues from the previous candidature with the help of Curly Turkey and believe the article now meets the criteria. Please note if there is any unresolved point and I will happily fix the problem.--Retrohead (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Megadeth's second studio album was produced on a small budget from Combat Records. Not satisfied with these financial limitations, Megadeth soon left Combat and signed with Capitol Records. Capitol bought the rights to the upcoming album and hired producer Paul Lani to remix the earlier recordings. Released in late 1986, Peace Sells... but Who's Buying? was recorded on a budget of $25,000 and had clearer studio production and more sophisticated songwriting.: Is $25,000 the Combat or Capitol budget?
  • "On the road, things escalated from a small border skirmish into a full-on raging war", Mustaine later recalled, "I think a lot of us were inconsistent [on the 1988 tour] because of the guy we were waiting for after the show.": can you show this quote with the original punctuation?
  • Worth mentioning who Megdeth lost the 1993 Grammy to? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • and spanned eleven months, becoming Megadeth's most extensive tour to date.: but diidn't the 1987 tour last 72 weeks?
  • press response to the album was mixed. The Los Angeles Times noted the album for carrying diverse compositions, and described it as a "rousing balance" between the older material and experimental tunes.: We're told it got mixed reviews, and then are given a single quote that doesn't reflect that at all. If the quote is meant to introduce the idea of the diversity of the compositions, I'd reword it so it doesn't seem as if you're about to give a sample of the mixed reviews.
  • Mustaine fired manager Bud Prager and self-produced the album.: meaning it was produced by Mustaine or Megadeth?
  • Menza was dismissed shortly after rehearsing began. Mustaine stated that he was insufficiently prepared and "it just didn't work out". Unable to prepare for the physical demands of a full US tour, Menza was sent home a few days before the start of the tour in support of Megadeth's upcoming album: was he dismaissed twice? Was the rehearsal Menza was fired for rehearsal for the tour or the recording? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 2006, Megadeth announced that its eleventh studio album, United Abominations, was near completion. Although its release was originally scheduled for October 2006, Mustaine later revealed that the band was "putting the finishing touches on it", and postponed the release to May of the following year.: Would you object if I cut this down to Although scheduled for October 2006, Megadeth's eleventh album, United Abominations, was released May of the following year. or even just Megadeth's eleventh album, United Abominations, was released May 2007.? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an interview in for Crypt Magazine, drummer Shawn Drover stated plans for a thirteenth Megadeth album.: This sounds trivial to me. Can we drop it? Actually, I think the whole paragraph could be condensed quite a bit by dropping these kinds of details and jumping right into th ealbum's recording and release. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megadeth left Roadrunner Records for Mustaine's label, Tradecraft,: What's the story with this label? Was it freshly founded? If not, how come Megadeth wasn't on it before? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the final show, Jason Newsted joined Megadeth onstage to perform "Phantom Lord", a song Mustaine had written during his stint with Metallica.: Wouldn't it be appropriate to mention Newsted's relation to Metallica? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • troubles arose concerning the band playing sideshows with Newsted: meaning they violated their contract by playing these shows, or what kind of troubles? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a mix of "number <digit>" and "number <word>" throughout. I made them all "number <word>", but feel free to go the other way. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The $25,000 budget would be from Combat Records. And about the tours being italicized or not, I think they shouldn't be. I'll see the liner notes for the quote. Regarding the Grammy issue, I don't think it's worth mentioning that Nine Inch Nails took the award that year. About the 2001 album, it was produced solely by Mustaine (I think that is stated pretty clear above). Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see it in the MoS, but it came up a few times on the MoS talk page, and each time it was recommended not to italicize. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "self-produced": yes, grammatically that's what is said, but it's still ambiguous as the last time an album was "self produced" (Killing is my Business) it was done by the band. It leaves the reader wondering if what's being said is what's really what was meant. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, the information about Thirteen is trivial. As for United Abominations, it might stay since we're talking about an album delay, something that has not happened with any of the previous albums. But I'll leave it up to you to decide whether you'll keep it or not. But if omitting the sentence, please post it to the album article in order not to lose the information. By the way, thanks for the awesome job you're doing.--Retrohead (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm done with copyediting. If you can get through the last couple of little things above, I'll be ready to support. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Megadeth didn't play the Soundvawe festival because the concerts with Newsted weren't originally scheduled, or in other words, the tour promoter violated the initial contract. As for Menza, he was fired once in 2004, during rehearsal, with the explanation that he wasn't prepared. It's kinda odd that the tour started before the album was released, but the band was rehearsing for the tour, not that they were doing recording sessions.--Retrohead (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Ellefson's departure, Mustaine accused Ellefson of slandering him and lying about him to the press that the arm injury was fake.: the source for this is Dave Mustaine, and I'm not quite sure this really summarizes what he said, either. Anyways, I've removed it. Can you find a better source for the Ellefson situation? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the book Mustaine: A Heavy Metal Memoir, Dave said the same thing. I've gone through Ellefson's biography as well, but there is no mentioning of this incident. Honestly, you can't expect Ellefson to admit this is his own book. But since Blabbermouth.net is a third-party source, I think we can go with that one.--Retrohead (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is a quotation of Mustaine. Mustaine is not a third-party source—he's a primary source, and we must avoid primary sources when the details are (potentially damaging) details about living persons (see WP:BLP). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, removed the entire sentence according to the Wiki policy. Regarding the cancelled shows with Newsted, I'm not sure even the journalist himself knows what the real reason was. I saw that you re-worded it, so I think we can cross that too. As for the quote from the liner notes of So Far, So Good... So What!, it is cited properly, except for the big brackets, which were added so the reader can know to which event Mustaine is referring to.--Retrohead (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the logo with a brief description. Thanks for all of the suggestions and support.--Retrohead (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • Some external links that need to be corrected.
  • I would like to do a check for disambiguation links, but it seems like that tool is down, so I will come back for those later on.
  • In the infobox, "United States" can be abbreviated "U.S."
  • Instead of formatting the titles like "Early days (1983–84)", I would suggest renaming them like "1983–84: Early days", which seems to be a standard practice.
  • I think that the inline music samples in the body of the article can be moved into the "Influences and style" section, which I believe will make them more accessible than they currently are.
  • The "Controversy" section should probably be renamed "Controversies" because there are numerous incidents that they were involved in.
  • The "Studio albums" subheading under "Discography" can be removed because discography sections are only supposed to list studio albums anyway.
  • Also in the "Discography" section, perhaps since there are several studio albums they could be split into two columns?
  • The referral to List of awards and nominations received by Megadeth alone will suffice in the "Awards" section, since it is a well-maintained featured list.

WikiRedactor (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiRedactor. Thanks for the comments, I'll start addressing them as soon as I'm finished with Curly Turkey's ones. Just to note that the list with awards was incorporated because the GA reviewer suggested so, and removing it could drag some oppose from another reviewer. I intended splitting the albums in two columns, but Curly Turkey suggested such a change isn't semantic, so I'll leave that too. The rest of the notes are under way.--Retrohead (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way it was handled before was unsemantic, but there are other ways to handle it: for example. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRedactor, I've done the majority of the notes. I've made the samples more visible and accessible now, but kept them in the history section since their use is about those events. Also kept the list with the awards, as explained above. Thanks for the constructive input.--Retrohead (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Retrohead: I'm pleased with the corrections made, and am happy to give my support to the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998[edit]

  • "Megadeth is a thrash metal band from Los Angeles, California, formed in 1983 by guitarist Dave Mustaine and bassist David Ellefson, shortly after Mustaine's dismissal from Metallica"- I am not sure the last comma is needed.
  • " A pioneer of the American thrash metal scene, the band is credited as one of the genre's "big four" along with Anthrax, Metallica, and Slayer, who were responsible for thrash metal's development and popularization" - Claims like such should include citations since it is challengeable (See WP:LEADCITE).
  • "prominent" or "common"?
  • " MTV has refused to play two of the band's videos that the network considered to condone suicide."- The lead should generally include general stuff about the band. This seems too specific. The sentence preceding this can cover this by becoming " The group has experienced controversy over its musical approach and lyrics, including canceled concerts and bans of albums and music videos".
  • "Rauch" changes to "Rausch" in the first section.
  • "After considering a few recording labels, Mustaine signed with Combat Records, a New York-based independent label that offered him the highest budget for recording an album and starting a promotional tour"- Seems like Mustaine joined the label, not the entire band.
  • If Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! is referred as such throughout the article, then why even have one instance as Killing Is My Business...?
  • Side comment- Oh god drugs drugs drugs everywhere
  • I don't know if it is intentional or not but this article seems very Mustaine-centric.
  • More comments later. The prose is good in general. I suggest making sure that everything mentioned is supported by the sources and that nothing is directly taken from the sources (without being put in quotations). --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a close look at the prose, there were some spelling and copyediting mistakes that I accidentally overlooked. About the "big four" cite, trust me, there are zillion references on Google Books that confirm that moniker, and that is probably the least challenging aspect of the lead. Indeed, the article sounds Mustaine-centric because Mustaine was actually the band (he is even jokingly nicknamed as "MegaDave"). All other notes, except for the comma in the opening sentence, were addressed.--Retrohead (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That comma could easily be dropped without affecting the meaning, but it's up to you. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed that comma is not needed at all. As for the challengeable part, the "probably the least challenging aspect of the lead" is coming from you, who I assume to be a fan of the band. A person like me, who does not know much about the band (other than the fact that they share a song's title with Shakira), may not find this justifiable without supporting sources. If necessary, include the zillion references if that works to make this article stronger. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you're honestly challenging the "big four" thing, then perhaps a cite is warranted, but seriously, no more than a few seconds googling would dispel any doubts. The "big four" designation goes back at least as far as the early 90s, when I first heard it. It's a firmly-rooted meme, and cited more than once in the body. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then. Metal is not big in this part of the world, so maybe that's why I am not aware. Also, the MTV point has not been addressed. And if the Mustaine-centric tone can be explained through the "MegaDave" thing, a suggestion would be to include that term somewhere in the article. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction to Curly Turkey's note, the "big four" tag has been used since 1986/87, when all of those bands released the "genre-defining" albums. I thought about dropping the MTV sentence, but do we have an alternative to replace that? The lead will become too brief in that case. As for the article being Mustaine-centric, it is because the sources have focused on him as the band's leading figure. If you check the members timeline, you'll see that him and Ellefson were the only consistent members, in addition to Mustaine writing and composing 98% of the group's songs.--Retrohead (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a sentence will certainly not make the lead "brief." I will not focus on that anymore now and just lay out a few more points.
  • I am randomly reading sections for prose check. There is one in the Controversies section. "The government to pointed the band's mascot Vic Rattlehead..." - You know what's wrong here.
  • I am randomly picking out a sentence and checking whether it is supported by the source. This will be formally done by another editor later I believe. But nevermind- "The band spent nearly four months in the studio with Norman, writing and recording what became Megadeth's most commercially successful effort, Countdown to Extinction" - The Chicago Tribune source does not really confirm this. The four months part is absent, and the "commercially" successful part, while true since it's got their highest certifications, is only implied by the source: it calls the disc "commercial," which is not the equivalent of "commercially successful."
The Google definition of "commercial" states "making or intended to make a profit". Nonetheless, that can easily be confirmed, since it's the only multi-platinum Megadeth album (2× Platinum according to RIAA). The intro being short was specifically pointed in the GA review, and having two videos banned by MTV is not something you commonly see at other artists. Referring to Vic Rattlehead, can you be more specific on what is incorrect with the sentence?--Retrohead (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That google definition is exactly what I meant. As for the double platinum cert: in addition to the book, cite the certifying body database too i.e RIAA (Wikipedia:Record_charts#Certifications states "Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database."). "The government to pointed the band's mascot Vic Rattlehead as inappropriate and told the members that they would be arrested if they performed." - Either that is a "too" or "pointed to". The choice of words "pointed" and "told" isn't all that great too. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence about the Vic was corrected. As for Countdown being the band's most commercially successful album, even Nielsen Soundscan reported 2,322,000 copies sold in the US, and compared to Youthanasia's 997,000 (their second best) is undoubtedly the group's best seller. It is clearly written in the liner notes that the recording started on January 6 and ended on April 28, 1992→which is nearly four months.--Retrohead (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doubting that it hasn't sold that much. What I mean to say is that "Released in July 1992, Countdown to Extinction entered the Billboard 200 chart at number two, and earned double-platinum status in the United States" should also cite this. I also suggest using better words than "pointed" and "told" in that Vic sentence. And you need to include all that nielsen stuff and liner notes in this sentence "The band spent nearly four months in the studio with Norman, writing and recording what became Megadeth's most commercially successful effort, Countdown to Extinction" instead of explaining it all to me. My comments stop here.--WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The liner notes are already cited (ref 63) and the certification number is sourced with Joyner's book. Appreciate your input so far.--Retrohead (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The certification number may be covered in the book, fine. But as per the guideline suggestion of Wikipedia:Record_charts#Certifications ("Certifications should be sourced directly to certifying agencies, most of which provide a searchable database"), I highly recommend adding a reference pointing to the RIAA database. I will give my support once this change is made. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The cite was added.--Retrohead (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Image review
  • Several captions could use editing for grammar
  • File:Megadeth_in_Porto_Alegre.jpg: I think the mascot's image is prominent enough in this image that we would need to consider its copyright status
  • Per WP:SAMPLE, non-free samples should not exceed the shorter of 30 seconds or 10% of the original track. "Since "Peace Sells" is only 4 minutes long, 27 seconds is too long a sample. The FUR for that excerpt is also quite weak.
  • File:MegadethLogoDileo.png: can we add in the actual creator and date of creation for the logo?
  • File:Megadeth_Symphony_of_Destruction.ogg: please fill in the "n.a.". Nikkimaria (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, according to the Template:Information, the author and the source fields in File:MegadethLogoDileo.png are already filled. Did you mean to incorporate the actual author (Dave Mustaine) and the year the logo was actually created (1986)? As for the first note, can you be a little more precise and mention which of the image captions you find unsuitable?--Retrohead (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nevermind, the notes were addressed, except for shortening the "Peace Sells" audio, which Dawnseeker2000 should handle it soon. The rationales were properly filled, and the prose in the image and audio descriptions was corrected too.--Retrohead (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just uploaded a new, shortened version of the sample. Hope this is works out for the article. I chose to take a little extra off (six seconds altogether) so the end would not be mid-sentence. Cheers, Dawnseeker2000 21:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from L1A1 FAL[edit]

Source review

Note: Firstly, I feel that I should make clear that I have had significant involvement with this article, and the topic at large. If that is deemed to constitute a conflict of interest, please feel free to dismiss my input. I was asked to do a source check. I am a novice at FA discussions, so please bear with me.

  • The first thing I wanted to bring up, what's the status of Blabbermouth, in regards to it being an RS or not? I seem to remember some debate as to whether it was or not. Personally, I consider it so, and use it as a reference myself, but for the sake of objectiveness, I think I should being this up.
  • Another thing, when an article is written by an unnamed staff member, the author format should be standardized, there's a few variants present. Should either be standardized as "Staff writer" or "[Name of publication] staff", in my opinion.
  • Citation 5 is from a fansite, Rockmetal.art.pl. It seems to be an archived thing from Hit Parader. I think this is legit, and since it is cited as originally being from Hit Parader I would let it stay, if there is not any other source available.
  • Citation 31: is similar to citation 5. from Rockmetal.art.pl, seems to be an archive of a legitimate article
  • Citation 32: concerns me. Is Metal Rules a legitimate source? I'm leaning towards no, personally. Input?
  • Citation 38: same as #5 and 31; usage seems legitimate
  • Citation 46: is "voicesfromthedarkside.de" legit in the context it's being used in?
  • Citation 65: Goldmine magazine... I can't say I am familiar with this publication. I am assuming it is legit, but never hurts to ask.
  • Citation 86: same as #5, 31, 38; usage seems legitimate though
  • Citations 87 & 88: Both are Youtube videos citing appearances on Letterman. Does the copyright status of the videos matter, or are they ok as is?
  • Citation 94: same as #5, 31, 38, 86; usage seems legitimate though
  • Citation 102: Metal Sludge. I don't like this source, it seems a bit lacking on the quality scale. It supports the thing about Menza finding a tumor in his knee. That seems like a fact that should be verifiable in a better source, and I believe a better source should be used, if possible. If there is a consensus that the source is okay, or no other source can be found, I'll drop my objection.
  • Citation 105: same as #5, 31, 38, 86, 94; I think it's legit
  • Citation 108: NewHampshire.com. I am assuming this is legit, but again, doesn't hurt to ask a second opinion
  • Citation 111: Youtube. Citing a live performance, just concerned if the citation is done right.
  • Citation 116: Metal Sludge; see # 102 for my concerns. It cites something about a tour with Motley Crue and Anthrax, and the Northern Ireland concert incident (which should be documented well enough to cite from a better source)
  • Citation 132: same as #5, 31, 38, et. al. I think it's legit
  • Citation 140: Revolver, cited via the band's website. Is there a better way to do this one?
  • Citation 147: Blogcritics. This absolutely needs to be removed and replaced. It cites the release date of one of the Gigantour concert DVDs. I am sure this information can be obtained from Loudwire, Blabbermouth, Bravewords.com or another legit news cite.
  • Citation 153: I think a better source than About.com can be found. Ultimately, my concern hinges on whether this Chad Bowar person is a reputable source.
  • Citation 170: same issue as #153
  • Citation 176: I want to point out that I do not have a problem with this source (Alex Jones/Infowars.com) because of the context and subject of the citation. Brought this up in case anyone else questions it.
  • Citation 231: same issue as #65
  • Citation 239: this source is a blog (seymourduncan.com), but it's an interview. a second opinion would be welcome here.

