Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2016

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2016 [1].

Devon County War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second of my series of war memorial articles to make it to FAC, following the promotion of Northampton War Memorial. This one is a smaller monument (a single cross on the cathedral green in Exeter) but it has an interesting history, not least the contrast Exeter's own war memorial five minutes' walk away. The article has had some very useful feedback from a GA review and an A-class review and I think it's up to scratch, but all comments are welcome. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 19 November 2016 (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) 01:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (in no particular order) / Singora[edit]

  • 1. You have "including a baths"
    • I believe this is correct when referring to Roman baths.
  • 2. You have "a set of steps and a platform leading to the memorial which emphasises". Subject-verb agreement blah blah blah.
    • I've re-worded this slightly.
  • 3. You have "described by Lutyens researcher Tim Skelton". Possessives, etc.
    • And this.
  • 4. RE: "all 44 of his free-standing memorials in England". Should you not add the number (44) to your previous article?

Singora (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Singora. As you can probably see these articles are all similarly structured, but I'd like to think it got more refined with practice. I've got another four in the queue and more that I'm still planning to write so your feedback will affect more than just the one article. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC) This article is in fine shape, Harry. I've tweaked some minor grammar, but feel free to revert if it isn't to your taste. I only have a few points:[reply]

  • the quotation from Lutyens appears twice, I think once would be enough.
    • Agreed. (How did I miss that?!)
  • I think it should be just baths, drop the "a"
    • I'm not sure but I don't feel strongly either way, so done
  • strengthens → strengthening?
    • done
  • I think WP:FNNR indicates that general references are listed after rather than before short citations
    • And WP:CITEVAR says I can use any style I want; the MoS is full of contradictions and arbitrary dictats.
Thanks for the review, PM. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, always a pleasure. I like the work you are doing on memorials. Inspires me to improve the articles on some of my local ones. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...with a nice G&T now the cool change has rolled in...but I can't stop thinking of this....notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the two "memorials" in the first sentence, yet I can't think of a way round this, so doubt it is actionable....
The only way around it I can think of is to completely rewrite the opening, but I think that's a bit drastic for a relatively minor prose flaw, and I think the way it's currently written is the most natural way to get all the information in at the beginning.
Agreed.
in alignment with the altar. - err, means what - level with it...pointing at it....?
This has come up before so it's obviously an issue but it makes perfect sense to me: as I understand it, if you stood in front of the memorial and looked in the direction it was facing, you would be looking at the cathedral's altar if the cathedral didn't have walls. Parallel with the altar perhaps?
Hmm, actually that doesn't work either really. Maybe 'aligned' is most apt. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
was of the opinion that - why not just "felt that"?
Dunno. Maybe I just felt like being wordy.
At the unveiling ceremony, Lord Fortescue estimated that 11,600 men and women from Devon had been killed while serving in the war -there are two "estimated"s here. Possibly the first one can be changed for a better verb. I doubt that he sat down with an abacus and calculated the number of dead at the ceremony. If he just said it then why not "announced"?
How's this?

Otherwise looks just fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Bounder[edit]

  • The phrase "architect Sir Edwin Lutyens" comes across a little as a false title; it should probably also have a definite article, as this is in British English.
    • I have mixed feelings about this, but I think it works here so done
  • A bit of local knowledge, as I was raised in the area, Castle Drogo is to the west of Exeter (see Google Maps).
    • Good point, done.
  • You twice refer to the/a "cloister", but then switch to "cloisters": it's a tiny point, but was there a reason?
    • Nope. Fixed.
  • More local knowledge, Haytor is to the south west of Exeter (see Google Maps again).
    • Fixed
  • Do we need "the heir to the throne" as you've already told us he was "later King Edward VIII"?
    • Probably not; gone.
  • Footnotes 1 and 12 need a retrieval date.
    • Done.

Aside from these very minor points, a very informative and enjoyable article in what is becoming an enjoyable series. Thanks and all the best The Bounder (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bounder: Thanks again for the review. I'm glad you're enjoying the series; there are more to come! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All happy now - excellent work. All the best The Bounder (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Smalljim[edit]

I've corrected a couple of minor typos to this fine article, but I do have a few other queries. I admit that some of them may be a bit nitpicky – feel free to ignore those :-)

  • In the lead you mention "the two committees", but only say what one of them was. Maybe "...but the Exeter and Devon committees failed to work together, resulting..." would be clearer.
    • Fixed.
  • Although Lutyens himself wrote that his monument was "out of one stone", we normally speak of blocks of granite when they are have been quarried, as this one was. The lead could read "... a simple cross hewn from a single block of granite quarried ..."
    • Done.
  • I'm a little concerned about the statement that the memorial is "just" to the west of the cathedral. It's actually something like 210 feet (64m.) distant from the west front (measured on this map). I think this word would be less of a problem if it was supported by the photos, but neither of them give an impression of the distance (or of Jellicoe's processional way). This panorama shows it centre right, but it's not clear. There may be something better on Commons, or I might have some photos that show the relationship – I'll have a look.
    • I don't really think this is an issue; it's the only object between the cathedral facade and the close, and it's very prominent. (I took the photos in the article and almost all the ones on Commons)
  • Wouldn't it sound better for the cross to stand on its plinth, rather than sit on it?
    • Meh, done.
  • There's a problem with the lead text "A processional way was added, leading to the cathedral close from the cathedral itself", and similar wording in the body. Apart from the fact that in Exeter today Cathedral Close is the postal address for the pedestrianised road on the north-east side of the cathedral, and Jellicoe's way doesn't go that way, it's unclear because the cathedral close (uncapitalised) surrounds much of the cathedral. Something like "a processional way between the cathedral's west front and the memorial" would be more accurate.
    • I don't think that would be more accurate; the processional way does lead to the close, past the memorial, even if it doesn't serve all of it.
      • There's still a problem here. Are we disagreeing over what is the "close" or what is Jellicoe's Processional Way? I understand the Way branches off Cathedral Yard (not Cathedral Close, which is on the other side of the green) via a platform on the left (north) of the memorial, and it then descends several sets of shallow steps to the large cathedral forecourt. See the photo I've uploaded: the group of people are walking across the platform, having just left Cathedral Yard (see an A-Z). This is in accordance with the Details section at the end of the listed building text. The Processional Way is the forecourt, steps and platform, but that's not what the article says at present.  —SMALLJIM  00:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a recent stub – Cathedral Close, Exeter – that's not very good yet, but could be linked since it's highly relevant.
    • Done.
  • At the unveiling ceremony, "Lord Fortescue estimated..." Presumably this was in his speech, as was, I assume, what "he later stated". This should be made clear.
    • He didn't give the later figure at the speech; clarified.
  • Not sure about "around the western fringe of the cathedral" – "between the memorial and the cathedral" would be more accurate (the photo in the cited BBC ref makes this clear).
    • But that is the western fringe of the cathedral, and it's clear from the photo that they dug around the memorial rather than between it and the cathedral.
  • The remains of "several Roman buildings, including baths" could be linked to Isca Dumnoniorum#Roman.
    • If you can find a way to work that in that's not too much of an easter egg, I'd be happy to see it linked.

Hope these help.  —SMALLJIM  19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses and being kind about the nitpicking. I've struck all but two related points, which I've commented further on above.  —SMALLJIM  00:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, regarding Casliber's query above about the cross being "aligned with the altar", Harvey's The Story of Exeter (p. 171) explains the alignment nicely as "It faces east, standing on a hypothetical line drawn from the high altar through the nave of the cathedral."  —SMALLJIM  16:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That explains things nicely; I've added the quote in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above, HJ. Just a few more comments after I looked at the topic again:

  • Heading "History and design" would be better as "Design and history" to match the order of those topics in the section
    • Okay, now we're being pedantic; sorry but I prefer it the way it is, and it's consistent with my other war memorial articles.
      • Struck - I did warn you :)
  • We have remarks about there not being enough funds to complete the cloister, and about the concerns that not much money was likely to be raised, though with its remaining funds (presumably after Lutyens' memorial was completed) the committee was able to help build the cross in France. I don't know where the money for the County War Memorial was actually raised from, or the amounts involved. If details are available, they should be included.
    • The funds were raised from donations (I've clarified this); there's nothing in any of the sources about the cost or the distribution of funds sadly.
      • OK, thanks for checking
  • I note that the War Memorials Trust donated just £50 [2] towards installing the railings in 2001 - is their grant really worth a mention considering that this sum must have been only a tiny proportion of the whole cost? The emphasis here should be on the reason for their installation – what about: "In 2001 a set of metal railings was erected around the foot of the memorial to combat problems with vandalism and anti-social behaviour; they were described by author Tim Skelton as "an unfortunate addition".[15][16]"
    • I think it's worth mentioning, especially since the reason for their installation came from the WMT, and I'd rather avoid ending the paragraph on a sour note if I can.
      • Hmm. Do we know that the WMT instigated the installation of the railings (if that's what you mean)? If their website page cited above is the only one that mentions this, it reads to me more like another body (Devon Council?) wanted the railings, approached the WMT for a grant and they gave a nominal amount.
        • The latter would be my guess (I don't think the WMT is in the business of instigating projects, just funding them). --HJM
      • Oh – I've just realised that we don't know that the railings were installed in June 2001 (the date of the WMT grant), unless Skelton says so. In fact the listed building description says they were erected in 2006.
        • Skelton doesn't specify (he just says 21st century) and he was published in 2008 so not much help; I've gone with HE's date. --HJM
  • File:ExeterCathedral-4.jpg is a bright and clear photo. It shows the relationship between the memorial and the cathedral and gives a good impression of the processional way. It also matches the photo of the cross in France (blue sky, white clouds). Should it be included as well as or instead of one of the others; or maybe, dare I suggest, even as the lead image?
    • As the lead image, definitely not; I want something that shows the whole cross from the front where the memorial is clearly the main subject. Leave it with me, though, and I'll look when I'm less sleep deprived.
  • Single sentence paragraphs are, I think, frowned upon. There are two here, and one with just two sentences.
    • I like nice fulsome paragraphs as much as the next copy editor, but combining unrelated sentences into one paragraph just because it looks pretty is likely to be more jarring to the reader than a short paragraph. ;)

Ah - there's more there than I intended when I started, sorry!  —SMALLJIM  00:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed, but it's my birthday on Saturday so I don't plan on being around for a few days; it would be lovely if we could have this wrapped up by then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send you a card :) I've struck a couple of the points, but had to query the railings further.  —SMALLJIM  12:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan on being sober enough to read it! ;) I've addressed the railings. Is there anything else we need to resolve? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. I insist that you use this photo for the lead, since it's the most recent one available and therefore the most representative. Enjoy your birthday :)  —SMALLJIM  00:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the previous remark was not serious – I hope your hangover's not too bad, HJ. However, I do have reservations about the general "professional standard" of the prose: I think it would benefit from a quick polish by someone uninvolved. And my un-struck comments above are still problematical, IMO. However, I am not an expert in FAC, and (as I stated at the start) I do tend towards nitpicking, so I'm willing to concede these issues if the coordinators determine that they are not deal-breakers.  —SMALLJIM  11:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have specific concerns about the prose? The FAC instructions require actionable objections, and I don't feel that unspecified reservations are actionable. I'd also point out that Dank, one of our most experienced and respected copy-editors, has reviewed the prose and is supporting above. I'm happy to try and address specific concerns as I've done above and I've addressed several comments that didn't (imho) relate to the FA criteria, but this comment leaves me with nowhere to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine by me if people object to prose I've supported at FAC, but I'd like to see some examples. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the prose doesn't have to win major prizes, but it should be noticeably better than the run of the mill article. And to me, this isn't. Now I know that what follows is not definitive and is probably contentious, but while searching for a way to articulate my concerns, I came across the text assessment tool at http://www.hemingwayapp.com (which is a link in WP:TECHNICAL). Plugging the article's text (sans headings and captions) into this tool gives a readability of Grade 17 (which it classifies as "Poor"), with 33 of the 50 sentences (66%) assessed as "very hard to read". For comparison, I checked a couple of architecture FAs at random. Capon Chapel gives Grade 14 ("OK") with 60/114 (53%) very hard to read sentences; Round Church, Preslav gives 13 ("OK") and 66/138 (48%). I also looked at what may be the shortest FA, Hurricane Irene (2005), which gave Grade 14, 19/36 (53%). I'm not claiming that these figures mean anything per se, but there is a clear gap here which may represent one of my concerns about the prose - that many of the sentences are too complex.

I've identified the semicolons as one centre of this complexity. There are ten in this text - that's more than the average usage in eleven paragraphs, and although that's not in itself a problem, I don't find that the way they're used is optimal. For example, the last sentence in the lead: "The memorial is a grade II* listed building; since 2015, all of Lutyens' war memorials in England have been protected by listed building status." I can't say this is wrong, but it isn't the clearest phrasing. The follow-on doesn't go where one expects it to, and it's a jerky half-break, emphasised by the comma just two words on. At a quick glance it's easy to miss the punctuation making it seem to say that it has been listed since 2015 (it was listed in 2009, so why don't we say that). This sentence is probably better split into two - as is its expanded version, the very last (one-sentence) paragraph. Maybe "The memorial has been a grade II* listed building since 2009. By 2015, all of Lutyens' war memorials in England had been protected by listed building status."

Consider "The remains of several Roman buildings, including baths, were discovered and re-buried due to lack of funds; the ruins were scheduled as an ancient monument." (Incidentally, how can lack of funds cause discovery?) This would be better as something like "The remains of several Roman buildings, including baths, were discovered. They were all re-buried due to lack of funds, and the site was scheduled as an ancient monument."

One more: "The railings were partly funded by a grant from the War Memorials Trust; they were intended to combat problems with vandalism and anti-social behaviour." It isn't immediately obvious that the "they" after the semicolon refers to the railings: it could refer to the Trust, which was the last thing mentioned. A simpler and clearer version would be "The railings, partly funded by a grant from the War Memorials Trust, were intended to combat problems with vandalism and anti-social behaviour."

Although these are all minor points in isolation, cumulatively they undermine the professional standard that we need here. There are also other problems that text assessment tools can't direct us to. For instance, "The cross has a diamond-shaped tapered shaft with chamfered arms, no wider than the base, close to the top to form a cross. The cross..." One can work out what this means, despite the two uses of the word "cross" in the sentence referring to different things, but at this level one should not have to. And one doesn't immediately know which use of the word is meant when it starts the next sentence - in fact it's back to the first meaning, not the nearest.

Here's an apparent unintentional non-sequitur: "The memorial was unveiled ... by Edward ... with Lutyens in attendance. Upon its completion, Lutyens said ..." Is this the completion of the unveiling (unlikely), or the completion of the memorial's construction, which obviously took place much earlier? In the next sentence we're unambiguously back at the unveiling, so why the jump back in time in between?