Everything else looks okay to me, though if someone else wants to double check, go ahead. Additionally, the bibliography sources look okay, too.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second note is done, went with the latter variant. As for Blabbermouth.net, I think it can stay since it is not self-published and has an editorial oversight. Metal Sludge is a website dedicated to heavy metal, and has almost identical publishing policy as Metal Rules. The references are actually interviews with Menza and Mustaine for the website, but if anyone else objects, I'll try to find a more suitable solution.--Retrohead (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Blabbermouth wasn't really a concern for me, I just remembered hearing some issue about it a while back. As for the rest, it works for me, if nobody has any further objections. I might check minor style things in the cites, like date format, etc. just to make sure that's all consistent. Did you check to see if there are any double citations that could be merged? I wouldn't think there would be many, if any, but you never know.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrohead asked me to weigh in on some of these sources. My thoughts (only on sources I feel confident in commenting on, if I don't mention a source then I'm not sure):
  • I use Blabbermouth as a reliable source as well, and it is supported by WP:ALBUM/SOURCES (I know this isn't an album article, but if it's acceptable there, I would assume it's acceptable in related articles), as long as it isn't used to support contentious BLP issues.
  • According to the Metal Rules article, they have been cited by the New York Times, and BW&BK. They also appear to have a professional staff. So long as what it's citing isn't too contentious, I'd support using that source.
Ok, I'll drop my objection to that source--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youtube – It seems to me that if the article uses Youtube to directly support something, such as the band appearing on Letterman and what songs they played, then there should be some sort of news piece out there that talks about them appearing. Basically, it seems like original research to just directly cite a video of their appearances instead of reporting what reliable secondary sources say about their appearances. If a better source than Youtube can be found, I would suggest using it instead.
L1A1 FAL, MrMoustacheMM, all I managed to find are these two references: MSN Entertainment, confirming Megadeth were featured on Letterman in episode 330 (November 18, 1994) and Menza's webiste, stating which songs they played on the show. Are they useful?--Retrohead (talk) 23:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with those. The first source confirms the appearance date, and the second one confirms the song titles. I think Menza's website would qualify as a RS under WP:PRIMARY. L1A1 FAL, your thoughts? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revolver – It would be much better to have the original magazine issue cited instead of Megadeth's website quoting Revolver.
Couldn't find the original Revolver review, but found a reference by The Philippine Star which quotes Revolver.--Retrohead (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chad Bowar (About.com) – Chad Bowar writes for Loudwire (loudwire.com). Loudwire isn't listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, and all I could find at WP:RSN was an unanswered question. If Loudwire is considered reliable, then I would use his About.com writing too. If not, then I wouldn't. That's up to a larger discussion than just me though. See also this discussion thread.
My cautiousness was more a case of the source than the individual. For all I know, anyone could get on about.com and claim to be an expert reviewer or whatever. But if Bowar's reputation is good, then that's fine by me.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • seymourduncan.com – I generally consider interviews to be reliable, even if the site normally wouldn't be considered as such, so long as there is no reason to suspect the interview has been altered (or made up). Not sure though how stringent the requirements for Featured Articles are in this type of situation. That being said, if a more reliable source reports on this interview (Blabbermouth is often a good spot for this, depending on how old the interview is), I'd use that source instead. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldmine is a print magazine that was started in the 70s. Decade-spanning magazines that are physically printed are just about always going to have the editorial oversight and policy required to be considered an RS, so I approve. Sergecross73 msg me 10:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newhampshire.com – While I wouldn't use it to source a controversial musical stance or to define the band's genre or anything, because I don't believe they are especially an authority on music. But I would think they would be fine for sourcing something like a direct quote from a band member, as it is used here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voices From The Dark Side – I'm not 100% sure on this one. Although the interview is authorized by Steven Willems, the website doesn't seem like a high quality source. The bad thing is that an interview done by a more reputable journal is hard (or almost impossible) to find. Unfortunately, Dark Angel is an underground band that disbanded in 1992 because of poor album sales, and they obviously haven't got large media coverage.--Retrohead (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • "The group formed in 1983 by guitarist"..... was formed
  • "As of 2014 Megadeth has received"..... needs comma after "2014"
  • "Early days" section would be better titled something like "Formation"
  • "The resulting recording quality was raw and unpolished"..... somewhat confusing....
  • "In February 1987 Megadeth"..... needs comma after "1987"
  • "In January 2000 guitarist"..... needs comma after "2000"
  • "In January 2002 Mustaine"..... needs comma after "2002"
  • "On April 3 Mustaine"..... needs comma after "April 3"
  • "In May 2006 Megadeth"..... needs comma after "2006"
  • "In January 2008 Glen Drover"..... needs comma after "2008"
  • "Mustaine has made numerous inflammatory statements" → "Mustaine has often made inflammatory statements"
  • "For instance, in 1988 MTV deemed"..... needs comma after "1988", and "For instance" isn't really needed

More to come later on. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those commas are optional; it's up to Retrohead which style to go with, as long as it's consistent within the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the commas were added to retain consistency. I'm sure they were there, but must have been omitted during the copyediting. The other notes are done too.--Retrohead (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming.....

  • "This triggered a riot and fighting"..... doesn't seem very encyclopedic, maybe "This started a fight" or "This started a feud"
Replaced it with "elicited", defined as "evoking or draw out a response from someone in reaction to..."
  • "Controversial and misinterpreted lyrics have caused complications for the band"..... led to conflicts would be better
There were only video bans because of the lyrics, not that the band clashed with someone because of the themes.
  • "Mustaine became a born-again Christian"..... if known, I'd include the specific division of Christianity he took up
Unfortunately no. I assume he took Catholicism, but we haven't got a source for that.
  • "were also influential on the group's guitar style"..... I think "also influenced the group's guitar style" would be better
It was originally written the way you propose, but Curly Turkey re-worded it this way, which I approve. I assume it was done because "influenced [something]" would be repetitive with Led Zeppelin being "also influential on the group's guitar style" or Megadeth being "a direct influence on death metal" and etc.
  • I'd remove "gloomy" from "Megadeth's gloomy lyrics" as it seems POV
Done. This question was previously raised, but forgot to remove it from the article's body (removed it only from the lead back then).
  • "The lyricism centers on nihilistic themes" → "The lyrics involve nihilistic themes"
I think "centers" suggests that nihilistic themes were dominant in the group's lyricism. "Involves", on the other hand, might be interpreted that nihilism was one of the many viewpoints the lyrics present.
  • In Artistry, include what critics have said about their music
Can you be a little more specific about which musical aspect you want additional research? There are the influences (1st para), Megadeth's songwriting routine (2nd para), musical style from the band's formation until the early 2000s and playing skills (3rd para), description by selected musicologists (4th para), and finally, the lyrical themes (5th para).
  • I was thinking of a structure like the "Musical style and development" in The Beatles, with subsectioning and such. Perhaps more detail. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd give "Legacy" its own section rather than subsection.
I originally had that idea, but eventually abandoned it because the "Legacy" mentions Megadeth's influence on other bands and genres, which builds on the previous sub-heading.
  • Maybe more detail on legacy would warrant its own section, but this is optional. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite close! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't manage to do the majority of the notes, but I think the notifications were adequately explained or tried to be addressed.--Retrohead (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost ready to support..... SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 21:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Snuggums, found something about the timing when lyrics and music are composed, and added it here. As for the sub-headings of the artistry section, it was divided like this, but CrowzRSA suggested to merge the "Influences and writing style" and "Musicianship and lyricism" into a larger section called "Influences and style", as it is now.--Retrohead (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now I support SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 20:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "The demo featured early versions of "Last Rites/Loved to Death", "The Skull Beneath the Skin", and "Mechanix", which appeared on the band's debut album.": How many of those appeared on the album?
  • "a more conscious appearance": I don't know what that means.
  • "electric shock therapy": Some readers will confuse this with electroshock therapy ... unless that's what it was, in which case I'm the reader who's confused.
  • "It was the first time that King had performed onstage with Megadeth as the latter's early shows in 1984." ?
  • "Mustaine's newly found label, Tradecraft": ? Maybe "new-found", but this isn't quite what "new-found" means. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "He said this had been spurred by the recent death of Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman, which gave him a sense of mortality. Mustaine elaborated: "You know, time is short. Nobody knows how long they're gonna live. You see what happened with Jeff Hanneman, so I wanna write as much as I can while I can.": The first sentence would be fine alone, or the rest of it would be fine without the first sentence.
  • Finished with Visual Editor. Almost done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mustaine drunkenly and confusedly dedicated the song to "the cause" of "giving Ireland back to the Irish!"": This and following mostly overlaps the footnote.
  • "According to Nielsen SoundScan, Megadeth has sold 9.2 million copies of its albums in the United States between 1991 and 2014": This doesn't quite work ... the date on that is June 2014, so if it's intended to cover 2014, the number might already be wrong by now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable, nice job. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Forgot to say: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 06:31, 9 August 2014 [32].


John Hay[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... John Hay, a man who had an incredible career. Beginning as assistant private secretary and surrogate son to Abraham Lincoln, he went on to be Assistant Secretary of State under Hayes and Garfield, then Secretary of State under McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt. He was the only man who had the ear of the first three presidents to be assassinated that I'm aware of. He was an author, a poet, a journalist, an ambassador, and married money. I should mention, perhaps, that I wrote much of this while on my recent Norway cruise, as it was difficult to sleep with the endless daylight and it gave me something to do. Thus, this article is an example, perhaps never to be equalled on Wikipedia, of making Hay while the sun shines. Thank you. Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: – and a bonus point for the bon mot in the nomination blurb. I gave this article a lot of attention during its recent peer review, here if anyone wants to see. Wehwalt does not always bow to my wishes but he always listens, and I feel he has responded to my various comments appropriately. I endorse his description of Hay's career as "incredible"; the fact that I had never heard of him is a reflection of the Anglo-centric nature of history as taught in English schools circa the 60s and 70s, rather than of Hay's lack of distinction. I have promised to do a sources review, and this will follow in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. To be honest, I feared someone would come up with the joke before I had a chance to use it!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I had my hay ... erm, say, at the PR. This article is well written and comprehensive. Another fantastic article from Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you also.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – despite the agonising pun in the preamble, above. This article explains, clearly and entertainingly, why Hay, a backroom boy in many ways, was a political figure of the first importance. We peer reviewers ganged up on Wehwalt about the length of the lit crit section; it is shorter now, and as it is detached from the rest of the text and won't obtrude on those interested only in Hay's political career it seems to me to be fine. The main political career sections are a model of their kind, the pictures are excellent, the prose is a pleasure and the sourcing is wide and impeccably cited. Very happy to support. – Tim riley talk 17:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. I read the bios and I agonize over what to leave out, I'm afraid.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:John_Hay_Vanity_Fair_24_June_1897.jpg: download link is dead
  • File:John_Hay_by_John_Singer_Sargent.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:John_Hay_Bust.jpg: what is the licensing status of the bust itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • The refs in notes e and f should be standardized
They look the same to me. Can you clarify?
I see now that e and f are in the same format as the other footnote refs (although different from the general citation format). I have struck. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do that to avoid generating a footnote number that can look discontinuous.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 129 needs pp
  • Ditto 161
  • Journals: check alphabetic order
  • The 2-volume 1915 edition of Thayer's Life and Letters has an OCLC no. 445576

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability, and are properly and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted, those things are done. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, unreservedly. A couple of things:
  • ''Helen relocated to Salem in 1830 to teach school" -- Is this AmEng? "Helen relocated to Salem in 1830 to become a teacher", or "Helen relocated to Salem in 1830 to teach at a school" sounds more familiar to me. I am no expert in the differences in dialect between blighty and the states, so I plead ignorance if this is correct.
  • Should "Vanity Fare" in the 1897 image be in Itals? Cassiantotalk 21:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Teach school" is acceptable American English. I've made the other change. Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a few minor quibbles:

  • "It was Milton Hay's desire that his nephew..." might be better as "Milton Hay desired that his nephew..." or "Milton Hay thought his nephew should..."
  • "Hay and Nicolay divided their responsibilities, with Nicolay tending to assist Lincoln in his office and in meetings, while Hay dealt with the correspondence, that was very large." Not sure what you're saying here. Were the responsibilities large, or the correspondence?
  • "Hayes's in the election left Hay an outsider as he sought a return to politics, and he was initially offered no place in the new administration." I think a word is missing here.
  • "That choice was bitterly opposed by Senator Hanna, who..." might read better as "Senator Hanna bitterly opposed that choice, but he..."
  • "Hay submitted his resignation, that was refused by McKinley." might read better as "Hay submitted his resignation, which McKinley refused."
  • I made a few minor edits, too. Feel free to revert if you think any of them change the meaning of what you wrote. This is an excellent article -- good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for the review. I've dealt with those matters. He didn't like your friend Bayard, by the way, describing him as crying as he left and being unctuous to the British.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! He's right, Bayard was the worst! --Coemgenus (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 14:34, 8 August 2014 [33].


1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine, if you will, two aircraft colliding in mid-air and, rather than exploding or spinning out of control, they remain locked together in piggyback fashion and continue to fly by virtue of the still-functioning engines of one plane and the control surfaces of the other –- not to mention one pilot's iron nerves! Well, imagine no longer, it happened over the little town of Brocklesby in south-eastern Australia during World War II. Add to this a tragically ironic aftermath and I think we have some ideal Main Page fodder, assuming it passes muster here. Thanks to everyone who took part in the recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hamiltonstone.

  • Extraordinary event, with a particularly nasty twist in the tail for poor Fuller.
  • Good background as well as detail of the accident and the fates of the four airmen involved.
  • Referencing looks sound.
  • You might want to think about giving slightly more detail for the external links, such as who hosts them. They read as both rather bare and abrupt as currently phrased. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, good point, will do. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - says everything I'd expect it to say and more. To be sure, it's an extremely interesting story. I'll admit thatI did have to look up what a cowling was, so a wikilink there might have been useful, but I know links and wiki-markup in general are discouraged within quotes. Otherwise: excellent! – Juliancolton | Talk 22:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think sometimes a link in a quote is justified and this may be such a case; if no-one objects I'd be happy to see it there. In any event, thanks for your review and support, Julian. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • You've got two different styles for newspaper refs: FNs 13 and 15, versus FNs 21-22. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've altered the templates/parameters for consistency although it looks like the differing appearance might be due to different info being available, e.g. author in some cases but not others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Great article, well done. --John (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks John, and for your edits too. At the risk of looking a gift horse in the mouth, a couple of things: I did like the image of the Ansons in formation at the same size as the gallery in the next section simply for consistency, and it didn't seem to encroach on that following section, but perhaps it's different on your screen; the rejig of the second and last para under Aftermath means we have three sentences in a row beginning with "He", which I always find a bit wearing, so do you think we might have other options there? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 01:51, 8 August 2014 [34].