... I need to stop. Apologies for the delay in replying: it's taken me an age to work this up, yet I know there are people who are practised at spotting and fixing such issues quickly - hence my original suggestion of a "quick polish". I'd appreciate a comment from Dank or others regarding the appropriateness of these remarks: if the opinion is that they represent nothing more than my personal preferences, I'll know that FAC isn't an area that I should spend time in!  —SMALLJIM  17:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for feedback at WT:FAC#hemingwayapp.com. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The individual points you're making are completely appropriate to bring up at FAC, Jim. These are some of the things that I look for too, both when I'm reviewing at FAC and when I write TFA text, which is a summary of leads from FAs. You've picked out a couple of garden paths, one slightly ambiguous subject, and a word used to mean two different things in the same sentence. Many writing gurus would identify these as potential problems, and they recommend expending a reasonable amount of energy hunting them down and fixing them. I appreciate your work here, and agree with your points, and I suspect Harry does too. I'm not retracting my support, because I know that similar problems are somewhat common in FAs, and overall, I think readers can make out what Harry meant (assuming they know the vocabulary and the subject matter, or they're at least interested enough to find out, by clicking on links and using a dictionary app). - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I rate the app, given that its front page contains examples of "unreadable" writing that are perfectly normal English sentences; it essentially suggests using a ten-year-old's vocabulary, stripping out all adjectives and adverbs, and not using any punctuation besides full stops and the occasional comma. Nonetheless, you've raised some examples of writing that could certainly be improved and I'll have a look at tinkering with that over the next few days. I used to overuse dashes but it seems I've graduated to semicolons! Also, thanks for pointing me to Lest Devon Forgets; I ordered a copy and it arrived today so I'll likely be adding some more material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the app, but I wasn't using it for its designed purpose. It's obviously based on one or more of these readability tests. By applying these tests independently (via this website) a similar outcome is obtained, but the more detailed results provided there confirm that the difference in scores is almost solely due to sentence length; and that is not helped by those semicolons. You definitely deserve a few beers for your tolerance here!  —SMALLJIM  16:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've added some more background from Lest Devon Forgets and I've been tinkering with prose. As it happens, I've edited out all the semicolons. There's probably more tinkering required but it's Christmas Day and I really ought to get to my mother's! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smalljim: I've been tinkering again this morning. Perhaps you could see what you think when you're back online after the festivities. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I must apologise for that unforeseen interruption! You've dealt with my substantive points and the remnants aren't worth pursuing. So, relying on my newly refined knowledge of FAC (partly gleaned from Dank's comments) I'll support now because I believe the article covers all the relevant aspects and the prose passes. The really good news is that I don't intend to follow your war cross FACs around the country ;-)  —SMALLJIM  21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Harry wouldn't consider it stalking if you did, Jim, but in any case I expect he's taken all comments on board for future articles (as we should all try to do at FAC). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I wouldn't mind if you did, Jim. Much as nobody enjoys having their writing dissected, the name of the game is to get the best article we can. Regardless, Ian's right—this is only the second article in the series to make it to FAC and all the feedback gathered here will affect the articles that follow. I deliberately started with articles like this, on smaller less well-known memorials, so that I'll have had all the practice I can get by the time I get to the biggest ones and the the most important of them all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The real reason is that I'm tending to stay around Devon these days. But if you do get an FAC that's short of feedback, I'd be happy to come up with some modest comments if you drop me a line (are we allowed to do that?).  —SMALLJIM  20:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Harry, unless I missed it, looks like we still need the standard source review for formatting/reliability -- you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I'll ping Casliber and Peacemaker67 to see if they have time as I know they're both very experienced reviewers, and I'll list it at WT:FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • No issues with formatting/reliability though I personally use {{sfn}} to point refs to books. - FrB.TG (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:18, 25 December 2016 [3].

Cliff Clinkscales[edit]

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a veteran professional basketball player who has experience in the NBA Development League and the National Basketball League of Canada. He competed at the collegiate level with DePaul and played high school hoops at Shores Christian Academy in Ocala, Florida. He achieved fame from a young age after having his dribbling skills featured on national television, but struggles in high school brought him down. Clinkscales' entire career has been a comeback, so it is quite an interesting read. I have spent weeks on expanding this article, and it was promoted to GA a few days ago. I recently added most of the college section, so that might need some more review. However, it is very detailed in its coverage of the player and uses just about every reliable source available on the subject. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. TempleM (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is pretty comprehensive, but it may need some copyediting to meet FA standards. I have performed some copyediting on the article and it probably needs more. That said, it may be a good idea to trim his college sections a bit, since he didn't really do much at DePaul and scoring 5 points in a game isn't that impressive. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Editorofthewiki: I have removed information about some of his less notable performances at DePaul. Let me know if any more work needs to be done (other than copyediting). TempleM (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Editorofthewiki: By the way, another user Nairspecht has agreed to copy edit the article. TempleM (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello people! JFYI, I am trying to copyedit the whole article, and by the looks of it, it might take few days. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Just for the record, I made some copy edits too, although I'm glad Nairspect is looking at the article in detail. Scribolt (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing I noticed is that the dates in the article are in Month Day Year format, while the references show Day Month Year format. This ought to be reconciled. Also, I think you can remove the copyediting tag, since the last edit was several hours ago. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Editorofthewiki: I will make sure all of the dates are in a constant format. However, the copy editing is still in progress (only a few sections have been thoroughly edited so far). TempleM (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, as TempleM has suggested, we should go ahead with the MDY format. Either way, consistency is key. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nairspecht - You made a few comments during your copy edit of the college section. I have addressed the superfluous statement about "blind passes." Were there any other issues that you need someone else to fix? TempleM (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. I have noted some minor things on my end. I will furnish them here or on the Talk page in a separate section after I have fully gone through the article. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Folks, I have gone through the whole article and provided my thoughts on certain sections. It has been copyedited and checked for sentence errors. Please proceed further. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nairspecht Thank you very much for your work on the article. However, there is one comment that I am confused about in the professional career section. You said, "But, what was he doing before this?" in the 2015-16 season section. Also, once everything is cleared up, is there any chance that you could "support" or "oppose" this featured article nomination? TempleM (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi TempleM! My concern was what was Cliff doing after the Rainmen filed for bankruptcy? Since no one knew that they would resurrect as the Hurricanes, what was Cliff going to do? Did he consider joining another team? What did he do between the time when the Rainmen were fined and the time when he rejoined the Hurricanes? I know this looks trivial, but an FA article-nominee that it is, readers should have this information. What do you think? "Supporting" the article now. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nairspecht I don't think I could find any information about his whereabouts between the seasons. I hope that is fine. TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • One more thing that Editorofthewiki brought up before. If you have time, could you please edit the dates on the references? I am currently busy and don't have the time. TempleM (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I tried doing this, but the wiki threw up some error. I'm not sure what's or why's that. If anyone here has some clarity about this, just holler. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nairspecht - The errors are coming up because you forgot to add a comma to some of the dates. The correct format is "MONTH DAY, YEAR". Is it possible to go back and just add those? TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TonyTheTiger
  • "core team member" sounds like a made up term. Is it reffed somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the main body. I don't see core in the main body. What is this summarizing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed the phrase to just "member." Not sure why "core team member" was added. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think a better title is needed here. Something better than a "member". Core team member sounds made up, yes, and I'm sorry for that. Nairspecht (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was "the top team in Florida" led by any notable player(s)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just went through the source again and I discovered that it wasn't actually the top team in Florida...just the top-ranked team in a tournament. Fixed and thank you for bringing it up. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite his success at Ocala, he was unable to make the national stage because of the low competition level." seems awkward.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reworded it to "Despite his success at Ocala, the low competition level prevented him from drawing national attention." TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Basketball news website, The Hoop Scoop, named Clinkscales the 47th-best high school player in his class as he entered college." HoopScoop? What about ESPN, RIvals, Scout and 247?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is amiss about the tone of this article. Post a message at WP:CBBALL or WP:BBALL. I think it is being reviewed by non-basketball folks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TonyTheTiger - I will get to your other comments later, but could you please elaborate on the issue with the tone of this article? TempleM (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    TonyTheTiger - I have addressed all of your comments other than the one concerning tone. I will see what I (and other editors) can do about that once you elaborate. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never seen an enumeration of interested schools, but not a list of scholarship offers. Typically, the RS list the leading schools who have offered.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to swap in {{cbb link}} for every team so that if the team-season article is created a bot will swap it in.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, "first career triumph" should be "first career start".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also change "one of five" to "the fifth".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use team season articles where appropriate such as 2006–07 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team or 2007–08 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "Valley Vipers" to "Vipers".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove WP:NPOV terms like measly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • TonyTheTiger I have addressed all of our concerns. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done, or if I missed something while addressing your concerns. TempleM (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never heard the phrase "assuming fairness". No need to pipe that link. Just say poor sportsmanship.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which found new ownership" --> "under new ownership"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • link captain.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nix " The Hurricanes were unable to rally from a 15-point deficit to start the fourth quarter."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • TonyTheTiger - Everything you brought up has been fixed. Anything else? TempleM (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • TonyTheTiger - Just pinging in case you didn't see my previous reply. Is there anything else wrong with the article? Otherwise, please "Support" or "Oppose" the nomination. Thank you. TempleM (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I Oppose because the article has too many phrases that don't use lingo that I am familiar with ("enter the Vipers' roster", "cut off from the roster", and ""he reunited with the Erie BayHawks"). I don't really want to spend the time going through each paragraph pointing out odd phrasing. I think there remain some unnecessary details as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment here. I've got no skin in this game, but the above comment puzzles me. What you've said is that is uses phrases that you haven't encountered before. I'm assuming that you mean that you feel that the prose is inconsistent with other basketball articles? Because the simplest interpretation of your criticism (the first) does not seem like a legitimate or actionable issue. I'm sure everyone including the eventual reviewer would appreciate a little more clarity. Thanks. Scribolt (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article uses lingo that is puzzling to anyone who follows the sport of basketball. I have been reading sports pages in the United States for about 45 years. I have tried to offer corrections to a few phrases above, but I don't feel I should have to revise every other sentence. The authors need to get a WP:PR from someone who knows basketball lingo or encyclopedic tone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • TonyTheTiger I agree with some of what you are saying. There are many places where the wording seems strange for a reader who is interested in basketball. However, I think that isn't a fair basis to "oppose" this candidate on. I have also spent a lot of time working with basketball player biographies, and some (but not all) of the phrases you pointed out seem fine to me. What I am saying is that on Wikipedia, people's writing styles tend to vary. I respect your opinion and the help you provided so far, but not following a certain method should not warrant a flat-out "oppose." I will definitely go through the article again and find any weird phrases, but I strongly encourage you to reconsider your "oppose" or leave more comments until you are comfortable with doing so. TempleM (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • TonyTheTiger Scribolt Editorofthewiki Nairspecht: Is anyone willing to comment on this, because it's been a while since I left my last reply? TempleM (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, for what it's worth I agree with you, but I'm the first to admit I am not an expert on FA criteria. Is it readable? Yes. Is it clear? Yes. Is it comprehensive? Well, others here have asked the obvious questions and tracked down additional details. I'm not sure whether you can have 'encyclopedic tone' and use 'basketball lingo' from the sports pages simultaneously. I don't know what the next steps are in absence of more input from Tony. Scribolt (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support after reading through this again and seeing the GAN pass swiftly, I'm happy that this meets the FA criteria. JAGUAR  12:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks like an article which would attract universal readership. And it's covered most of the personality's life. Can we have something more about the guy's personal life, though? Best, Nairspecht (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nairspecht Thank you for supporting. The only real information about his personal life was about his childhood. TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, better leave that out. I was talking about more info about his "relationships", if any. Maybe a sentence or two, if there is anything, that is. Otherwise, this looks sufficient for an FA to me. Best, Nairspecht (talk)
  • I would mention that he played in the Basketball Tournament. Not sure where you would put it on the article though. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editorofthewiki - I added a rather brief section about his time with the Sean Bell All-Stars in the TBT and elsewhere. There's not much to write about it, though. TempleM (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editorofthewiki, Nairspecht, Scribolt - Could anyone please copy edit (and make sure all info is accurate with sources) the personal life section? TempleM (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - As I said, I only made some minor copy edits at the beginning, Nairspecht did a thorough and comprehensive job. But I'm quite happy to support, the article is well structured, reads well and contains relevant and interesting information. Well done everyone. Scribolt (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Ian Rose asked me to have a look at this article, since there were varying opinions here, and this is what I found:

  • "soon after which he joined the BayHawks." To me, this would read cleaner as "and joined the BayHawks soon after."
  • Remove "the" from "led the NCAA Division I"?
  • Early life: The spaced em dashes should be made unspaced (or be converted to en dashes) per the MoS.
  • Freshman: "by adding one point and two assists in 14 minutes against Bowling Green." In this instance, I see Tony's point about odd-sounding language. How about "by scoring one point and recording (maybe find a better word?) two assists"? On the positive side, I'm not having too much trouble reading the rest of the basketball material.
  • How could December 6 have been his first game if he played on November 20?
  • Remove second "the" from "the third-best in the Conference USA"? Also consider doing the same in the next section, and removing the duplicate wikilink.
  • Junior: Bradley is another repeated link that should be removed. It might be worth checking the rest of the article for any more of these duplicate links.
  • Senior: "and frequently appeared on the Blue Demons' starting lineup." "on" → "in".
  • The first four words of "as a point guard he scored a season-best 12 points..." are throwing the structure of the sentence off for me. I don't see why this needs mentioning, since we already know that he plays at point guard.
  • "the team were unable to beat the Wildcats". "were" → "was"?
  • Another "the" in "led the NCAA Division I" could use chopping.
  • Statistics: The note says the stats are from RealGM, but the citation is to ESPN.
  • 2008–2009 season: "Head coach Clay Moser described Clinkscales arrival as a boon to the team". His name should have an apostrophe at the end here.
    • Just noting that I'd remove the s after the apostrophe, since you have a couple similar instances earlier in the article that don't have the extra s. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2013–2014 season: More spaced em dashes need fixing.
  • 2014–2015 season: You have a double cite to ref 73 after one of the quotes.
  • 2015–2016 season: I found "the Rainmen revived itself" to be confusing. How about changing it to a simpler "the Rainmen reformed under new ownership as the Halifax Hurricanes."?
  • I was also confused how his team went from only having two wins to reaching the playoffs and winning the league title. It might be worthwhile to include a summary sentence on the team's regular season performance, to bridge the gap in narrative.
  • The photo caption here needs updating, as it still indicates that Clinkscales won't play any longer for the Hurricanes.
  • 2016–2017 season: Remove the hyphen after "newly".
  • Wikipedia article aren't supposed to have identical section headings, but I see two headings titled Statistics. You could name one College statistics and the other Professional statistics, which seems like the easiest fix.
  • Personal life: Add "was" before "managed".
  • "In the victory against Team No Excuses in 2015". "the" → "a".
  • Can we expand upon the single-sentence paragraph here, or merge it elsewhere? It's the only stubby element of the article, and it stands out.
  • The all caps in the title of ref 88 should be taken out.
  • My last concern is the usage of the New York Post as a substantial source. While I find their sports coverage entertaining to read, it does tend toward the tabloid side of things, and I've seen its usage discouraged in BLPs before. Much of the content is provides here is quotes, which I'm not too worried about. However, I think the Post isn't a great source for "He rarely studied, often skipped classes, and made friends with the wrong people" in particular. I won't oppose over it, but would like to see the source reviewer sign off on the Post's use to make me feel better before I consider supporting. And consider finding another source to support that one claim, which I wouldn't really trust the Post for. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Giants2008 - I will definitely look at these issues very soon. Also, what do you mean by having the "source reviewer sign off on the Post's use"? TempleM (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It means I want the source reviewer to say the Post is an acceptable source for what it is being used for here. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Giants2008 - I have addressed all of the concerns you listed. I have deleted the sentence you were somewhat worried about (with the NY Post). Please take a look at the article again and let me know if anything else needs to be edited. TempleM (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I left a couple of responses above. It looks like, with the removal of that sentence, that the Post isn't being using for anything too controversial; still, I'd like to see whether a source reviewer has any objections before supporting. Otherwise, I'd have no issue with this being considered a support for purposes of moving the FAC along. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Giants2008 I've fixed those minor issues you pointed out. Could you by any chance message a source reviewer you know to look at this article? TempleM (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • I added your article to the review request box on FAC talk. That should entice somebody to have a peek at it. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • Provisional support – My entire batch of comments has now been taken care of. If the source review checks out, the FAC coordinators can go ahead and consider this a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Cliff Clinkscales.png: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify the subject in the infobox is fine. Why are there no EXIF data? Not used anywhere else on the web.
  • File:Jamaica Av 168 Pl PM jeh.jpg: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of life of the subject. Complete EXIF this time that is also coherent with other uploads from the uploader, used in lower resolution elsewhere on the web.
  • File:East FL SR 40 in Downtown Ocala.jpg: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of life of the subject. Complete EXIF, only upload by the uploader. It's been used elsewhere on the web after the upload on Commons.
  • File:On the Lincoln Park Campus of DePaul University in Chicago.JPG: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of life of the subject. Complete EXIF, also coherent with other uploads. Artwork in the background is de minimis, not used at full resolution elsewhere on the web.
  • File:RyanCenter.jpg: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of work(?) of the subject and an event described in the adjacent section. Complete EXIF coherent with other uploads. Has been used by other websites as well, so seems to me.
  • File:Cliff Clinkscales layup.jpg: Free image on Commons, using it to identify an event described in the adjacent section. Complete EXIF, from Flickr, underwent a Flickr review on Commons. Not used elsewhere on the web at full resolution.
  • File:Scotiabank Centre - EXTERIOR - 091914 - Paul Darrow (3).JPG: Free image on Commons and own work, using it to identify a place of work of the subject. Complete EXIF, sole remnant upload by uploader; another upload was deleted for lacking evidence of permission. Not used at full resolution elsewhere on the web.

Images may benefit from ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jo-Jo Eumerus - Would you say that these images are good to go? TempleM (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the question on the first image is more a curiosity one - lack of EXIF data can indicate an image cribbed off another website (and thus a copyright violation), but it isn't necessarily so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for birth date? Source for weight?
  • Dead links (a couple are also tagged)
  • Several of your sources have named authors but the citations are missing them
  • FN5: why are there two websites listed?
  • Be consistent in how website names are formatted
  • Network names shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria - I have fixed the issues with consistency, author names, and italicization. Feel free to go back and make sure. The source for birth date and weight is RealGM, but I am not sure where to put the citation. Also, how do I deal with the dead links without deleting the information that comes from that source? I am not sure what you mean by "two websites listed" as well. TempleM (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're not repeating the info in the article body, you can put the citation in the infobox. For dead links, see if you can find an updated version, either on the site or through an archiving service like archive.org. FN5 has "BlueDemonZone.com. Rivals.com. " - it's not clear to me what you're trying to convey by that, especially since in the other citations Rivals.com is treated as a work while here it's presented as a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked quickly at the two links tagged as dead, and the first (from NJ.com) appears to be a false positive because the link works for me. You can just delete that tag. I had no luck with the NBA.com link, but did find this article with the same title, which may have at least some of the information you need. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nikkimaria + Giants2008 - I have fixed the dead link and two websites issue. TempleM (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Still not seeing a citation for birthdate or weight. Some inconsistencies remain in formatting - for example, FNs 7 and 18 cite the same website but only one of them italicizes it. Network names are still being italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nikkimaria - I have added citations for birthdate and weight in the intro paragraph. I think I have cleared up all of the formatting issues (with network names as well). If there are still formatting issues, could you please point out the specifics? TempleM (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • The basic issue is, similar citations should look similar. So we look at FN8, which cites a website, and that website name is not italicized. But then we look at FN11, which also cites a website, and there that website name is italicized. Why the difference? What you should do is decide which parameters will hold which information, and then go through and make sure that decision is consistently applied - that will result in more consistent formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Nikkimaria - Thank you for the explanation. I have gone through the citations again and made the necessary changes. Please let me know if everything looks fine or not. If not, please give me specific examples of citations that need to be fixed. TempleM (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Still some issues of this type - FNs 12 and 13 are different, FN51 is missing italics, FN100 has excess italics... Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Nikkimaria - I have fixed the first two issues, but I am not sure what you mean by "excess italics." Please let me know ASAP. TempleM (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Also Nikkimaria, Giants above asked about using the New York Post as a source, and if it would be reliable enough. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giants: do you have examples of BLP-related discussions for that source? The two articles seem a bit fawning but as you note the material isn't too controversial, and it looks like RSN discussions have been mixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most contentious part that came from the Post article has already been removed, so that took care of my primary concern for this article. I'd swear I've seen editors say that it wasn't the greatest source for BLPs and tending to agree, but can't remember where. As long as you think it's okay, I'm fine with it. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that it isn't the greatest source, but I think it's sufficient for what it's being used for here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2016 [4].

Operation Infinite Reach[edit]

Nominator(s): GABgab 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first-ever American attack against al-Qaeda: the Clinton Administration's August 20, 1998, cruise missile strikes against bin Laden's Afghan bases and a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons for militants. This GA, which incorporates international journalism, academic and popular literature, and government reports, has already received a peer review. I hope you find this interesting! GABgab 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Operation_Infinite_Reach.jpg: I don't see this image on the given source page, and the only Sudanese photos there are credited to a private company. Do you have a source to support the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: Upon further inspection, it doesn't appear that the photo was correctly attributed by its uploader (indeed, it's not on the given site); I've removed it and replaced it with a separate photo. I've also taken the liberty to upload a new, public-domain version in place of the old one. Thank you for pointing this out. GABgab 00:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Hi GAB, welcome to FAC.
  • First up: See WP:INTEXT. All quotes need to be attributed to whoever said them, with a short (sometimes one-word) description of the author (such as "historian") at the first mention of that author. Also, there are too many quotes for FAC; reword at least two-thirds of them. Keep the quotes that are memorable, or the quotes that have some subtle or precise meaning that might be lost in any paraphrase. Also lose the quote marks in almost all cases where you're not actually quoting someone. (For instance, I'd paraphrase "green light" as approval, regardless of whether someone said "green light".) - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the advice, Dank. I'm in the process of reworking the quotes right now. GABgab 22:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I know it's annoying, but I'm 99% sure this is a standard request at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I understand; in hindsight, I am a bit quote-heavy in my writing, so this is a good time to kick the habit GABgab 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Dank: I have removed a large number of quotes - I'd appreciate any other suggestions you might have to offer. Thanks, GABgab 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's a lot of work, and looking quickly, you did a spectacular job with it. It should be much easier to get this through FAC now. Unfortunately, I'm not going to have time to review. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you - I made a trip to the library and looked around on Proquest, and I should be able to add a final batch of books and news reports this weekend. After that, I think I'll be happy with it GABgab 20:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
  • This appears to be a case of wp:overcite: could the citations be consolidated, or at least put to the end of the sentence?
At about 01:30 EDT (17:30 GMT),[1] two American warships in the Red Sea[2] fired thirteen missiles[3] into Sudan.