Battle of Öland[edit]

Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 05:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hot on the trail of Kronan (ship) (TFA 23 June) comes the battle it sank in. This article shares content with the article on Kronan, but it has more details on the aftermath as well as the Danish and Dutch perspectives. It's a relatively minor battle and far less notable than Køge Bay later in the Scanian War. But it was significant for since it paved the way for the Danish invasion of Scania and the resulting Dano-Swedish slug match, including the battle of Lund, the bloodiest battle ever fought in Scandinavia.

It's currently a GA and recently became an A-class WP:MILHIST article. I've had some very nice help from both processes and I think it's up to par to become an FA. I'm looking forward to a thorough review.

Peter Isotalo 05:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from the Princess of Science[edit]

@Peter Isotalo: Hello there! I'm Parcly Taxel and you're hereby invited to comment on fluorine's FAC. I am part of the WikiProject on chemical elements.

For the length, media, lead, structure, citations, stability and neutrality (points 1B, 1D, 1E, 2, 3 and 4 of the FA criteria) they're all fine – this is a well-documented historical event from a long time ago, and it even comes with paintings! As well as that, the overall structure is all chronological and neat, delving into details here and there to reinforce the points made, but not too much so as to diverge from the central topic. The prose and grammar (1A) are impeccable. I couldn't "stop" reading the article, there were no bumps, I just kept going like I was hypnotised (except for the list, which is clearly allowed by the MOS anyway). Finally (1C), how many dubious sources can I count? Zero. It's short, sweet, consistent and wrapped in a package of cuteness and terseness. What do you get, Peter, for doing all this work? A pony and a support. Parcly Taxel 06:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the support. I should add that I've had help-a-plenty with fine-tuning the prose, so kudos to everyone who has contributed.
And yay for ponies!
Peter Isotalo 09:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In general, a comprehensive and well-referenced article that meets the FAC as far as I can tell. However, there are some minor details that I would like to address:

  • As the date of the battle is according to the Julian calender, I would suggest to add the Georgian date as well (since at least one participant used it at the time)
  • Also Charles CI should be linked in the lede.
  • In the chapter Background, I am not sure whether wages is the appropriate term for soldiers' pay - if that is what is referred to.
  • Since the Sound Toll was a Danish institution, I am not convinced that the English fleet was sent to "keep it out of Danish control". The English wanted it gone, at least at the time.
  • "the war revealed" - I assume it refers to the Danish-Swedish war of 1657-8, not the Scanian War mentioned earlier.
  • The Holy Roman Empire is suddenly involved. Maybe a sentence or two might be added how that came to be. And this might include a mention of the Franco-Dutch war going on at the time.
  • In the chapter "Prelude" the Danish fleet is mentioned sailing from Gotland (Visby), which was last mentioned being ceded to Sweden by Denmark. It seems they somehow got it back.
  • The two Swedish vessels mentioned in the first paragraph were actually taken by Brandenburg/Prussian warships. They were however not involved in either battle, but it might be worth mentioning.
  • In the chapter "Forces" the numbers of guns differ from the ones given in "Battle of Møn", although the sources remain the same (eg Churprindsen had 68 at Öland and 74 at Møn). Incidentally, Zettersten was published in 1903 according to the bibliography, and in 1997 according to the reference. Which is it?

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a tad busy with switching jobs, but I'll get cracking on updates later today. I'll address two issues right now:
  • First sentence of "Prelude" mentions the Danes capturing Gotland. Could it be made clearer?
  • The battle of Møn was a year later. Ships might have been up-gunned. Or it might be a completely different ship. Either way, that's what the sources say. I Fixed Zettersten, though.
Peter Isotalo 06:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ÄDA - DÄP:, I specified[35] who captured what at Bornholm (it wasn't just the Prussians). I forgot to point out that I added info on the motivations of Emperor Leopold I.
Peter Isotalo 13:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The background section covers the Scanian war in two different parts; one directly under the background section, and later under the title Scanian war, with an interlude about the state of the navies in between. This should be rearranged to be clearer.
  • The entire background is also very much written from a Swedish perspective. It would be good to expand it to cover the Danish and Dutch situation as well. In particular, it would be worth noting how the Dutch (and English) had a long standing strategy of trying to balance Sweden and Denmark against each other (but more importantly to try to control France!), which had started much earlier and would continue through the Great Northern War.
  • The aftermath section could also mention the naval reforms that were made in Sweden after the war.

Andejons (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The awkward order of sections in the background is fixed.
I'm looking for suitable sources regarding the Danish foreign policy situation, but Dutch and English foreign policies seem off-topic to me. The Dutch were auxilliaries of Denmark and the English never even fought. Besides, there's already content about the reasons for Dutch and English involvement. In an FAC of Scanian War it would be quite appropriate with a brief summary, but this is a single battle of that war which in itself part of the Franco-Dutch War.
I added some information about the founding of Karlskrona, but as with the foreign policy, is this really relevant in this article? It would be either the Scanian War article or Køge Bay, not Öland.
Peter Isotalo 08:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have missed this reply. The first point is OK now, and the second has been addressed below; I'm satisfied with the background; England was mostly an aside that I thought could be easily included together with the Netherlands since they had similar aims and policies.
The naval reforms were not only the new naval base, but also the new allotment system. I agree that there is no need to cover this in any depth: a sentence or two should be enough.
Andejons (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

It's a lovely article. I will probably support once User:Andejons's points are answered. Good work! --John (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, it's looking great. --John (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how the hell did this get in there? --John (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe mere mortals call them "typos". :-) Thanks for spotting it. Peter Isotalo 16:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The greengrocer's apostrophe is the typo of typos. Can you tell us about this, please? --John (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nah, I'll just save us the effort and self-revert. Peter Isotalo 11:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jakec[edit]

Mostly a decent article, but a few things need fixing before I can support (most are minor).

  • In the lead, "Just as the battle began, the Swedish flagship Kronan sank with the loss of almost its entire crew, including the Admiral of the Realm and commander of the Swedish navy, Lorentz Creutz" makes it sound like the loss of the entire crew sank, not that the entire crew sank. Suggest "Just as the battle began, the Swedish flagship Kronan sank, killing almost all of its crew, including the Admiral of the Realm and commander of the Swedish navy, Lorentz Creutz"
  • Is there any information on how many combatants there were on the Dutch side?
  • Not really sure what the sentence "By early 1672 Swedish relations with France had improved and an alliance with the most powerful state in Europe was joined" means.
  • "After about an hour-and-a-half to two hours of hard fighting Svärdet's mainmast went overboard and Uggla had to strike his colors (surrender) to Tromp". Just saying surrender would be fine.
  • "Despite the astounding success, several allied officers were displeased with the conduct of their forces." Is there a source for the claim "astounding"?
  • Finally, one comment on the structure/balance of the article. It seems that there's a lot of background and I can't see how most of it ties in with the main event. The battle section has the opposite problem: comparatively little information. It's my opinion that the event section of an article on an event should generally be the largest section, while the background and aftermath sections should be smaller or at least approximately the same size.

--Jakob (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good points regarding prose. There aren't really that much more to add about the battle, though. I generelly agree about the balance of content, but it will always depend on the event. There are no simply no blow-by-blow accounts of this particular battle. The info about the proceedings of the commission also ties in to the explanation of the battle.
I haven't seen any estimates of Dutch or Danish number of men, but I'll double-check my refs.
Peter Isotalo 06:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this[36] should address your other concerns.
Figures for the manpower of the allies fleet seems to be very elusive. It doesn't seem to be specified even in Barfod (1997).
Peter Isotalo 12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Isotalo: Sorry it took this long to get back. It kept slipping my mind to reply. The prose is good now, and I'm fine with the shortness of the battle section and the lack of info on the number of men since there aren't sources to support extra info. I still think the background section is too long for the rest of the article. Even shortening it by about 30% would be a great improvement. BTW I have an open FAC if you're interested: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)/archive4. --Jakob (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two other battle FAs with similar or more extensive backgrounds: battle for Henderson Field and battle of the Bismarck Sea. They have more info on the action itself, but that's because they're blessed with highly detailed, modern sources. The relative importance of those battles is comparable to this one. And andejons is asking for more background above. I could very well be wrong, but both of you obviously can't be right at the same time. So how do we solve this?
Peter Isotalo 18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to andejons since I am not familiar with this type of article. Support. --Jakob (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wouldn't mind if some of the material was cut, but it should be rewritten to cover at least Denmark and Sweden on more equal terms; if the policies of Sweden leading up to the war is covered, the same should be true for Denmark. I think the background would gain from a rewrite; it comes from an article dealing more with Swedish matters and it shows. I think the second paragraph, and the sentences leading into it, could be cut completely without the article suffering. The second Dano-Swedish is mostly interesting in this context for what it reveals about Dutch policies, but it is not as necessary to know the details of it as the fact that Sweden had grown at the expense of Denmark and that the Danes were looking for a chance to take back what had been lost.
Andejons (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found Dyrvik (1998) today. How's this?
Peter Isotalo 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's much better balanced. There are a couple of things that could still be cut, but it does a much better job of explaining why there was a war and why the Dutch were allied with the Danes.
Andejons (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Do you feel there's need for further cuts for FA status?
Peter Isotalo 07:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is a sentence or two that I believe could be cut if you want to shorten it further, but it seems rather more well-balanced now. I did find another thing, though. In the battle section, the text seems to contradict itself "Several Swedish ships attempted to assist Uggla, but they were in a lee position and could not provide effective support [...] Only Hieronymus, Neptunus and Järnvågen, an armed merchantman, had tried to support Uggla."
Andejons (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be clarified now.[37]
Peter Isotalo 15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Map and sailing order could both be larger
  • File:Ortus-imperii-suecorum.png (map source): were any pre-existing images used to create this one? Where did this map get its data from?
  • File:Svenska_flottans_seglingsordning_1675.jpg: possible to translate the image description? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I pretty much always go for default size, so I don't have a sense of what's appropriate. Would you mind doing the size tweaks to what you feel is better?
  • I don't know exactly what this is based on, but it matches the sources I've added. As pointed out in the FAC of Kronan, it's a very standard map of the territorial expansion of Sweden during it's time as a Great Power.
  • Added image stranslation.[38]
Peter Isotalo 12:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Status?

I don't have any further comments. Don't know enough about FA process to really comment on that. Andejons (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review I can only do a very superficial review, as the sources all seem to be books in Swedish (presumably) about which I can offer no opinion. I will take on trust that they are of appropriate quality and reliability. Likewise, no spot-checks are possible. A few minor points:

  • The languages of all non-English sources should be indicated.
  • Footnotes that are merely comments, e.g. 1, 2, 43, should be listed separately from citations. For example, n.2 could be listed as an external link
  • Check page range format consistency, e.g. n.32
  • Check your "p." and "pp." usage
  • n.7: inconsistent format – why not include the page ref?

That's all I can do. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the review. Concerns should be fixed with this edit. I have some retorts, though:
  • WP:CITEVAR applies to separation of commentary notes as far as I know. My preference has always been just one set of notes.
  • I don't think it is best practice to mix general, uncited observations with actual citations to sources, but I'll leave that to you. Incidentally, in the case of note 43, this information should be cited.
  • Fixed 43 and the other stuff.[39] I stand by my preference for simplicity (and a healthy dose of typographical conservatism). :-) If it works and is widely used outside of Wikipedia, I prefer to use it here as well. Peter Isotalo 01:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page ranges as those in note 32 are intentional. Is it an issue?
  • Sorry, I meant 14, not 32. In 14 you have 118–19, which is the inconsistency.Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 7 (Glete 2005) is two pages long. There's nothing to specify.
Peter Isotalo 21:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This is a first rate article which I supported at A-Class. A couple of additional comments.
  • "This emboldened Sweden's enemies, and by September 1675, Denmark, the Dutch Republic, the Holy Roman Empire and Spain were all joined in war against Sweden as an ally of France." I had to read this twice to work out who was an ally of who. I think "Sweden and France" would be clearer.
  • "putting themselves on the allied fleet's lee side and gaining the tactical advantage of holding the weather gage." I thought the fleet on the windward side had the weather gage, not the one on the lee side.

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. It does not solve the problem that it took me a second to work out which side France was an ally of but it is no big deal. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:02, 7 August 2014 [41].


Mahan-class destroyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Pendright

The 18 Mahan-class destroyers incorporated notable improvements in design over their predecessors, including advanced propulsion machinery, more torpedo tubes, and superimposed gun shelters. They served in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II. A few of them were devastated by the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, and others escaped unharmed. In the South Pacific, some of them took part in campaigns to retake the Santa Cruz Islands, New Guinea, Guadalcanal, the Philippine Islands, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and others. Ultimately, six of them were lost in combat, two were expended in postwar tests, and the remainder were eventually sold or scrapped. Together, the class earned 111 battle stars for their service in the war. This article just passed an A-class review.

In World War II, I served aboard USS Mahan and Cone. My tour of duty took me to the South Pacific and Europe from 1943 to 1946, when I was honorably discharged. Thanks to those who might find the time to review the article.

Pendright (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. This review was only transcluded to the FAC list on 1 July 2014. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking. I got rid of a few "spring"s, in one case substituting "April", which isn't stated but is strongly implied by the source. Please check whether you agree with this. WP:SEASON is good guidance that we shouldn't use seasons to denote times, unless the season is important (Autumn harvest etc). Examples like Hawaii are in places where (I believe) there are no seasons to speak of. Captions which aren't sentences don't need periods. I added the propulsion system to the lead. Looking good so far. I am looking forward to properly reading it. --John (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much John. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I agree with the substitution change. I’m on board with spring and summer and your point about captions is well taken.
However, an explanation is necessary about the sentence in the lead that contains your addition. This has been changed several times since my original version and now reads: “The Mahans were the first of many new destroyers to use steam turbines, a new propulsion system that was cheaper, faster and more efficient than reciprocating engines.” It should read: “The Mahans were the first destroyers to use a new propulsion system that was cheaper, faster, and more efficient than their predecessors.” I should have been more vigilant about the changes. A look at the last paragraph of the article’s Design section and the entire Construction section will help clear this up. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't you mention the propulsion system in the lead, if it's important? --John (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your question correctly, I did think it important enough to mention in the lead. My original wording (still intact 2 February 2014, passing GA status 15 December 2013) said: “The class introduced a new propulsion system that changed the technology for future wartime destroyers.” Although short, it seemed to meet the requirements of the WK: Manual of Style/Lead section, serving as an introduction and summary of an important aspect of the article. Pendright (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is better to actually state the type of propulsion in the lead. --John (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have done so with that idea in mind. BTW, thank you for all the various fixes. Pendright (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sold or scrapped? --John (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both, according to DANFS - Pendright (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As a general comment, the article repeatedly refers to 'Auckland, New Zealand' - I think that the country only needs to be specified once. There are also other redundant geographical terms sprinkled through the article. As more specific comments, having so many ship histories is a real challenge for this article, and I'm not sure that they're up to FA standard at present. My comments on this section of the article are:

  • "a Japanese Kamikaze squadron " - were these suicide aircraft or suicide ships? (the term squadron can apply to either). Also, I don't think that Kamikaze air units were organised or deployed as formal squadrons
These were Japanese suicide aircraft. True, the word squadron has many meanings and may not be a good fit here. So, I substituted “a group of Japanese suicide aircraft” instead. In Kamikaze, Raymond Lamont-Brown notes (pp. 63-64) that the Kamikaze was organized into units, and deployed on a “standard best ratio” sortie formulation of five Kamikaze, three to attack and two escort aircraft. Group seizes could vary, depending on circumstances. Pendright (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April, Cummings was sent to the Indian Ocean where she joined the British Eastern Fleet" - needs context. She was probably one of the ships sent to escort the USS Sarratoga.
Added context - Pendright (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cummings rejoined the main US fleet" - there was no such formation as the main US fleet as the US Pacific Fleet operated in several major groups (the Fast Carrier Task Force was the main striking force - and I presume is what is being referred to here, but there were also huge amphibious forces)
US 3rd Fleet - fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drayton assisted in the search for the lost American pilot" - did she participate in the search, or provide assistance to the forces which were engaged in it?
Assisted was my word of choice. The source actually says Drayton took part in the search, which is to say she participated in it. Pendright (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she escorted a convoy to Christmas Island" - I suspect that the link here should be to the Christmas Island in the Pacific, and not the one in the Indian Ocean
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drayton escorted Australian troops from Townsville, Australia, to Milne Bay, New Guinea" - ships carrying Australian troops, not Australian troops ;)
Fixed by John 1 June 2014 - Pendright (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suva in Tahiti" - Suva is in Fiji
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the offensive to regain the Japanese-held Mariana Islands" - not sure about 're-gain': only Guam was pre-war US territory. The other islands which were invaded had been Japanese territory since the 1920s (and had previously been German, from memory)
You’re correct: regain is not the appropriate word here. I substituted, gain possession of - Pendright (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the ship screened carriers during the air strikes on the Japanese fleet" - which carriers and which fleet? (the escort carriers off Leyte which were engaged by Japanese battleships, or the fast carriers off Luzon which attacked the Japanese carrier force? - again, I presume that you're referring to the fast carrier force)
    • Downes was assigned to TG 38.1.2. at the time, so yes, she was screening the FCTF attacking Ozawa's decoys. I've clarified the text in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was able to fire six torpedoes by local control at a Japanese battleship, with unknown results" - has the massive body of post-war scholarship on the Guadalcanal campaign really not clarified this? (I'd suggest consulting a better source than DANFS here)
Rohwer and Cressman both mention the sinking of Cushing, but nothing else. Roscoe describes the torpedo incident in some detail, which Is the source used. Pendright (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took part in landing a Marine division" - that would be the 1st Marine Division, and it seems preferable to specify this
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the landing by an Australian unit - the unit was the 7th Division (or you could simply refer to 'an Australian force' given that lots of units were assigned to the division
    • Changed to "an Australian force" (but I have no preference). - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "followed by a trip to Japan in August 1945" - what did this involve? This was obviously a pretty dramatic time to be in Japanese waters, and 'trip' seems rather laconic!
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March, she was part of the Combined Far Eastern Fleet" - see the above comment for Cummings (also, I don't think that there was a 'Combined Far Eastern Fleet' - the 'Eastern Fleet' was a British unit to which forces from various other countries were attached)
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "launching strikes against Sabang, Indonesia" - she participated in these strikes, but didn't launch them Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. And thanks too for recognizing the challenge of working with 18 individual ship summaries. Pendright (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes all look good to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pendright left a message on my userpage that he's not sure how to respond. I see some of these have been handled already; anyone want to take a crack at the rest? - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank apparently misunderstood my post, I am willing and able to respond and I intend to do so myself. Pendright (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for misunderstanding. What I asked for is nothing special; we help out at FAC all the time. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem! Ordinarily, I’d accept all the help I could get. In this case, I think it’s my responsibility to make an effort to address all the questions put to me by the reviewers. If I get stuck, I’ll yell! Sorry for this little episode. Pendright (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks to be an extremely solid article and not bogged down in the (slightly) arcane technical detail which sometimes affects "-class" ship articles! Just a couple of things which don't affect my support:
    • There seems to be an inconsistency in the table heading style. All bold, all grey whatever, but they should probably be the same.
Makes sense - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made some very minor MOS changes here.
Much obliged - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, great to see a Wikipedia editor who was actually there! Brigade Piron (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and kind words. Pendright (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - only one photo needs to be addressed:

  • File:USSFlusserDD368.jpg - appears to have been uploaded from Navsource, after any markings that would identify the photo have been cropped off. There's no source there to prove it was a USN photo, so without another source (in a book, perhaps?) we can't use this photo. There are, however, several photos on the Navsource page that still have their "Official Photograph" stamps, and I can upload any of those if you'd like. There's also File:USS Flusser (DD-368)Jun44.png, which has a good source - the camouflage is an interesting pattern.
Please do, that would be very helpful - Pendright (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want to use the camouflage one? Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, thanks! Pendright (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other photos are sourced as USN photos and thus fine to use.
Good news! - Pendright (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only other suggestion for the article that I'd make is to link some of the major battles - Coral Sea, Tassafaronga, Leyte Gulf, etc. - in the introduction. You might also want to link Operation Crossroads in the lead. I might be too involved between too involved my edits and the help I've given Pendright over the past year and half to offer an unqualified support, but the closing delegate can determine what weight to give my comments. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For my clarification, are you saying to weave a reference of each of these battles into the lead and then link them at that point? Pendright (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking something along the lines of "All 18 ships saw action in World War II, entirely in the Pacific Theater of Operations, including during the battles of Coral Sea, the Guadalcanal campaign, Leyte Gulf, [and anything else you want to include]. Their participation in major and secondary campaigns included the bombardment of beachheads, amphibious landings, task force screening, convoy and patrol duty, and anti-aircraft and submarine warfare."
And then "Six ships were lost in combat and two were expended in the postwar Operation Crossroads nuclear tests" or something like that. Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good! Pendright (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done - please look it over - Pendright (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of References
  • Missing bibliographic info for Hodges and Friedman
  • All DANFS links should include that as work
  • Hümmelchen or Hummelchen?
  • Naval Institute Press or US Naval Institute Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to review, I believe I’ve cleaned up the items in question – except the one for DANFS. The term is unfamiliar to me, so would you be kind enough to explain it further. Thank you! Pendright (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of the work parameter for the DANFS entries. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Pendright (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning support. I tend to review these as a person who is unfamiliar with ships that don't have a Lido Deck, but I can't resist the FAC nominating statement ... thank you for your service ... a few quibbles ...
Lede
  • "Rear-Admiral" are you certain on the hyphen? Further ahead, you refer to Rear Admiral Daniel Barbey sans hyphen.
Hyphen removed from Rear Admiral - Pendright (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including during the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Battles of Santa Cruz Islands, Leyte Gulf and Iwo Jima." there seems to be a missing "and" before "the Battles". Which I'm not sure should be capitalized.
Inserted the word and - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it’s worth, my notion for using upper case was the word Battles refers to official place names. Pendright (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, I have been inconsistent in using upper and lower case for the word battles. In my above comment, I hung my hat on upper case for the reasons stated. However, if you have something more to the point let me know and I’ll fix the inconsistencies. Thanks!
Pendright (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Substituted battles for Battles - Pendright (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Design
  • "to accommodate No. 3 gun ahead of No. 4." I think you should probably make clearer that No. 3 was moved, not eliminated, that all five guns were retained (I only was certain of this once I consulted the infobox). I take it that this is the subject of "This required relocating one 5"/38 gun to the aft deckhouse." a few lines down? This should probably be consolidated.
Done - If the changes are not what you had in mind, please let me know. Pendright (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The traditional destroyer machinery was replaced with a new generation of land-based machinery" can an example of the replaced machinery be given?
Done - Pendright (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the tripod foremast" suggest "their" replace "the" to keep the focus on the ships and avoid the change of subject.
Done - Pendright (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Displacement increased to 1,500 tons from 1,365 tons." this should probably be merged into the statistics in the next paragraph. I see the 1,500 figure is there already (properly with convert template)
  • Consider cropping the image at the foot of the infobox to remove the caption.
Armament
  • "twelve 21-inch torpedoes" I see a link in the infobox to that armament article. I would put one here as well.
Dome -Pendright (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dunlap
  • If most naval historians don't consider them a separate class, then is the word "class" properly applied to them? I should, as a textual note, try to reduce the use of the word "class" in the first sentence by the way.
A review of the source I used actually says some sources, not many sources as I stated. The publication has no further comment about these sources. I changed many to some, which would seemingly solve the matter. Pendright (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Construction
  • Was the propulsion system based on those used in the passenger liners? If so, then the technology was available to the US Navy, wasn't it? If so, then I would change the phrase to "used in the US Navy" or similar, as well as state that the basis of the technology was the system used in the Gibbs liners.
Some background – Traditionally, US Navy propulsion systems had been built by the Parsons Marine Steam Turbine Company, a British engineering company, who had a lock on US Navy propulsion systems. But in the early 1930s, the US Navy General Board decided it was time to change the propulsion systems for future classes of destroyers. In time, he board came up with new prototypes incorporating a new generation of destroyer machinery. This was a move away from the conservative characteristics of Parsons and major shipyards, and a move towards new developments in land based machinery by such firms as GE, Westinghouse, and Allis-Chalmers. This machinery was simpler and far more efficient than the old. The major builders were unwilling to abandon their traditional practices, and Steam Engineering looked elsewhere for design of new plants. Gibbs and Cox made a considerable impression with the design of a class of liners for the Grace Line, built by Federal Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Corporation of Kearny, New Jersey. By contracting with small builders who did not build their own turbines, the Navy was able to encourage the incorporation of the new marine engineering technology – Gibbs and Cox proved to be the instrument of change. SOURCE: US DESTROYERS by Norman Friedman. This seemed like the best way to respond. If questions remain, please let me know. - Pendright (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ships in class
  • Conyngham "destroyed by sinking" is there a more artful way of putting this?
The source used, DANFS, simply says she was destroyed by sinking. I have over a dozen publications on destroyers; none of which go beyond 1945, except two or so that deal with design history. The Wikipedia article on Conyngham says she was destroyed by sinking on 2 July 1948 off the California coast. No citations or references to cob orate. Pendright (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shaw space needed between 1 and October. I would routinely correct this, but I am doing this offline.
Unable to locate under Shaw? Pendright (talk) 23:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, it was in the table. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Service history--Cummings
  • "Trincomalee, Ceylon ... Sabang, Indonesia" watch for consistency in whether you refer to places by WWII-era or modern names. For example New Guinea/Papua New Guinea
Good point - thank you. Pendright (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ship operated off Okinawa during its invasion" What standard are you using to decide if battles referred to in the text should be piped to?
Not a consistent one! Fixed - Pendright (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flusser
  • "Hollandia Jayapura" You referred to this place using parentheses for the second name before. Later on, you refer to it just as "Hollandia". Not saying any of this is necessarily wrong, just drawing it to your attention.
Thank you, - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Case
  • " Ponape Island" link?
Done - Pendright (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following repairs at Saipan, she patrolled between Saipan " I would replace the second Saipan with "there".
Done Pendright (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conyngham
  • "battle of Midway Island" definitely worth a link.
Linked under Case - Pendright (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Decommissioned in December 1946, Conyngham was used in the atomic weapons test at Bikini in 1946" Before decommissioning or in whatever remained of the year after December?
Fixed by adding new material - Pendright (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cassin
  • "She reported to Pearl Harbor in April" Wasn't she already there?
Added new sentence and citation: She was salvaged and towed to the Mare Island Navy Yard and decommissioned. Pendright (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prisons of war from Japan." presumably prisoners.
Corrected spelling - Pendright (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Smith
  • "Battle of Santa Cruz". By a majority of five to three, you call this the "Battle of Santa Cruz Islands", although with one of the minority, you do not capitalize battle. Please check.
Upper cased the Battle of Santa Cruz in Mahan, Conyngham, and Preston sections. Also upper cased Battle of Midway in Conyngham section. Pendright (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nagasaki Harbor, Kyushu, Japan, in August 1945" I guess what I'm wondering is if there's anything to be said about Nagasaki's atomic bombing (I realize the ship did not participate in that, but it was plainly there soon after).
Frankly, there is nothing to be said - because the bombing is not relevant to the history of the ship. Pendright (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second thoughts: Another look at the Smith text suggested that some of it needed reworking. While doing so, I included a reference to the Nagasaki bombing. Pendright (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preston
  • "Afterward, the ship rolled onto her side and sank" I would strike the word "Afterward," Plainly it didn't happen before.
Removed - Pendright (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fanning
  • "Doolittle raid on their air strike against Tokyo." Are you sure on the plural?
Changed their to the - Pendright (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Munda Island" link?--
Linked - Pendright (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support pending the resolution of Wehwalt's comments above. I've also made a few copyedits to the lead that I'd appreciate you checking for factual accuracy! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pendright doesn't seem to have been active at WP for a week or two so I've emailed him. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A short stay in the hospital took me offline for a time. Thank you all for your patience. Pendright (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe each of your comments has a response. Should any of the responses need additional work, I stand ready to do whatever is necessary.
Thank you for reviewing the article. Thanks too for your patience and kind words about my past service. Pendright (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Given Wehwalt's "leaning to support" and Pendright's conscientious effort to address all comments, I think we can safely promote the article now -- thanks all for your participation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:49, 7 August 2014 [42].


Canis Major[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to work up bigger constellations without the prose coming across as too listy - this article came together quite well I thought. Home of the brightest star in the sky and a bunch of interesting things. Have a read, tell me what I can fix and enjoy (hopefully) Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

First, the image review. File:Canis Major IAU.svg comes from a site with an appropiate license, but it still contains a pair of logos at the bottom right. Their copyright section clearly said that their logo is not freely licensed, and so it must be removed from the image (watermarks are usually removed anyway). Besides, it may be better if the "source" was not just a raw link that simply reads "[1]". File:CMa setting.jpg has a "summary" section that repeats the content of the description, remove it. And what about removing the lower portion of the photo, so that we see just the sky and not the portion of the plane's window? (there's also the plane wing, but I don't think we can do anything about that). File:Sidney Hall - Urania's Mirror - Canis Major, Lepus, Columba Noachi & Cela Sculptoris.jpg is a featured image, and I don't see any problem with it. File:CanisMajorCC.jpg comes from a site with a copyright notice, but the author uses the same name both there and in Commons. Perhaps you should send a mail to the author (in his page) to ask him to confirm that the user in Commons is also him, and that he's aware that he's re-licensing the photos by uploading them here. File:Stars fleeing a cosmic crash.jpg seems fine --Cambalachero (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed duplicate material. I would think leaving some reference point is good, depends what one sees as the interesting part of the image. If you crop it so it is just sky, then it is just a blurry picture of the constellation. Actually the more i think about it, it really doesn't add to the article except in an amusing and possibly noncyclopedic manner, so I will remove it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would the logo not be part of attribution? This is the copyright notice on the original site, and this is (presumably) the version they are happy with being reproduced, given it is on the website....all 88 constellations have this image.....will redo the source source rewritten. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments from Jim Usual high quality, Cas, just a couple of minor points you might take a look at Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KAK.SI.DI, BAN, MULAPIN— Why are the Babylonian words fully capped? I can hardly bring myself to write this, but is it consistent with MoS for capitalisation?
it's consensus on how the words are transcribed from Babylonian. We discussed this somewhere before - can't recall where. Will have a look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate names— too American for my tastes, "alternative" is meant, the names don't alternate
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • beat him up—too informal, even for Oz
changed to "assaulted" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • polygon of 4 sides. — spell out "four", or better still replace the phrase with the equivalent but more concise "quadrilateral". As written, it's like using "polygon of three sides" in preference to "triangle"
changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

It reads well, but really I am too unfamiliar with the astronomical depth of the article to be able to comment properly. A few points on the prose:

thanks for the input - making it as accessible as possible to lay-readers is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In non-western astronomy" - Are Arab astronomers and Tunisian shepherds considered to be "western"?
in a very broad sense, this is part of the classical/western lore yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Wild Cockerel (Yějī 野雞) was at the centre of the Military Market and its stars were uncertain." - needs some clarification of what the second part means.
have tried to clarify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Southeast of the Wolf was the asterism Húshǐ (弧矢), the celestial Bow and Arrow, ..." - This sentence is too long and complex.
split now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To the Boorong people of Victoria, Sigma Canis Majoris was Unurgunite, and its flanking stars Delta and Epsilon his two wives." - I would add "were" to the last part of this.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that Lepus is "the hare" but not that Columba is "the dove".
tricky this - as Columba only mentioned in map/boundaries but, not mythology - would seem odd to mention it there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sirius is also a binary star; its companion is called Sirius B, which has a magnitude of 8.4" - What is the magnitude of Sirius A then? Perhaps that's a silly question but this paragraph describes Sirius as a star and then states it is in fact two stars.
Sirius B is 10,000 times fainter, the -1.46 magnitude at the beginning is the magnitude of Sirius A to all intents and purposes. I have added the bit to make it clearer Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... is another star that has been classified Beta Cephei variable, ..." - I would insert "as a" in this sentence.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... is now undergoing nuclear fusion of helium to generate energy." - The use of the active rather than the passive tense here makes it sounds as if the star has a purpose!
removed as redundant anyway... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the other extreme is ..." - At the other extreme from What?
in size - preceding segment is about one of the largest stars known...to then talk about one 5 km in diameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However the fainter star is the more massive at 19 Solar masses ..." - "Solar mass" is lowercase elsewhere in the article.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... yellow and orange stars and covers an area the size of the full Moon ..." - Perhaps use the word "apparent size".
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the other hand, a globular cluster in Puppis, NGC 2298 ..... and instead be of extragalactic origin." - The verb form is wrong at the end of this sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy with the alterations you have made and now support on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the look-over and suggestions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Victoriaearle[edit]