References

  1. ^ "U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan". CNN. August 21, 1998. Retrieved 17 August 2016.
  2. ^ Younge, Gary (August 22, 1998). "We are in a new ball game, says Pentagon". The Guardian.
  3. ^ Wright 2006, p. 282.
  • The sections are quite long. Has there been any thought given to breaking up some of them into subsections? I.e. the Aftermath section could be subdivided into "Reactions in the West"; "Reactions in the Arab world", etc. Same could be perhaps done to the the factory attack section and some others. I think this would improve readability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll work on the overcite. I think the aftermath section could be easily broken up by region, and the Al-Shifa section could be split into 2 on the attack and the subsequent controversy. GABgab 01:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken up the Al-Shifa section into two separate sections on the attack and the controversy; I've also dealt with the aftermath section, as recommended. GABgab 22:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, the U.S. reaction section could do with some extra meat on its bones; I'll see what I can do to augment that part. GABgab 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support (Harry Mitchell)

  • Nice chunky background section; I like that. It nicely sets the scene.
  • I note that Bin Laden isn't linked in the background section. My general rule with linking (especially for key subjects) is to link once in the lead and once in the body, but it's up to you.
  • "Turki demanded that the Taliban either expel bin Laden from their country or hand him over to the Saudis, insisting that removing bin Laden from Afghanistan was the price of cordial relations with the Kingdom". This is the first mention of Afghanistan in the body—perhaps put it earlier in the sentence so we know what "their country" is referring to.
  • Is it really necessary to link all the job titles in the sentence that starts "That day, Clinton started meeting with his "Small Group""?
  • "On August 11, according to the 9/11 Commission Report," Is the information following this disputed? If not, is it necessary to specify its origin? There are quite a few occurrences of this phrase in the article
  • "slam dunk," I know this is common in American writing but our MoS frowns on it, see MOS:LQ.
  • "At 7:30 PM local time" What is the local timezone, and can we have a conversion to UTC/GMT like we do for the preceding EDT time?
  • "American military personnel based in Saudi Arabia.[71][72]" isn't the link on "based" a bit of an easter egg?
  • Would the "Al-Shifa controversy" work better as a subsection of the "Al-Shifa plant attack" section, rather than as a section in its own right?
  • The first paragraph of the "Attack on Afghan camps" section in particular feels very cluttered with references; are they all really necessary?
  • Perhaps link salvo? I'm not sure it's a common term.
  • Watch out for more easter egg links; I removed one besides the one mentioned above, the link to flag desecration is another (and is also unlikely to aid the reader's understanding)
  • Were there any longer-term impacts on the forces involved or US politics? See the bottom of British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War for an example. It might be that the answer is no, especially given that this is only a few years before 9/11 and that's fine, but you know the source material.

All in all a nice, well-rounded article that you've obviously put a lot of work into. I can't see any major stumbling blocks to promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • @HJ Mitchell: I've done most of the fixes you've suggested - I'll handle the last ones soon. Regarding the long-term impacts, I think the true significance of Op. Infinite Reach was that there really weren't any; Bin Laden survived, of course. The later sections do go on to mention how the strikes enhanced his public image in the Muslim world as an anti-American champion, and how the strikes' failure spurred the UAV program. Not to mention the fascinating tidbit from the PDB, and that the Tomahawks may have helped out Pakistan and China. Regarding the Al-Shifa section, I really don't know, since it looks rather bulky with the two sections combined. Thanks for all your help, GABgab 01:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're welcome. I'm happy with your responses and the tweaks you've made so I see no reason not to support. Very impressive work; hopefully this will be your first of many FAs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment -- I made minor adjustments to section headings for easier navigation, but there's not much else I can see that needs improvement. Very well researched article and an interesting read. One suggestion would be to highlight "propaganda victory" (mentioned in the infobox) but turning it into its own subsection in the Aftermath section. This way people who read the infobox can easily find the material to learn more. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @K.e.coffman: I've given that a shot - please tell me what you think. GABgab 19:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a very nicely put together article, great work! The only thing I spot is a harv error in one of the footnotes. I also wonder about the usefulness of the EMPTA molecular model - it doesn't really seem to illustrate anything pertinent. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Parsecboy: Sure thing - I've removed the model. Please forgive me for being dense, but could you please point me to the footnote issue so I can fix it? Thanks, GABgab 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was this - you need a script to see the harv errors (see here) - sometimes I forget that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha! Thanks for the script, it should prove helpful in the future. GABgab 21:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • Unless I missed it, we need the usual source review for formatting and reliability that we ask for in every FAC.
  • Also, as this will be your first FA if promoted, GAB, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

Both the above can be requested at the top of WT:FAC unless one or two of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really impressive article. I'm not sure how this works but here are a few suggestions:
Lead
  1. The lead should not have any references. Since the lead only summarizes information in the article, there is no need to have references there because they should be in the article.
  2. The lead is a bit too long IMO. Maybe trim it down a little
  3. In the lead, I recommend changing "The U.S. suspected that the Sudanese Al-Shifa plant was linked to" to "The U.S. suspected the Sudanese Al-Shifa plant was linked to"
General comment
  1. there seems to be a lot of that's throughout. Recommend reviewing them and see if it sounds better with or without them
  2. There seem to be a lot of things in quotes for emphasis. I'm not sure these are all needed such as "was largely "human."" which appears a couple sections above the Al-Shifa plant attack section.

I hope these little things help. Sorry I didn't have the time or experience in this process to do a better review. Great job so far though. Mr. Nosferatu (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments - I've done what copyediting I could. GABgab 14:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnotes are consistently formatted.
  • All sources seem reliable.
  • Suggest linking publication names, especially those that might not be commonly known (I had to look up U.S. News & World Report, for example); the references are there to help the reader track the information down, after all.
  • Speaking of U.S. News & World Report, shouldn't the title be italicised?
  • If you're not going to link publications (I really think you should, but it's not compulsory), you need to be consistent and unlink footnotes 72, 74, and 76
  • ISBN for Reeve is incorrect (appears to be a copy/paste error)
  • Check the ISBN for Temple-Raston (doesn't work on Google Books but I found the book by the title)
  • Are you sure The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States should be italicised? Is that the work or the publisher?
  • No other issues found. Will return later to do spotchecks.
Hi Harry, do you think you can have a go at that spotcheck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Besides some annoying issues with the accessdates not showing up, I think I've resolved all issues. Thanks, GABgab 17:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GAB, good to see you back; hope your break was productive. I'm satisfied that you've resolved all the quibbles above. @Ian Rose: I'll bump the spot check up my to-do list. I'll try to get to it this week but obviously the weekend is Christmas so it might end up being next week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: I checked a majority of the online sources (mainly news publications) and found no problems with close paraphrasing; it confirmed my impression that his is a very well put-together article. I found only one verification issue: I couldn't verify "The UN office in Jalalabad was burned and looted by a mob" or "in Karachi, thousands burned effigies of Clinton" from reference number 9 (the LA Times). @GeneralizationsAreBad and Ian Rose: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: It indeed seemed like a problem when I checked on this, but it turns out that the pertinent information is actually on the second page of the same LA Times news article. I hope that clears things up. Best, GABgab 17:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up ping for Ian Rose. GABgab 22:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm. I missed the second page; my apologies. It does indeed support that information. I'm more than happy to renew my support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 25 December 2016 (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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2016 [5].

Belgium national football team[edit]

Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the joint 10th oldest national association football team worldwide, a team that achieved an Olympic gold medal and topped the FIFA World Rankings. The needed attention has been paid to the description of all of the team's aspects throughout its long history, and to illustration with suitable images. In a prior FAC, it received plenty of positive feedback, but ultimately several issues related to prose and referencing came up. In response, intense efforts further smoothened the text and lifted the references to a very high standard. I feel confident that this article is FA-worthy now, but of course, any suggestions to further fine-tune its text or lay-out will always be welcome. Thank you for your comments! Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good. Support. A few points:

Resolved
  • "longstanding"—I think that's hyphenated in both US and UK English.
For a while it stood there hyphenated, but one moment I saw it in one word in another—featured—article and changed it. The online Oxford dictionary helped me out; you are right. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its supporters' group is named 1895"—I paused on that, and didn't want to. Maybe italicise the name, or put it in quotes? And would you consider "its support group ..."?
I received an objection against italicising it, as this might imply the name is to be italicised always. Then I would opt for quotes. I would not favour "support group"; either this might suggest that the members share a common burden (like support groups for diseases), either that they purely finance the team. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dislike raggle-taggle flagicons in infoboxes (bad enough when they're vertically aligned); the countries are already named. And on that point, the country-name pipes that go to specific sections or offspring articles are OK, but I see "Brussels" and "Belgium" and "London" and "England" just plain-linked, which is not encouraged. Can you unlink or find specific links? Just to be tiddly, please consider lowercase F in two places: "First in 1930". Just slightly smoother for readers to connect them better with the preceding.
True, overlinking is to be avoided; I will unlink these then. In order to apply lowercase, the template should be changed. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's on the verge of being over-reftagged. They are all functionally different, I guess, and not consecutively repeated. Any opportunity to trim would be welcome; e.g. "In the three 1920s Summer Olympics, they achieved fair results (four wins in seven games), and played their first intercontinental match, against Argentina.[28][29][30]" ... does that need three separate refs? It's hardly contentious.
Good remark—I must agree. I counted 16 reference clusters with at least three references. In a couple of them I can cut down the amount without losing the proof for the mentioned facts, so you can expect this soon. I agree that at least any contentious material should be sourced, but I find that I should also strive to providing a source for any fact—except for the very commonly accepted facts. Kareldorado (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone further in because I got bored not being able to find glitches. :-) Must remember your username. Tony (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(reacting to just 1 point) I certainly agree about the flagicons, although it seems to be the de facto standard on all national footbal team articles to display the biggest win / loss in that way (even on the Featured Articles). Their 'chaotic display' and small relevance in an infobox (in my opinion) led me to gain some consensus to remove the parameters from that template in the past, although that was later undone. Instead of removing it, perhaps we can try launching a tidier way by removing the flagicons on this and other Featured Articles, and then try getting consensus to do it on all NFT articles. –Sygmoral (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the feedback and your exercises on better writing. Very soon I will reply to the points you came up with. Even though you stopped scanning I do invite you to keep going, since you brought up a couple of new things and are likely to find more points no one else would retrieve. The prose should be vivid enough to keep you reading. :-) Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sygmoral, good idea, thanks. Tony (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having positively reviewed this on previous occasions, I still consider this an examplary article and a canon for other articles to follow. Excellent piece of work and an encyclopaedic standard. Good work. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few further and minor issues

Resolved
  • "Twenty days later, the football boards of both countries, and five other nations, founded FIFA." Slight impression that the second comma makes it football boards of both countries, and the governments of five other nations. Can it be removed? And why not remove the third comma as well, in such a short sentence? Also, two plus five is seven. Later: "The day before the tournament began, the Belgian, French and Italian football boards founded UEFA."
Here and there, copy-editors added commas to make the text feel more balanced... however, unexpected word orders and ambiguity are the dangers that may pop up then. Once upon a time I had written "Belgium and France were among the seven founding fathers", which I changed because too narrative. I will rephrase this FIFA sentence and the UEFA sentence. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1912, UBSSA began governing football only and". Consider: "From 1912, UBSSA governed football only and".
Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In between," could be a little more natural with a back reference: "Between these,"
Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the 125th FIFA-ranked team of Armenia"—in English, where it feels natural, prefer the 's or adjective grammar over post-noun "of X": "the 125th FIFA-ranked Armenian team". Not available in Dutch, of course.
This is available in Dutch as well, but we would rather use the first way to avoid a long concatenation of adjectives I think. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still better as a bunch of adjectives. Tony (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belgium's second-ever place"
Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belgium could not confirm their role as outsider at the European Championship with a quarter-final exit"—I don't get it (I'm not a football person, though).
Very good point. Without more context it is quite normal for outsiders not to reach semi-finals. "Shadow favourites" would be more appropriate than "outsiders" (to me "shadow favourites" expresses somewhat higher expectations), and it will make even more sense when I emphasise that the opponents were to be considered as underdogs. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the concept of "shadow favourites" only exists in Dutch, oh well. Kareldorado (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "christened"—very christian. If the equivalent word was used, and it's not WP's narrative choice, OK.
This is a synonym another editor introduced. Since most countries with English as first language have a long Christian background, I thought this word might have gained a neutral meaning in English already and did not revert it. Anyway, I can imagine that many readers (especially those with another religious background) find this word looking a bit weird in this context. I will search a neutral alternative instead. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or those who think religions are manipulative lies. Tony (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not forget ourselves. Kareldorado (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable for a second-language speaker. Tony (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in fact even third-language speaker, after French. :D Well, your copyediting exercises and the input of native-English-speaking copyeditors surely helped me a lot! Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Nought else to add really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I've followed the evolution of this article with great enthusiasm. Karel has done an excellent job. Nonetheless, I still have a critical eye for a few points that I think can be addressed for this FA review prior to supporting the nomination.
Resolved
  1. The "Nickname and Logo" section in Team Image seems a bit oddly placed. I'd recommend placing it into the "kit" section. I am also a bit confused by the "Logo". The nickname information was already mentioned in the "kit" section.
  2. I recommend separating the "supporters" section outside of the Team Image, as is done in the Scotland national football team and Peru national football team articles.
Those are my two recommendations. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marshal, once more I thank you for your input. The points you bring up here are constructive ideas, but I cannot totally agree with both, and will explain why. Logically, the distinction should be made between (1) what the players wear, (2) what image is hung up from them (something what is basically done by the media, the RBFA and the players themselves) and (3) the supporters. The image we have from the supporters is not the image from the player group, so I agree to set the supporters apart as distinct chapter. The nickname and logo are loosely and partially related to what the players wear, but none of both are 'part' of the kit. I think there is nothing really confusing in the fact that they have a logo, but therefore it is important to realise that the logo is something different than the badge from the team kit. Also for this reason I want to keep (1) and (2) strictly apart. However, I must agree that there is some unneeded overlap; we do not have to tell 10 times that the nickname Red Devils refers to the traditional red jerseys. Therefore, I will omit this explanation from the Kit sect and preserve it for the Nickname and Logo subsect. I am keen on your feedback once I am finished with it. Kareldorado (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Best regards, Kareldorado (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, are you satisfied with the adaptations? Kareldorado (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarshalN20, I considered the issues you came up with as 'resolved' (and therefore stacked them in the Resolved box just above), but could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose? Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - While I still disagree with some aspects of the article, it's important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is a work in progress. The current state of the article is, regardless of my minor disagreements, certainly of featured quality.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marshal. It is OK to disagree here and there; I hope that later on we can keep the discussions ongoing to keep on striving for perfection. Thanks for the useful sources you indicated me, not in the least Henshaw's work. Happy editing, Kareldorado (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