Hi, Cas - almost total layperson here, without a bit of knowledge! It'll take me a while to read through (frankly haven't a clue what I'm reading) but a couple of questions:

input from laypeople is essential to make the damn thing as readable as possible :) - your copyedits were fine, just had to revert to "3 Canis Majoris", which is a Flamsteed designation. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History and mythology" (which is an interesting read) is followed by "In non-western astronomy". I'd think the second section is also history & mythology? I came away unsure whether the Chinese, Maori and Tharumba still believe these myths and thought you might want to consider retitling the sections along the lines of "History & Mythology" with subsections for western and non-western.
not sure how that happened - was supposed to be a level under "History & Mythology" - tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stars" - Section is a lot of gray space and is very stuffed. Maybe move the pic down to break it up?
down...you mean up? we talking about the nonwestern segment...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - sorry, ran out of steam, changed my mind about something and deleted a point. I meant the "Stars" section. I'm skimmed it, but need to read it through more closely. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
aaah ok. I am looking for some more images but tricky Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that's as far as I've gotten, but interesting reading. In my part of the world I know it as the winter dog star. Pls ping to remind me if I don't get back to this soon. Oh and made a few tweaks - feel free to revert. Victoria (tk) 01:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I'll bring back the comment I deleted last night: in the "Stars" section, for the lay-reader, might be better to move from general to specific. 2nd para seems to be a readable general para; maybe lead the section with that para? That gives the reader a chance to dip in, or out, in the specific description of each star coming after.
Ok, I have flipped the first two paras and agree the new first para is a much easier intro...my only concern is does it feel like the subject matter is jumping back and forth at all (Sirius to naming to Sirius...?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, agree and the reason I've been waffling about that point. But I think it reads well as the first para and I think it's probably okay with the rationale that readers generally don't read from top to bottom but dip in here and there. In that sense it sets up the next section fairly well, imo. Still, it is a bit tricky. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having trouble discerning the pattern in presentation of the 20 stars (i.e, brightest stars, biggest stars, location, alphabetical by name/label). Stupid question, but is there a convention in astronomy, or does it matter how they're presented? If it doesn't matter, to pull the lay-reader through, might not be a bad idea to set up topic sentences and clump together stars that share characteristics, or alternatively present them in as they're positioned on the dog (which is there in a few instances). Please ignore this, if not feasible or if uninformed.
no no, it's a valid question - this is really tricky and can differ from article to article depending on the source material. General principle is to move from brightest stars onwards, but it is hard to avoid listiness, so will try to groups stars with similar facts together (double stars, variable stars etc.) - and then fainter stars (generally only visible thru telescopes) that are often quite unusual toward the end, as well as grouping stars with planets. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through again and decided it's not all that important of a point. Prosifying material that's sometimes better presented in lists is really challenging and I'm seriously impressed at the amount of information stuffed into the section. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5th para: this sentence > "Its traditional name means "the virgins" >> seems to refer to Epsilon Canis Majoris (Adhara), but the first sentence in the para says "Epsilon, Omicron2, Delta and Eta Canis Majoris were called Al Adzari "the virgins" ". That's a little confusing.
the collective name ended up as the traditional name for the brightest star. Will see if I can find a ref for the change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, that makes sense. If the sources allow, maybe something like "Epsilon, Omicron2, Delta and Eta Canis Majoris were called Al Adzari "the virgins" in medieval Arabic tradition – a term now used for Eta Canis Majoris only." Something like that? Not a big deal, really, to be honest. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added a note now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a "B2Iab"? (totally lost me there!)
It is a blue white supergiant of spectral type Iab...have already linked to spectral type once; supergiant star now linked at first instance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the explanation. Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stars" section describes individual stars and star systems. Can these be broken out into two separate sections for readability or do they need to be together? Again, haven't a clue, so ignore if uninformed. Victoria (tk) 00:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We talk of stars as single points, but half are binary star systems (any multiple star is a star system), and then you have stars with planets. Trying to be as accurate as possible but keep it readable. This is one for following links. Not quite sure how to make it clearer - but they sorta need to be together... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a second read, I think it's okay as is. I was just trying to think of ways of breaking the section up into subjections for lay readers, but that would have its own pitfalls.
  • I've read to the bottom now and no questions/comments about "Deep-sky objects"
  • Support - nicely written, tons of information (comprehensive!), and I came away learning a lot! Victoria (tk) 15:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
much appreciated/thanks for helping me make it more accessible to layfolks... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
  • Some duplicate links: Zeus, Canis Major, Canis Minor, Puppis, Lepus, 13 Canis Majoris, Omicron2, Delta Canis Majoris, Sigma Canis Majoris, Eta Canis Majoris, Pi Canis Majoris, Nu2 Canis Majoris, open cluster.
Almost all removed - Nu2 Canis Majoris is linked almost at opposit ends of the article and the second is more relevant in some ways, so left that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ESO 489-056 has an image, but is not mentioned in the text anywhere?
added a bit - questionable whether it's notable though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the See Also? Could it be linked in the In non-western astronomy section?
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding the Star portal and Astronomy portal links
  • Does Sky Pub really need a link?
It does have a nice interactive map with galaxies that we can't do, so does add something over and above what we have. Not hugely fussed though.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All in all I think it's a great article that makes engaging reading from what have been a list of stars. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • All external links are working
  • Ref 11 self-published – what makes it reliable?
The author is Ian Ridpath - he's adapted material from his book to his (self-published) website Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 82: what is the meaning of the bracketed "in delaet 11" within the ref?
strange - it was in the "language" field...must have been a cut and paste gone awry Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 90 lacks page references
page number added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 94: Is it necessary to list all of the 30-odd names of the joint authors? The purpose of the citation is to identify the source, not to credit the authors exhaustively. A judicious "and others" would surely suffice.
oops, that was a bot doubling the names through a glitch - tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency is required in showing publisher locations for cited texts.
oops, dunno what happened there..added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of cited texts should be alphabetical.
oops, dunno what happened there...duly alphabetized Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources look good, of appropriate quality and properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All sources issues fixed now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC) [43].[reply]

U.S. Route 141[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another one of the US Highways in Michigan (and Wisconsin). Again, our coverage of this highway on Wikipedia is probably the best of any place online, and I feel the article is deserving of the FA star. The article also covers the history of US 102, the first ever US Highway designation to be decommissioned, lasting only two years after the creation of the system. Imzadi 1979 → 01:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it is well-written and meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 01:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I will be out of town until July 1. Any reviews requiring attention will be addressed after that time. Imzadi 1979 → 10:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and very well-sourced. --Carioca (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:US_141_(WI).svg: permission parameter in template contradicts tag given - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template is correct; all of those highway marker designs are PD-MUTCD, although editors in the past have incorrectly implied or claimed credit for recreating them. The file description page has been updated, and the project is working on fixing these inaccuracies, but progress is slow. Imzadi 1979 → 23:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Having stumbled here from my own FAC, I thought I'd comment.

  1. So I notice the article is U.S. (note the dots), but the opening sentence says "US" without the dots. How come?
  2. "sections are either freeway or expressway " - I'm not sure this is grammatically correct.
  3. "eight miles (13 km)" - per WP:NUMERAL, both numbers should either be spelled or written as numbers. Make sure you do the same elsewhere in the article (for example: "one mile (1.6 km)")
  4. " for about 14.5 miles (23.3 km)" - that's awfully precise for saying "about"
  5. "The northernmost Michigan section is about 44 miles (71 km), " - shouldn't there be a "long" at the end?
  6. "The entire length of the highway in Michigan has been listed on the National Highway System (NHS),[2] a network of roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility." - as with a previous FAC, you don't actually say what "country" you're talking about.
  7. "except for about four blocks along Broadway Avenue which is part of an intermodal connector with the Port of Green Bay" - "which" --> "that"
  8. "The rest of the highway northward from Howard, Wisconsin, has been listed." - I feel like grammatically, there should be a "however" somewhere in here.
  9. "Wisconsin Highway 29 (WIS 29) merges in at an intersection" - this doesn't read that well to me, specifically the "in at an" part
  10. "Running north and northwesterly" - both should either have the "erly" on the end, or neither should, not the current format.
  11. "bypassing Haven, Wisconsin, in 1959 as well." - why the "as well"?

All in all a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I numbered your points so I can refer to them individually:

  1. The Chicago Manual of Style (16th. ed.) and our MOS both state a preference for the undotted form, however WP:USSH specifies that the article be titled with the dots. At some point, that naming convention will need to be updated, but we have project members who are traditionalists and prefer the periods. (I will note that the standard abbreviation has always been either "US #" or "US-#" for all but one state, and even that state has been recently switched to eliminate the dots in the abbreviated form.)
  2. Tweaked.
  3. Actually, I disagree, but for the sake of not making a mountain out of a molehill, I'll switch these for now. (adding on 08:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)) The MOS provision you refer to deals with lists of numbers, and doesn't actually speak to
  4. It's rounded to the nearest half mile, which is still pretty imprecise. Would rendering it as 14+1⁄2 miles (23.3 km) make this clearer at the risk of the anti-fraction brigade popping up?
    • I don't think that'd be clear, but I still don't know why you say "About 14.5". Obviously it isn't exactly 14.5 miles, I think that's a fair assumption that it'd be plus or minus a few hundred feet. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That segment is 14.46 miles long, so it's "about 14+1⁄2 miles (23.3 km)" or "about 14.5 miles (23.3 km)", so the question is, decimal or fraction? Imzadi 1979 → 22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it's not even 14.46 miles long. That itself is an estimate, since I'm sure it isn't exactly 14 miles, 2428 feet, and 9.6 inches. It's understood that it's not exact. If you want to be exact, you could just say 14.46 miles and say per whatever department listed the length. For hurricane articles, by comparison, we would say "The National Hurricane Center reported a peak intensity of 160 mph (260 km/h). No need for the about, since that's what the agency said. Just fwiw. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • All measurements are approximations since the only exact measurements involve definitions. There are exactly 5,280 feet in a mile, and 100 centimeters in a meter, by definition. The source says that segment is 14.46 miles in length, which gives it a precision to the hundredth of a mile. It could be anywhere from 14.455 to 14.464 miles if a more precise ruler were used, but that doesn't matter.

            The more precise values are found in the junction list table as the terminal mileposts for segment, and the overall total is found in its more precise form in the infobox. If I gave each of the four segment lengths the full precision from the sources in the prose in the lead, the passage would be open to criticism for being clunky. So that's why they were rounded off with "about" preceding each measurement. That qualifier is supposed to indicate that each value is rounded off, approximated, etc. To make this all crystal clear, I've revised that passage now to:

            "The highway has two segments in each state; after running through Wisconsin for about 103 miles (166 km), it crosses into Michigan for approximately another 8 miles (13 km). After that, it crosses back into Wisconsin for about 14+1⁄2 miles (23 km) before crossing the state line one last time. The northernmost Michigan section is about 43+1⁄2 miles (70 km), making the overall length about 169 miles (272 km)."
          All five measurements are rounded to the nearest half mile, and conveniently the total of the rounded segment lengths equals the total length from the infobox rounded off. (103 + 8 + 14 1/2 + 43 1/2 = 169 and 168.82 rounds to 169). Even the metric conversion follow nicely. Imzadi 1979 → 08:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • While I don't think it's ideal seeing the fractions, I'm willing to support the article now, since it's a fairly minor issue (ditto the US vs. United States). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I didn't include that word because "length" appears later in the sentence, and none of the other component lengths use the word "long".
  6. And I get dinged on US Highway articles if we use too many mentions to the United States, or US because of the consistent repetition of the "US" in the highway name. (One of the non-American FAC delegates actually removed "US" from "US state of" in a previously nominated US Highway article before promoting it.)
    • I'd hardly say that the one prose mention of "United States" is too much :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Ian Rose: pinging you because I recall that you were the delegate that changed wording before in a US Highway article before promotion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, a quick survey of Category:FA-Class Michigan road transport articles would show that several other FAs on Michigan's highways use substantially the same wording as this article does, and none use "United States'" in place of "country's" in that phrasing. Imzadi 1979 → 22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know other articles may use the wording, but this FAC is for this article. FAC is a great time to get new ideas, after all ;) But lemme know what Ian Rose says about the wording. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The title of the article in nice big text at the top of the page is "U.S. Route 141", and the abbreviation "US 141" is sprinkled throughout the prose quite liberally. Any readers getting through the lead, which also calls it a "United States Numbered Highway", should know that this highway is in the US by the time they hit the sentence in question. Any online readers who hover their cursor over the link to the "National Highway System" will also see that it links to "National Highway System (United States)", although that doesn't apply to printed copies. Imzadi 1979 → 08:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • If I remember rightly, it was the opening line of the candidate in question that I felt had too many US references. I believe it was along the lines of "US Highway 141 (US 141) is a north–south United States Numbered Highway in the US states of Wisconsin and Michigan" or some such, and since we had "US" in the highway name and "United States Numbered Highway" and the states were linked anyway we didn't need "US states". That said, I see no problem substituting "United States" or "US" for "the country" in the first paragraph of the main body -- I'd say by the time readers get to that paragraph they know what country they're in but OTOH it's not repetitive in itself to mention it in that particular sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fixed.
  8. I reworked that series of sentences to avoid that phrasing.
  9. Tweaked.
  10. Changed.
  11. Dropped the wording.

Imzadi 1979 → 02:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN21: scale?
  • FN1: suggest including subtitle. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: FN 21 is a dynamic scale map, and all style guide I've ever consulted do not include any sort of scale information on those. Google Maps, FN 8, also lacks a scale indication for that reason.
    • Added. Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:42, 7 August 2014 [44].


Sesame Street international co-productions[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, yet another Sesame Street article at FAC. This article happens to be one of my favs, and is near and dear to my heart. I took it on when other editors began to complain about a lack of international perspective of The Show. I thought it was ridiculous feedback, since I, like Joan Ganz Cooney, thought that it's "quintessential American", but also like Cooney, was pleasantly surprised to be wrong. My single favorite Cooney quote is in this article; can you guess what it is? Anyway, this is a charming article about a charming aspect of the SS ethos, its international co-productions. I look forward to your feedback, and please enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fascinating topic - read this while I was at the gym - looked ok, will read again and drop queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas; for some reason, this strikes me as funny. ;)
:Lone sentence constituting stubby third para in lead - can we tack it onto previous or expand or do something? I hate two-sentence paras.....
Went with first choice; the article isn't long enough to expand it. Usually, I tend to agree with this sentiment, but I think this could be an exception. However, I believe in following reviewers' suggestions, unless they're unreasonable, which this isn't.
Also would read better if in chronological order.
Done.
As of 2006, there were 20 active "co-productions". - I think we can remove quote marks after the first mention (?)
Got it.
The section co-productions is a tad listy in places...and leaves me curious - any more interesting facts that can be sprinkled through about any of the shows would improve the flow - also, do any US muppets feature in overseas co-productions?
At first, this section was a list! ;) I didn't want to include too much information, mostly because for most of the co-productions, there isn't that much information available. For the few that have more, I figured that most of the information belongs in their individual articles. However, I see your point and have started working on expanding some descriptions. I'll let you know when I think I'm finished. Re: your questions about how the U.S. Muppets are used: there's not a lot of information about that, either. I didn't want this to become a list of characters and their relationship to their American counterparts; again, that better fits in their individual articles, I think. However, in the "Production" section, there is some information about how our Muppets are used to inspire the co-productions' characters, and that they appear in the dubbed versions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Casliber: I've completed, as per your request, expanding some of the co-productions descriptions; hopefully, it accomplishes what you've asked and the section is less list-y and flows better. Thanks for the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better. Some more:

Rejig segment on Rechov Sumsum - should explain why different straight after (i.e. the bit on being first co-production should come directly after mention of difference.
Took me a while to figure out what you meant, but I think I got this.
Sort of - really the bit beyond "differed/different" should be clearly indicated that it is causative with a "because" or linking word which indicates it, not "and" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll assume that my fix was satisfactory. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be good if there was some conclusion on current status or future plans right at the bottom. Right now article just...ends. Not a huge deal but might be improved somehow.
Actually, I think this might be an issue with how this article is structured. At one point, this article looked like this: [45]--a list, really. I kept the structure because, as other editors advised me, there needed to be some information about the individual co-productions here. The previous section ("Production"), however, ends with the SW opening up their library for future co-productions; I think that accomplishes what you desire. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I know - I find alot of this is kinda like kneading dough - you squish and mould and other bits become distorted, so you knead some more. Let me look and think some more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on target. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg: FUR could use expanding. Who holds the copyright? Why is this image necessary for our understanding of the article? Same with File:Sisimpur.jpg
  • File:Tv_sesame_park_katie.jpg: puppet designs can be copyrighted - what is the status of this one? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took the easy way out and replaced these images with free ones. Please let me know if they're appropriate for this article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  • The third paragraph of "History" and the second paragraph of "Production" do not end in references.
Got 'em.
  • How about adding fn 14 to the References?
Because my style of formatting sources, which is similar to how they're often formatted in printed books, is that I place printed sources like the Finch book in the Works cited section if it's used more than once. I only use Finch once in this article, so it gets its own footnote.
  • The lead mentions "the initial productions in Canada, Mexico, Australia," This made me expect something about the Australian co-production. 40 years at Sesame Street
I will do some research about the Aussie show and see if I can add anything. (Your source is a blog, which isn't reliable enough.) In the meantime, I removed the list of countries and changed the wording so that it better reflects the body.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawk, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support; agreed with the nominator, this is both a charming and very necessary article in the SS canon. As always well-written and researched and conscientiously thorough in presentation. I especially like the generally nicely-judged level of detail in the chronological sections. Shoebox2 talk 21:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Just a few things that caught my attention (besides a couple very minor grammar/spelling errors I've taken the liberty of fixing):[reply]

  • First sentence under "History": international producers from various countries including Germany contacted the CTW within "a few months". Next sentence: German producers contacted the CTW after about a year. Not sure either about the time discrepancy or why Germany should be singled out in particular.
Good point; I removed the second mention of Germany.
  • "She hired former CBS executive Mike Dann, who left commercial television to become her assistant, as a CTW vice-president. One of Dann's tasks was to field offers to produce versions of Sesame Street in other countries." -- A bit awkward, and redundant. How about "Mike Dann, a former CBS executive whom Cooney had hired as a CTW vice-president and her assistant, was assigned to field offers from other countries to produce their own versions of Sesame Street."
Much better; replaced as per your suggestion.
  • Totally optional, based on your understanding of the subject, but: from what I've heard from (admittedly informal) British sources the story of the BBC's de facto rejection of the SS phenomenon is interesting enough that it might be worth a few more detailed sentences. At least, it would be instructive to know just why they thought it was "too controversial", which bare statement sounds really odd in re: a heartwarming children's puppet-based educational program. :)
Good question. My opinion is that this story, which I agree is interesting (and funny too), is best for Sesame Street in the UK. This article is a summary of the co-productions, which is in the current version. Any more would result in undue weight. On a side note, I've taken it upon myself to create/expand articles about the various co-productions, and the UK version(s) is in the queue, as they say. Currently, I've been working on Iftah Ya Simsim, the Arabic version. It's been a lot more work than I thought, because there's a lot of information out there about it (in English, even), but it's been fun. I believe that my efforts will do much to combat the systemic bias in this project, especially about non-Western topics. Wait for a future FAC near you! ;)
  • I feel like the third and fourth paragraphs in this section might be better off reversed? That is, begin by talking about the co-productions in general, and then talk about the specific highlights/controversies/spinoffs.
At first, I went "heh" about this suggestion, then I actually tried it and have decided that you're right. I wanted to end the section strongly, so I moved the last 2 sentences about mission and Cooney's quote about missionaries (that's my favorite all-time SS quote, btw) to a separate paragraph at the end.
  • "Production": "...the "experiment" accomplished by the original US show..." -- Not fond of 'accomplished' in this context; how about 'undertaken'?
Got it.
  • "Imitating what the producers did..." -- Getting nitpicky here I know, but maybe "In imitation of the process used by the producers..." would sound a bit more encyclopedic-like?
Well, *I think* that starting a sentence with a preposition isn't all that encyclopedia-like, either. So how about this for a compromise, even though it makes it passive: "The need for preschool education in each country was assessed through research and interviews with television producers, researchers, and educational experts, which paralleled what the producers of Sesame Street did in the late 1960s."
  • Again, thinking paragraphs 3-4 of this section might flow better if they were flipped--going from generalizations to specifics.
Okey dokey, smokey.
  • "1970s": "Garibaldo's performer, Fernando Gomes, became a puppeteer because of the show's influence." -- This is in reference to the American show, yes? Because as written, the reader's impression is he signed on as puppeteer on the Brazilian version, whereupon that version inspired him to become a puppeteer.
No, Gomes was inspired by the original Brazilian version. I can see how you were confused, so I re-checked the source and clarified.
  • "1980s": No doubt it's covered in the show's own article, but I'm thinking a sentence or two describing the impact of the Israeli/Palestinian co-produced version would be appropriate here. Ditto for the similarly ambitious Kosovo version.
Um, actually I wouldn't know; I haven't worked on those individual articles yet. However, as you state above, I'm trying to be even-handed here. I mean, why are the effects of the shows in the Middle East more important than the effects in Sweden? Because we have more invested in that region? Or because it's in the news more? I don't think this addition is necessary.
  • "1990s": "The show is supported by its patron, Egyptian First Lady Suzanne Mubarak." -- Should be past tense in light of more recent events, no?
Yes. Actually, it's a grammatical error, since it doesn't match the tense in the rest of the paragraph.
  • 2000s":...the producers of the Kosovo co-production... pioneered a format called the "visual dictionary". Instead of showing individual words on the screen, children were encouraged to label words verbally." -- ...? Not quite getting how "visual dictionary" and "label words verbally" refer to the same concept?
Yah, the source wasn't clear how the phrase ("visual dictionary") described what they were trying to do with the language, so I went back and paralleled the source more closely, and removed the phrase.

User:Shoebox2, I think that I've hit everything. Thanks for the very helpful review, and please let me know if I need to do anything more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all now looks great from my POV, and as always thanks for so carefully considering my suggestions. Happy to change vote to firm support.Shoebox2 talk 01:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments from Ceranthor, prose comments to follow later
I figured it was acceptable because it's a press release. You're right, of course; replace it with this one, [46] which is the best I found. Will it work?
Yup, seems like a less reputable but reasonably reliable source.
  • FN 54 should list BBC News as the work, not just BBC.
Got it, thanks for the catch.
Um, it's the BBC News Asia site. Yes, news sources aren't reliable, but the incident (allegations of corruption) was a news story that was widely reported. I could replace it easily enough, if you like.
Nope, I made a mistake and hyperlinked the wrong source. I'm dumb.
No, stop it, you're not. I don't necessary agree that this source is inadequate, but I went ahead and found a better one, anyway. [47] Easy enough done, 'cause I just improved and brought Iftah Ya Simsim to GA; a delightful topic and article coming to an FAC soon! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers is in Mahwah, not Mahweh, NJ.

ceranthor 02:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the catch. Eagerly awaiting your prose review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review underway! I'm sorry, I linked the wrong source because I'm a fool. Besides the one comment which I just tweaked, all resolved. :) ceranthor 21:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments from Ceranthor
Lead
  • and extensive testing of the shows. - Assume this refers to test screening... I think you should replace testing with test screening if so.
Done.
  • Different versions were produced, depending upon each country's needs and resources, from dubbed versions of the original show to - Don't think shows get produced to. Not sure what you can use here to replace this. I like "Different co-productions were produced from dubbed versions of the original show depending upon each country's needs and resources and reflecting the needs, educational priorities, and culture of each country."
No, it just was worded awkwardly and unclearly. Changed to: "Different co-productions were produced, depending upon each country's needs and resources. They included both dubbed versions of the American show and versions created, developed, and produced in each country that reflected their needs, educational priorities, and culture."
  • The first HIV-positive Muppet, Kami, was created in 2003 to address the epidemic of AIDS in South Africa, - This seems out of place with the current sentence structure. I think this will be easily remedied if you start the sentence with something like, "For instance" or "For example". I also think you should mention in general which co-production depicted Kami (ie. Takalani Sesame or Africa or however you want to phrase it).
Good idea, done.
  • Why does it go 2001, then 2006, then back to 2001? Chronological order would make more sense I think. Fixed now. A sentence was repeated in the lead.
History
  • (In May 1970, the Mississippi state commission on educational television had voted to ban the show.)[5] - Why is this in parentheses? I would like it better as a footnote.
My foggy mind is trying to tell me that as I recall, this originally was in a footnote, but someone along the way, either for this article or another SS article, told me to move it into the article body. However, FAC reviews (IMO) trumps all earlier reviews, so I'm following your suggestion.
  • Thirty-eight Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - Should be 38.
Done.
  • found that viewers of these shows gain basic skills from watching them.[11] - Is the source more specific than "basic skills"?
Don't have access to this right now; will get to it and address this point later.
Production
  • They utilized a variant of a flexible model called "the CTW model" - No need to put this in quotes. Same with the earlier mention in the lead (sorry I missed that).
Done in both places.
  • The inherent flexibility of the CTW model was attractive to producers in other countries, who saw the model as "a methodological approach that is neither doctrinaire nor culture-bound", - No need to repeat "the model" when "it" will simply do.
Replaced with "its" instead, because it flows better.
  • who saw the model as "a methodological approach that is neither doctrinaire nor culture-bound",[15] and that could be used to achieve different results in different countries. - Rather than repeat "and that" after the quotation, I think you should 1.) omit the comma and 2.) say "which could be used...".
Done.
  • as also was done in the summer of 1968 for the US show.[17] - This is awkward and a bit wordy. I suggest replacing it with something more terse.
How about cutting the phrase thusly: "...as was done in 1968 in the US."
  • She stated that this "cultural specificity" was the reason for the co-productions' success, popularity, and educational impact.[7] - Not sure why the quotation is needed here. It doesn't fit with the rest of the sentence, which seems like a paraphrase, anyway.
'Cause I tend to over-quote, as I'm sure you can tell by now. Fixed.
Co-productions
  • Its set, or "street", - Why the quotes around street?
See above. I solved the problem here differently, though, by removing the phrase, since the set is described as a plaza.
  • Also in 1972, Plaza Sésamo was produced in Mexico. - Plaza Sésamo was also produced in Mexico in 1972. "Also in 1972" just doesn't work for me.
It's there because both the Mexican show and the Brazilian one started in '72. I prefer the current wording, but if you're insistent, I can change it.
  • 5, Rue Sésame, the most recent French version, began in 1976. Its set consists of a courtyard of a building in a small French town.[12] - Does it still run? It's unclear.
It's unclear because the French had a couple of versions, with different titles. It's a little confusing, so that comes out in the descriptions I've read. More research needs to be done to clear it up here, but since we only need a summary, how about we not refer to the fact that it's "most recent", and just strike the words. Done.
  • The show continued to be well-known, decades after it went off the air, and returned in 2013.[28][29] - I think the returned bit should be separated into a new sentence, perhaps with a bit of info on anything that's changed in this new version.
Done, thusly: "The show continued to be well-known decades after it went off the air. It returned in 2013, and had similar goals and objectives as the original version, including the use of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA)."
  • it was revived, still unlicensed, in 2010.[34][35] - The article doesn't mention that it was unlicensed, only that the program broke with Sesame Workshop. This should probably be clarified...
I don't claim this; it was added by another editor. I just removed it in the interest of balance. I'll keep the sources in mind as I work on the Filipino co-production, and maybe can add something more balanced later on. For now, I think the original wording is adequate.
  • A French dubbed version - Think there should be a hyphen here. Correct me if I'm wrong!
No, you're not wrong. Fixed. ;)
  • The show was supported by its patron, Egyptian First Lady Suzanne Mubarak. - Think sponsored would be a better word choice, assuming she provided the funding.
Okay, got it.
  • Switch between "comprising 40% of all Chinese homes" and "70 percent of children in urban areas". Please be consistent. Personally I think spelling it out looks better.
I agree, done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • to help re-build its educational - Don't think a hyphen is needed here. Rebuild is a word.
That's right, fixed.
  • and decrease drop-out rates for grades K-3. - Need an endash here. (sorry if you're using one and I just can't tell, again I'm a dunce)
Shut up! ;) It's occurred to me that "K-3" may be unclear, so I changed it to "children before the third grade."
  • ten years, and almost thirty years - Should be 30 to match rest of article.
Got it.
  • Takalani Sesame's 10th anniversary in 2010 - Since you've used first throughout the article, it should be tenth for consistency.
Got it, and thanks for catching all my inconsistencies. I appreciate it, really I do.

Stunning work as usual. I'll take another look once my comments are fixed. ceranthor 04:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Ah shucks, such nice praise! And thanks for what you've done thus far; it really helps. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy with all your tweaks and responses, so I'll happily support. Just waiting for that one thing for you to look up, but it's hardly a major issue. ceranthor 22:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the reminder; I've now made the change from Cole as per your request. I appreciate the support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:33, 7 August 2014 [48].


Kangana Ranaut[edit]

Nominator(s): AB01 (talk), KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

After Rani Mukerji and Vidya Balan, Kangana Ranaut is one such Bollywood actress who has helped push the boundary for a Hindi film heroine in a fiercely male-dominated industry. The article has been thoroughly researched and well-sourced and I look forward to a lot of constrictive comments. Cheers! KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

Just one comment for the time-being:

  • There is a category named "Actresses in Tamil cinema" - is it really necessary? I mean, she has appeared in only one Tamil film, and is unlikely to appear in anymore. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True. Since others like Priyanka Chopra and Deepika Padukone don't have that category either. Removed AB01 I'M A POTATO 00:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment. I found that the high number of (often very short) quotations in the text made it difficult to read. I suggest more paraphrasing (perhaps target a 50% cut in the number of direct quotations); readers will be thankful and there'll be more of a chance of the article passing. Also, write out all contractions (e.g., "didn't" → "did not"). EddieHugh (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think AB01 I'M A POTATO 01:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment EddieHugh. A lot of the quotes have now been paraphrased. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The rest of my comments:

  • The lead says, "She then played opposite Hrithik Roshan as a superwoman in the science fiction film Krrish 3 (2013)" - I think you mean that she "acted" opposite him. Also, the term "superwoman" sounds too colloquial, just like how a strong man is called "superman" even if he cannot fly or release heat vision. So can we say "mutant" instead? Because that is what the character is.
"Played opposite" is quite correct. Changed "superwoman" to "mutant". -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the URL's can be archived in order to avoid link rotting. The India Today links may very likely die, as Checklinks always tags them as "Soft 404".
Actually, that's a Checklinks error. The India Today links are the least likely to expire, as they have online articles dating back to 1998. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some newspaper/website fields italicised and some not? Please maintain consistency.
All print sources are italicised, and online sources are not, per the formatting used in the other FAs. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaya, a shape-shifting mutant" - you can wikilink "shape-shifting" as it is not such a common term (I don't think many Indians know of the term, and they would refer to any Mystique-type of character as "form-changing").
Wikilinked shapeshifting. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same paragraph reads, "The critic Sarita Tanwar reviewed" - for which newspaper/website?
Added. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote below for Dwai's comment, that there is a separate page for her filmography. And since her filmography isn't as large as Chopra's or SRK's, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting another table. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I can't review this FAC so deeply due to time constraints, but it does look very well written and all the statements are well sourced. Once my few comments have been addressed, this FAC has my "support". Kailash29792 (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Kailash. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome Krimuk, and this FAC has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dwaipayan[edit]

  • She has an elder sister, Rangoli, who now works as her manager..." Remve "now", may use as of.
Done.
  • "her grandfather, was an IAS officer" "IAS" needs to be elaborated.
Done.
  • "Ranaut who had been observing the character from a distance played the part along with " Perhaps can remove "from a distance". Also, is this info at all needed? Seems trivial.
-->We think it's important since it outlines what led to her pursuing a full-time acting career (which is shown in the next sentence)
  • "A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film" The preceding sentence is on her male role. So, do you mean the audience response to her male role playing encouraged her to move to Mumbai (it's possible to interpret in that sense due to proximity of these two sentences)?
-->Basically, a positive reaction towards her overall performance
At present it reads, "During a screening, one of the male actors went missing; Ranaut who had been observing the character played the part along with her original role of a woman. A positive reaction from the audience prompted her to relocate to Mumbai to pursue a career in film". So, the audience reaction to this particular performance (in which she played two characters, one male and one female) prompted her to relocate to Mumbai? If that is what the source says, then this sentences are perfect, no need to change. I thought good audience reception of all her performances during her theatre days prompted her move!--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what the source says. She relocated because the audience appreciated her in the dual roles. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a four-month acting course from Asha Chandra's drama school" "from" versus "in".
Done.
  • "Ranaut later said..." when did she say?
Added.
  • The long quotation "People in the industry treated me like I didn't deserve to be spoken ..." does not have any attribution: where/when did she say so?
Added.
  • "Ranaut found support in the actor Aditya Pancholi..." need a hint of timeline -- the year/ something like "at the begiining of her struggle".--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
Thanks for the comments, Dwaipayanc. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we generally avoiding table of filmography in actor articles? The Filmography, awards and nominations section in this article looks very short.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since there is a separate article for her filmography and awards, and since her filmography isn't too large, I felt that a summary in prose would be better here instead of inserting new tables. What do you think> -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is no right or wrong way. Personally, I prefer the table available in the actor article (unless the table is huge in size). I like that because I don't have to navigate to another article to have an overall yet quick glimpse on the filmography. You don't need the awards table, of course. So, it's a matter of personal choice/preference.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And that's why her most successful films are listed in the paragraph of this section. Anyway, I hope this doesn't affect the outcome of your review. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All points were appropriately addressed/answered.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I re-read parts of the article again. I have not spotchecked for parity with cited references, except a very few random ones. This article appears to meet FA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Redtigerxyz[edit]

Disclaimer: I have not read the whole article; but only parts. Pardon me, if some of the comments are already addressed in other parts of the article. Most of what I have read looks good.

  • "Ranaut initially aspired to become a doctor on the insistence of her parents." seems UNDUE IMO, as it is not really relevant to her career
I think it's important to show how she rebelled against what her parents wanted her to do, and establish herself on her own. It also puts into context why she was estranged from her parents. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The doctor part really doesn't reflect the sentiment. You have say that something like "against her family's wishes," she joined Bollywood. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is said later. Initial career aspirations are mentioned in other FAs such as Priyanka Chopra and Rani Mukerji too. So why not here? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, wasn't the intention to show that she is a rebel. That is not established. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that is established much later. This one line just talks about what her initial career aspirations were, just like engineering and psychiatry were for Chopra. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does she talk about it much; besides that interview and wikipedia mirrors. WP:LEAD says "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points". Is this one of them?--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I tried. Can we please have some other users commenting on this? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That point is like a one-sentence summary of the Early life and background section, which talks a lot about her growing up days, education and career aspirations. So, yeah..I feel this is an important point AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz: I still maintain that this part is notable enough to be mentioned in the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: Can I please get your opinion on the statement "Ranaut initially aspired to become a doctor on the insistence of her parents" being in the lead? AB01 I'M A POTATO 03:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my favorite sentence, but there's nothing wrong with it. (I just changed "on" to "at", btw.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thank you :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 03:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranaut's off-screen life has been the subject of extensive tabloid reporting in India." Almost every heroine has this feature. Is really needed in the lead?
Since the personal life section describes several instances of how much her relationships were covered in the Indian media, I think we need atleast one sentence in the lead to say something about it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, disagree. Look at Angelina Jolie FA for example. No mention in lead.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jolie's article states "...relationship notable for fervent media attention". As do other FA's like Deepika Padukone. So why not mention it here? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Messed up in a hurry what I really wanted to say last time. There is no reporting of individual media focus. Also, the Ranaut media attention pales to the scale of media frenzy over Bradangelia or even to the desi Deepika-Ranbir-Mallya.... relationships.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. How about something like "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India". One line about this needs to be mentioned in the lead, don't you think? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) "extensive tabloid reporting" is an overstatement for Kangana whose coverage pales to the frenzy over the Kapoors, Bachchans, Deepika etc. "Ranaut's off-screen life has generated media coverage in India" is stating the obvious. Page 3 media works like that in Bollywood.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate comments from other users on this point too. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would be ok to remove that statement, and instead add something about how she aspires to break away from stereotypical heroine roles and do more performance-oriented roles based on women empowerment (like in Vidya Balan's article) AB01 I'M A POTATO 05:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtigerxyz:Okay, I have removed the sentence from the lead. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Seems like POV-pushing of Ranaut; : "In a 2011 interview, Ranaut said: "Today, I have everything..."
Well, it's a direct quote. I agree that the "everything" sounds very pompous of her, but the rest of the quote acts like an apt conclusion to all the fights she had with her parents. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beg to differ. It sounds like "They hate me, but I the magnanimous one still love me". Even "although I do a lot for my family and friends today." is her POV. A neutral observer's view saying the same will be NPOV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, in quotations. It's her quote, so it will obviously be from her POV. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Krimuk that it would sound incomplete without that quote. However, I've added a bit about her reconciling with her parents. I'm thinking we don't need the quote anymore. What do you say? AB01 I'M A POTATO 02:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think the quote was not a case of POV-pushing, but anyway, we have removed it now Redtigerxyz. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ranaut has maintained a strong connection, and makes yearly visits to her hometown of Bhambla." Seems to be overstating the fact that she makes yearly visits.
Agreed. Removed. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments Redtigerxyz. Do let me know if you disagree with me on the first three arguments. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Support I've given it a thorough read and copyedit and removed a few quotes. I'm happy that the article is a sound account of an actress who hasn't been around that long really. One thing though, why was it only the 2014 film which made her a leading actress of Hindi cinema? It does sound a bit OR, is it in the source?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doctor. Much appreciated. :) Yup, this cited source says that Queen established her as a leading actress of Bollywood. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Daan0001[edit]

Oppose Article does not exist or carry content to become a Featured content. Daan0001 (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this comment carries no weight as is -- clearly the article does exist, and objections based on content require explanation and/or examples to be considered actionable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! The user is clearly against the nominator/article. Going with the past FLC records, it would be clear that he is a fanatic. —Vensatry (ping) 02:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank[edit]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. But not just yet, I'm using VisualEditor. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • ₹600 million (US$7.5 million): See WP:$: "In general, the first mention of a particular currency should use its full, unambiguous signifier."
I am not sure how to do this when using the currency conversion template, and would appreciate some help in this. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is acceptable, write: "600 million Indian rupees (₹)". WP:MOS says it's "desirable" to put &nbsp; after "600". - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, changed it. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please fix any of these if I got them wrong:
  • "a poor initial at the box office": I changed it to "a poor initial run at the box office".
  • "her floundering career": You may be right, and I'll leave it alone, but substitute "foundering" if that's what you meant. (The two words are often confused, particularly since the meanings are close.)
Yeah, foundering is more apt. Changed it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "women-oriented films": I don't know what that means. Films that women like more than men do?
Okay, so "women-oriented" or "women-centric" film is a phrase that is widely used in the Indian media to refer to films that have women as protagonists. I agree, it's very silly and extremely sexist, but since the cited source talks about these "women-oriented films", I have used it here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, the word "oriented" means other things in British English (in the nature of "aimed at"), and I see that BrEng is what you're aiming for. What you just said works ... "films with women protagonists", if that's what they mean. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, rephrased. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in preparation she observed": changed to "and that to prepare she observed"
  • All done. I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank:Thank you so much for the copy-edits. Much appreciated. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Excellent article btw, very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: The two remaining points have been addressed. And I'm really glad you liked the article. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: as soon as a bug is fixed in the script, I'll be offering you a script you can add to your User:(name)/vector.js file that will automatically change the appearance in any article of some of the problematic phrases I found while copyediting. (It doesn't actually edit the article, it just puts those phrases in bold.) That might be useful, in case the points covered are things you sometimes forget when you're writing or reviewing articles. You'll be able to remove or add any phrases you like to the list. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the following changes, feel free to change them or comment:
  • Adamant on building: You can be adamant on a point you're making, but if you're adamant to do something, you need "to", not "on".
  • subsequently: See FLOW.
  • haveli: See CLARITY.
  • to not [verb]: not to [verb]
  • it led: Grammarians call this "it" an "expletive" ... not in the sense of a dirty word, but a subject that acts as a placeholder, such as "There" in "There's a man at the door." If there's an easy way to reword without the expletive, then the sentence will often become more concise and readable.
  • she is "[a] hugely ...": she is a "hugely ..."
  • marred by dispute: marred by a dispute
  • Production on the film was temporarily halted when the director ... died of cardiac arrest and the film was completed by the crew members.: Without a comma after "arrest", when the reader has made it to "and the film", they'll be assuming the meaning of that last clause will be something like: "When the director ... died of cardiac arrest and the film was completed by the crew members, production on the film was temporarily halted." When they get further into that clause, most readers will figure out your real meaning from context, but that forces them to rethink and backtrack. Also see COMMA.
  • described ... to be: described ... as (SOED, Cambridge Dictionaries)
  • Ranuat portrayed a brief role as the fiancée: In a brief role ..., Ranuat portrayed the fiancée
  • Bollywood Hungama published that ... Ranaut was seeking projects: According to Bollywood Hungama, Ranaut was seeking projects. ("published" isn't a synonym for "wrote" or "said".)
  • The critic ... reviewed: "...": The critic ... said: "..." ("reviewed" isn't a synonym for "wrote" or "said".)
  • based on: See VAGUE.
  • In a 2013 interview to Daily News and Analysis: In a 2013 interview with Daily News and Analysis
  • owing him money worth ₹2.5 million (US$31,000): owing him ₹2.5 million (US$31,000)
  • - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. The topics in small capitals are in a style and usage guide that I haven't transferred to Wikipedia yet, I'm working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, Dank :-) AB01 I'M A POTATO 00:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. I forgot to mention: I'm really ignorant about Indian English, so my guidelines and edits only concern the other main variants of English. Someone chose British English as the variant for this article, so I went with that. If you'd like to correct my comments where they're wrong if the variant is Indian English, that would be great ... I'm slowly building up a style guide, and it would be good to have advice on Indian English in it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent copy-edits! Thank you so much once again. I look forward to using the script you are developing, and would be happy to offer you advice on an Indian English guide, in whichever way I can. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the phrasing is the same whether you use British English/American English. It's the spelling that's different. Like, for eg. realise/realize, colour/color, etc. AB01 I'M A POTATO 03:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks kindly, Krimuk. If any of the things I changed are actually fine in Indian English, let me know. The script is almost ready; it can handle single words, and all we need is a change of one character in one line of code in Mediawiki to fix the rest. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note: I'm going to slant the style guide toward articles that have the feel of history articles ... so I can't promise a script for every article, but I'm hoping the style guide will be relevant on most points for articles on the film industry, and I'll keep copyediting these articles. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I see. It would be excellent if we could use it for the film-related articles. Anyway, your copy-edits have definitely improved this article. So do you think that the article is now ready to be promoted or does it still need some work? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a reviewer these days, just a copyeditor. The prose looks really good. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. Thanks once again. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Promoting without a formal source review, however a brief scan didn't reveal any obvious issues re. formatting or reliability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 03:58, 1 August 2014 [49].


Okęcie Airport incident[edit]

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are you've never heard of this, but don't scroll past just yet if you're interested in either football or the Cold War, because this is actually quite an interesting little episode in Poland in 1980. It basically centres on the Poland football team's forward player Stanisław Terlecki, who also happened to be both an anti-communist activist and a bit of a cheeky so-and-so. Poland were at the time one of the best football teams around. In November 1980 their goalkeeper got drunk the night before their departure for Italy and was left behind as punishment. Terlecki, who had already been repeatedly banned for trying to unionise the footballers, led the players in an ultimately successful revolt against management over the goalkeeper, then directly defied the communist authorities by arranging for the mostly Catholic team to meet the Pope in Rome. Terlecki and three other players were sent home, a rather spurious court-martial ensued and Terlecki ended up emigrating to America. He returned home in 1986 with hopes of regaining his place in the team but never played for Poland again.

I took this up to GA a couple years ago, and have just polished it up a bit in the last few days. I am confident it now meets the FA criteria. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cliftonian. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reviewing this for WP:POLAND:
    • "industrial unrest"?
      • I don't see any problem with this term; are you saying it is incorrect grammatically or that it is not an accurate description? —Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you reference it? I just redirected the unref stub we had on industrial unrest to labor unrest which I think would be more appopriate, but in either case you probably should reference the use of those terms in this context. Presumably by repeating and footnoting this phrase in the article body. Ditto for political unrest. As a sociologist, I do think that the use of such terms should not be hap-hazzard, but properly thought-out and referenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've tried to phrase this better, with another new reference in the body; we now refer to strike action and other forms of civil resistance for political change. Is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The punishments regarded by many as too harsh" - missing "were", and weaselish
    • "The first non-communist trade union in an Eastern bloc country," - this probably should be split into a stand alone sentence
    • "top sides" - I think just saying "best" would sound better
    • soccer terminology like "forward" should be linked
      • OK, I have gone through and put links; please tell me if I missed any —Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • " the intellectual Terlecki " this sounds off
    • "held a degree in history " - masters?
      • The source statement (from Sports Illustrated) doesn't say: "He earned a degree in history from the University of Lodz and thus became the first national team member to have graduated from a university in anything but physical education." —Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps User:Tymek would be able to help. I'd like to see him comment here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • can you discuss notability of Hotel Vera and why it should or shouldn't be linked in light of WP:RED?
    • Wojciech Zieliński is probably notable, has an article on pl wiki pl:Wojciech Zieliński (komentator sportowy). Ditto for pl:Stefan Szczepłek and pl:Włodzimierz Reczek, and the magazines pl:Piłka Nożna (tygodnik) and pl:Tempo (gazeta). If you think any of them are not notable, please explain it here, otherwise link them per WP:RED
    • "A senior national team official, Colonel" - I am not sure I understand his position...? Security/bodyguard?
    • "whose own car was to hand" - is this English? What hand? "At hand"?
    • briefly explain what Przegląd Sportowy was (another sports magazine)
    • "The players, who were mostly Catholics," - who wasn't?
      • I put it this way rather than saying "all Catholics" to allow for the assumption that at least a couple of them may have been atheists. (The sources don't cover the players' religion in any real detail.) I think it's relatively safe if you prefer to say they were all Catholics (as on paper they probably all were), or perhaps we can say "predominantly Catholic" or something like that? —Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, what the sources say? Otherwise we are dealing with OR. It is likely all players were raised as Catholics, but... we need sources for their faith, or this should be dropped. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, well I think we can take it out without losing too much of the meaning anyway (most people with a cursory knowledge of Poland would be aware that the country is overwhelmingly Catholic) —Cliftonian (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • generals are notable by default, so why wasn't pl:Marian Ryba linked to Marian Ryba?
    • link Ministry of Internal Affairs (Poland)
    • Terlecki played in Poland until 1993, I think, while the article gives the impression that upon his return he was never allowed to do so
      • Sorry for being ambiguous, should have made clear he played at club level (albeit not internationally) after he came back. Have rectified this —Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • pinging User:Tymek who knows a lot about Polish soccer's history.
      • I messaged him already (he helped a lot with this article already!) but thanks for this, good thought —Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, nice job. Ping me when the above are fixed or argued, and I'll consider whether I am ready to support. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Is there meant to be something in the now-empty Footnote section?
  • GBooks links can be truncated after page number
  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include location and/or publisher
  • Archivedate and accessdate should have the same formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this Nikki. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I was the GA reviewer of this article some considerable time ago and remember enjoying it greatly. It seems even better now, and I will be happy to support once my very minor concerns are addressed. Nice work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which in turn led to first the suspension of several prominent players": To my ear, "led first to..." sounds more natural but maybe that's me.
  • "was tired and hungover when the time came to leave the hotel": Is hungover formal enough for the lead here? (Sounds like an old Private Eye headline about "tired and emotional"...
  • I've shortened to just "hungover" as the fact that he was tired seems to be included therein (rare indeed that you have somebody who is hungover but not tired) —Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having spent a sleepless night on the town drinking with a friend": Sleepless night I think usually suggests insomnia; we could perhaps lose "sleepless" altogether, but perhaps if something is needed, maybe "having not been to sleep following a night on the town with a friend"?
  • I've adopted your wording, which I think is better and clearer —Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much to the indignation of some of the other players" Redundancy?
  • "Smolarek received a more modest ban, with a suspension period": Something of a tautology here, as it would be hard to be banned without a period of suspension!
  • Ah! What is meant is that the punishment was suspended (like a suspended sentence), so nothing actually happened to him. I've changed to "Smolarek received a more modest, suspended ban", which I hope is clearer (and better prose) —Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In June 1976, a series of protests took place across communist Poland": Would this be better as "During June 1976..."? Not sure.
  • Hmmm. I'll think about this one. I prefer "in" myself, just because it's shorter. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the government announced plans to sharply increase the fixed prices charged nationwide for many basic commodities": A split infinitive is, I think, perfectly acceptable but does drive some pedants to rage and is a target for some person to comment on when this reaches the main page. Perhaps best avoided?
  • "Several Poland players knew her and Młynarczyk had just been to Italy to play for Widzew Łódź against Juventus.": I'm afraid I slightly lose the meaning of this sentence. Is it "Several Poland players knew her" [and also that] Młynarczyk had just been to Italy to play for Widzew Łódź against Juventus" or "Several Poland players knew [both her and Młynarczyk] had just been to Italy to play for Widzew Łódź against Juventus." Or something else?
  • I've put a comma in (her, and Młynarczyk) to try to make this clearer. It's the former case. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A number of journalists attacked the players who had supported Młynarczyk; the Przegląd Sportowy sports magazine ran the headline "no mercy for those guilty of the scandal at the airport" while Tempo was similarly severe, proclaiming "this cannot be tolerated"": Maybe I'm being stupid, but why do we have small caps here?
  • I put it like that because it's a newspaper headline (thought it would add flavour as it better resembles how probably it would have looked as a headline), but it doesn't seem to fit with MOS so I've taken this out —Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the football association president, Polish Army General Marian Ryba, escorting them on the plane.": We have a "with [noun] [verb]-ing" here, which is best avoided.
  • "Smolarek received a two-month ban, with a six-month suspension period": I'm again struggling with the difference between ban and suspension here.
  • I have tried to clarify here again (see above). "Smolarek received a two-month ban, which was suspended for six months" —Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were several other incidences of drunkenness": Would "incidents" be less of a mouthful? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your thoughts and kind words Sarastro, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I hope my responses above are all right. Hope you're well and have a great week. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good to me, and I'm happy to support now. Nice work! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the kind words Sarastro. =) —Cliftonian (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The use and placement of images is splendid, and the article is an entertaining read.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Marshal! Glad you enjoyed the article. Keep well! —Cliftonian (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
  • Kulesza eventually relented and allowed Młynarczyk to travel. - travel with the team
  • telephone connections between the coast and the hinterland, - Would be helpful to link hinterland for the lay reader
  • Smolarek left the club around 02:00, - assuming this is the morning, but this should be clarified. Same with two later instances.
  • According to MOS:TIME this is the correct usage. (when a leading 0 is used, it is clear that this is in the morning; if we were using the 12-hour clock it would be rendered as "2:00 a.m.") —Cliftonian (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • while Tempo was similarly severe - What's Tempo?
  • When the rest of the team returned to Poland, Terlecki once again attempted to form a footballers' union; securing the support of 16 other Poland international players, he wrote a letter to the PZPN declaring their intention to do so, leading the authorities to order them to face a tribunal.[9] - This sentence is very long. Can you split into two?
  • OK, I've replaced the semicolon with a full stop. I agree this is better. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • but contended that the incident was only minor, and had been made to appear worse by disproportionately prominent and negative press coverage.[1] - There must be a more eloquent way than "had been made to appear worse". "had been exacerbated" works.

Otherwise, excellent stuff. Once my comments are fixed, I'll gladly support. ceranthor 01:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceranthor for the helpful comments and the kind words. Have a great rest of the week. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments resolved, I think this is a wonderful article worthy of the star. Nice work, Cliftonian! ceranthor 21:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Hi John, unless I've missed it above, pls seek an image review at your earliest... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I've just requested an image review from Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) on his talk page. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this Crisco; much obliged as always. Have a great weekend —Cliftonian (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 03:55, 1 August 2014 [50].


2013 Rosario gas explosion[edit]

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an explosion that took place in Rosario, Argentina, a few days before a national election. It is a short article, but it contains all the info about the event that I could find. Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Although the building was not destroyed by the explosion, the risk of structural failure was high." - I'm not sure what building this line is referring to, and it's not clear based on context. The building that had the gas leak?
  • What is Curto's jurisdiction? Is he a local judge in Rosario?
  • What's the current status of the trial? It's not exactly clear what the timeline is on
  • "The demonstration in Rosario was not a cacerolazo, but..." - is this referring to the demonstration organized via social media?
  • What's the current status of the location? Has the reconstruction work been completed? If not, any reasons why its behind schedule? Parsecboy (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the sentence talks about the building of the explosion. The jurisdiction is a legal one, Curto recused himself because with the accumulated evidence the case was no longer among those he can work with. I have added a new sentence about recent news (the case itself, however, is still going on). The demonstration was initially intended to be a number of cacerolazos taking place in all the major cities of Argentina at the same time; as it turned out, the protest method was changed in Rosario but it was still a cacerolazo elsewhere. As for the status of the location, I have not found any report in newspapers (not even local ones) about completed buildings or delays. Cambalachero (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added "country-wide" to the first mention of the caceralazo for clarity - see if that's ok. Are there any Wiki editors who live in the area who might be able to take a picture of the site? It wouldn't allow you to add more text, but you could at least show the state of the site as of mid-2014. If not, no big deal, it's just a thought. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
  • Be consistent in whether La Nación and other publications are treated as works or publishers
  • Check formatting of quote marks within titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cambalachero (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments

  • In the lede, don't provide the names of the judges, save them for the main body. Especially since they investigated in succession, not all three at once.
  • Oroño and Salta Streets in central Rosario add "near the intersection of ..."
  • Translate this: CEMAR (Centro de Especialidades Médicas Ambulatorias de Rosario
  • , the risk of structural failure was high. suggest rewording this to: "there was a high risk of structural failure"
  • What is an "employee's cabin"?
  • Front for Victory and Progressive, Civic and Social Front candidates Add "The" at the beginning of the sentence.
  • had cheap insurances delete the 's' at the end of insurance.
  • Are there any updated info on the status of the reconstruction, etc.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. An "employee's cabin" is a cabin used by an employee for his work. I said "insurances" in plural because multiple buildings have multiple insurances; just because most of them are cheap does not mean that they all have a single common insurance. As for the reconstruction, I have mentioned before that I found no info. Looking a bit further, I found this blog, which of course I won't use in the article, but gives more light on that lack of info: the area has been cleared of debris, and no reconstruction has been announced because there isn't any reconstruction yet. Until further notice, it is basically a vacant lot with some employees working inside; now that the explosion is not in the ongoing news headlines it would have to be a very slow news days for any actual newspaper to detail the advances in the reconstruction. Cambalachero (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes generally look good. One of the peculiarities of English is that insurances is never used, the plural becomes "insurance policies". I didn't really expect any new info on the reconstruction, but I was wondering about the judicial side of things. You need to explain "employee's cabin" in the text because this is a term not used in the US. Is it a literal cabin or some sort of temporary structure erected by the workers to shelter them from the weather?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: Insurances does occur in the plural in the sense used by Cambalachero. See the OED entry. But if preferred, "insurance policies" would be fine instead, as you say. --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not technically wrong, but I've never seen it used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Cabin" in this context is not about a small house or cottage, but a small room inside the building where the employee has the tools and machines he needs for his work. In Spanish it is a "cabina", and here it seems that the English language has a similar meaning (along with others), but I'm open to suggestions. The article has been twice in the guild of copy editors and in a GAN, and none voiced any concern about the word. Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was the second of those copy editors and probably should have picked up on this. That's a strange use of cabin. I thought it meant an outdoor workmans' cabin, such as are found on building sites, assigned to Garcia. I didn't check that particular source, and I don't know much Spanish, but the source (FN20) calls it la cabina de gas and doesn't appear to say that it belonged to Garcia. It might be better to replace "the employee's cabin" with "the store room", or even "the store room where tools were kept". --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "workroom"? In my experience apartment building often have a room dedicated to maintenance, although that's used by the building engineer/supervisor, not the gas company.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero: does cabina mean a room where the work is done, or just where the tools/machinery are stored? (If the former, "workshop" would be better understood by a Brit, but I don't know about AmE.) --Stfg (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Workshop" Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support & Comments Very good article and detailed coverage of the event. I only have a couple of recommendations:

  • Could you please fix the opening sentence to match the standard in other WP articles? I am aware that other disaster articles use this style, including the FA Mt. Saint Helen, but it just seems very strange.
  • Please add a "See also" section to the article.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 14:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • What do you believe should be in this see also section? Other gas leak explosions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MarshalN20: please could you clarify what "standard in other WP articles" you're referring to? I think the sentence conforms rather well to MOS:BOLDTITLE; see for example the example of the 2011 Mississippi River floods there. Or did you mean something other than that? --Stfg (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stfg: Something along the lines of: "The 2013 Rosario gas explosion was..." (like in San Juanico disaster, or in most other articles in Wikipedia). The current format seems like a newspaper report.--MarshalN20 Talk 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I don't think that the name should be bolded because "2013 Rosario gas explosion" is not an actual name widely used by the press, but just a descriptive name created here in Wikipedia to talk about the event. As for a "See also", I don't think it would be appropiate to include explosions that took place 20 years before (and certainly not an explosion that was not an accident but a terrorist attack). And, fortunately, this explosion is a lone case, there have not been other similar accidents in Argentina recently (if there were such cases, I would list them). The articles of other related things, such as the elections, are already mentioned and linked within the article. Cambalachero (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to re-edit the response to Stfg. My compete suggestion was to write something like: "The Rosario gas explosion was a major man-made disaster that occurred on August 6, 2013, and affected a residential area of Rosario, the third-largest city in Argentina." It seems less like a news report, but I understand that the current sentence is in line with the MOS.
Another question I had was why the year (2013) was important to mention in the title? Have any other significant gas explosions taken place in Rosario?--MarshalN20 Talk 14:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BOLDTITLE, links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead. The rationale for this is that linking part or all of the bolded text changes the visual effect of bolding; some readers will miss the visual cue which is the purpose of using bold face in the first place. --OneEuropeanHeart (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The year is provided for context. One of the very first things that people will want to know in an article about an event is when did it happen. Even worldwide known events (such as the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) will mention that detail in the lead as soon as possible. Cambalachero (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- There's been little activity here for the past week and we don't have anything approaching consensus to promote. I will however give Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy a bit longer to return and let me know if their points have been satisfactorily actioned before looking at closing this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that I had already supported!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor (talk · contribs)

  • The mayor of Rosario - name?
  • The Center for Ambulatory Medical Specialties of Rosario (Spanish: Centro de Especialidades Médicas Ambulatorias de Rosario) controlled information about the dead and injured, - controlled? What does that mean?
  • Although the building was not destroyed by the explosion, there was a high risk of structural failure.[13] - This sentence could be reworded to avoid passive voice. Although the explosion did not destroy the building, a high risk of structural failure remained. - or something along those lines
  • It was reported at the trial that the building had experienced several gas leaks before the explosion.[14] - Could be easily reworded to active voice
  • Judge Juan Carlos Curto ordered the arrest of Carlos Osvaldo García, an employee of the department responsible for gas service to the area,[16] during the night,[17] and García's assistant Pablo Miño surrendered to police.[18] - The placement of "during the night" is awkward.
  • Prosecutor Graciela Argüelles said that, according to the investigation, Litoral Gas ignored calls for help from García, who was not properly trained to manage such a situation. The judge said - Double use of said. Maybe a different verb?

More to come once these are resolved. Prose is in good shape. ceranthor 00:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cambalachero (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More Comments
  • was caused by a large gas leak; a nearby building collapsed, and others were at high risk of structural failure. - To avoid passive voice, this can be reworded to something like "a nearby building collapsed, putting others at high risk...".
  • Mónica Fein, mayor of Rosario, asked residents to avoid the area due to the risk that more buildings might collapse, and to ease the work of disaster management personnel; the streets were covered by broken glass from damaged buildings.[9] - No need for the semicolon, as these sentences should be separated.
  • A number of people were missing; some were found dead among the debris, while others were rescued.[5] - So much passive voice. Surely some of this can be rewritten in the active voice.
  • and that the liability of Litoral Gas had to be investigated as well. - Awkward and wordy. Can you rewrite this as something like "authorities should investigate Litoral Gas's liability as well"?
  • Vice Governor Jorge Henn rejected is as immoral,[31] - Think this is supposed to be "it". Not sure, though.
  • and the proposal was initially rejected by most of the families.[3 - most of the families also initially rejected the proposal.

More later. I'm a bit concerned with how much passive voice is used in this article. ceranthor 17:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: I accept that we should avoid the passive where the active will serve, but I think you're overstating this and heading for difficulties. In your first bullet, you're changing the meaning: in the original, the nearby collapse and the others being in danger are distinct. Your revision implies that the collapse caused the danger to the others. In any case, others were at high risk of structural failure isn't passive. In the third bullet, the focus of attention is on the missing people, so I think that making them the subject of passive verbs is actually better than finding another subject for an active one. Some were found dead and some rescued, but we don't necessarily know who found/rescued them and we shouldn't invent a finder/rescuer. Likewise in your fourth bullet, you're inventing a subject (authorities) that we don't know is there. The topic is the potential liability of Litoral and the need to investigate it; who should investigate it is a different issue. Often, the purpose of the passive is to avoid inventing an artificial subject for an active verb, or even when the agent is known, to avoid putting emphasis on him/it. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Stfg, I've striked those comments, but the rest of my suggestions still stand. I have a few more comments to add here when I find the time, granted Cambalachero fixes the remaining ones. ceranthor 19:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceranthor. Yes, I wasn't asking you to withdraw them all. (I agree with your last bullet, for example, as well as several others.) Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings, and I welcome the input. Thank you for correcting me when I was wrong. ceranthor 02:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sorry for the delay, there are things in real life those days that keep me a bit busy. --Cambalachero (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • The following day yielded twelve victims, ten of whom were identitified.[4] - This sentence is very unclear. First of all, are the "victims" people killed or just people injured? That should be clarified. And it should be searches the following day or something like that, seeing as the current structure "the following day yielded" makes no sense.
  • The streets were covered by broken glass from damaged buildings.[9] - Covered with
  • He was captured during the night,[17] and his assistant Pablo Miño surrendered to police.[18] - Do you know when Miño surrendered? That seems like an important detail.
  • and Rosario-born Lionel Messi provided support.[51] - How did he provide support?
  • Fito Páez did not attend a general concert on August 19,[56] which generated controversy.[57] - An explanation would be helpful. As is, this doesn't seem to add much to the article. It seems irrelevant.

Once these are resolved, I think this article will be ready. ceranthor 15:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The 12 victims mentioned were dead, that's why it may be difficult to identify them if they do not have any ID with them. Miño surrendered the following day, and Messi has a charity named after himself. The controversy was just in social networks (nobody noteworthy said anything about Fito Páez's absence) and the newspaper mentioned it, but it's right, it may be unneeded, so I removed it. The reason of the controversy is because Páez receives huge ammounts of money to take part in concerts in support of the Kirchners, but may not take part in a charity concert at his home town because he would not be paid for it. But, as said, in the end nobody noteworthy really cared. --Cambalachero (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you to Cambalachero for your detailed responses and patience. I think this article is well-written, reliably-sourced, and worthy of being a featured article. ceranthor 01:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2014&oldid=623311780"