  • I didn't see an image licensing review above, not a source review for formatting and reliability -- you can request those at the top of WT:FAC.
  • Housekeeping: we had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing in the previous nom and there appeared to be no major concerns so I don't think we need repeat that here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

Hi Kareldorado, sorry for being so late with my comments. Although the article looks better than at FAC1, I'm still not convinced it meets FA. My comments, starting with the lead:

Resolved
  • I've argued this before and have not seen any reason to change my mind: the lead image is not a good image to convey the concept visually. A football team article should show 11 players, not a badge for its association. The badge should be reserved for the association's article. I see that Peru national football team, of FA status, has the same problem. Not a reason to keep repeating the error, I'd say. The image you have down in the Kit section makes a great lead image, as this is the most successful team as well.
This discussion is obsolete, and always ends in the association badge being regarded as acceptable. See Marshal's comments below. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment on the badge. Edwin, it seems that some clarification is needed so that your concern over the badge can finally be put to rest. First, placing the badge in the Infobox is a standard practice for association football team articles (see FC Barcelona) and sports teams in general (see Los Angeles Lakers). Second, it is important to keep in mind that the "national" football teams do not actually belong to the nation; these teams belong to the associations (or federations) that organize them. So, in the case of the Peru national football team, the team does not belong to the country of Peru, but rather to the Peruvian Football Federation. I hope that this clears up the matter. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is widely accepted, then I won't make a further issue out of it. I will always think it is a poor way to illustrate a team, but forever hold my breath. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you are critical on this one, Edwin, but there is no easy solution. The problem is that national teams usually lack a perfectly appropriate illustration for the team as a whole, contrary to club teams. A team picture just deals with one moment in time. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the paragraphs in the lead lack focus: the results are mentioned in all 3 paragraphs. They should be combined, all in the first: gold medal at Olympics, 2nd place 1980, 3rd in 1972, 4th in 1986. And that they topped the FIFA ranking between Nov 2015 and March 2016.
I found the lead pleasant to read, but have to admit Manchester City's lead (also FA) looks more straightforward than the current of Belgium's NFT or, for instance, that of the Peru national football team (no offense, Marshal). I have tried to rewrite it, please tell me how you like this:

The Belgian national football team has officially represented Belgium in association football since their maiden match in 1904. The Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) is its supervising body; at the global level Belgium's team is governed by FIFA, at the continental level by UEFA. Most of their home games are played at the King Baudouin Stadium in Brussels.

Periods of regular Belgian representation at highest international level, from 1920 to 1938, and 1970 to 2002, have alternated with mostly unsuccessful qualification rounds. From the quadrennial major football competitions, Belgium's national team has participated at the end stages of twelve FIFA World Cups, five UEFA European Football Championships, and three Olympic football tournaments. The most notorious results were their Olympic gold medal in 1920, ending as European vice-champions in 1980 and their fourth position at the 1986 World Cup. Other notable performances were topping the FIFA World Rankings (from November 2015 to March 2016), and the wins against four reigning world champions: West Germany, Brazil, Argentina and France. As of 2016, Belgium competes in the 2018 World Cup qualifiers.

The 1960s and early 1970s were the period of Paul Van Himst, the most-praised Belgian footballer of the 20th century. After his national player career, Belgium experienced two golden ages with many gifted players. Belgium has long-standing football rivalries with its Dutch and French counterparts, having played both teams nearly every year from 1905 to 1967. The squad has been known as the Red Devils since 1906; its fan club is named "1895".

Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • the first paragraph has info that I think belongs elsewhere: "The squad is under the global jurisdiction of FIFA and is governed in Europe by UEFA—both of which were co-founded by the Belgian team's supervising body, the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA)". This would be appropriate in the RBFA's first paragraph, but not the team's. I'd move it down. Same for the stadium they play in. Okay in lead, but not in first paragraph.
I agree about that I over-emphasised the RBFA, but disagree about the stadium. Their stadium is their "playground", ever since 1930. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belgium's national team have .." --> The opening sentence uses the singular for team ("has officially represented") but here you use plural.
I agree why you disagree. I'd opt for singular to be consequent. See my newer version above. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supporters' group" --> fan club?
Check! See my newer version above. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current coach should be mentioned in the lead, methinks
Ok, but would it fit better in paragraph 1 or 3? Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to this point, I think mentioning him is not absolutely necessary since it does not add anything to the infobox at the right. Of course, some facts from the infobox are mentioned in the lead as well, but these are wrapped up in some additional information or help making the lead narrative. Kareldorado (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about world Cup 2018 qualification should be in the lead as well
Ok, but would it fit better in paragraph 2 or 3? Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping Marshal's advice in mind that the third chapter can help to 'bring the past to the present', I would mention this in the third part. Kareldorado (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

The rest of the article: the structure doesn't work for me. Rivalries is closely connected to the history, but are far apart. Management before home stadium is questionable. The Actions section (odd header) is misplaced and too long compared to other sections, given its relative weight.

Changing the structure always has it advantages and disadvantages. Somehow, every section is related to the History section, but they cannot all come directly after it. At this moment, Management does not stand before Home stadium. Do you suggest that Management would come first? Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that the current Actions section is misplaced is unfortunate to me. However, you are right that we should grab every opportunity to downsize it. As alternative titles I suggest "Social actions", or, maybe even better "Side activities". Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can easily cut "In 2008, hope surged when Belgium's U-23 won fourth place at the Olympics in Beijing; several of these Olympians later appeared on the senior team." It's not really tightly connected to supporters."
Not really, but it gives the background of why popularity rose again. However, you are right that the section is to be trimmed further, and the interested reader will have read higher in the article that a promising generation came up. Good remark, I will omit it. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref spot check: ref#90 has slightly different years than you have + no reference to Umbro: "Sinds in 1974 kledingsponsors het truitje van de landenteams mochten sieren, speelden de Rode Duivels met Adidas (1974-80), Admiral (1980-1982), Adidas (1982-90), ­Diadora (1990-98), Nike (1998-2010) en Burrda (2010-14)."
Good remark. I cannot be more specific than saying they played with Umbro in 1970, so it should be more vague. Part of the rationale of the slightly different years is already given in a footnote, I should still add a proof that they didn't play with Admiral in 1980. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do more later. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I read through the article and must say that I am very impressed by it. Having made several copy-edits, I have only a few comments to make.

Resolved
  • This may just be me, but I prefer the current lead to the one proposed here. Some of the language in the lead here doesn't strike me as FA-level prose; for example, a "notorious" period of play sounds like those Belgium teams had a lot of unlikeable players, not that they were successful. Also, I wouldn't say a whole period belonged to one player, as this lead implies. Even Messi has a whole team of talented players with him.
  • While reading the article body, I encountered a couple of wikilinks that repeated as I went along. You only need one wikilink per subject in the body (tables excepted). I removed a couple for you, but it may be worth checking to see if there are any more.
I reduced them already considerably. I thought that for now it would be practical that some are repeated if certain concepts come back again, say, twenty times. However, if you strongly oppose against the rehearsal of wikilinks in the prose I am willing to remove the doubles. Kareldorado (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All caps in the titles of references 8, 33, 35, 82, 83, 85, 97, 124, and 126 should be toned down per the Manual of Style. The source reviewer will mention this anyway, so you may as well take care of it now.
  • Refs 166 and 177 are tagged as dead links.
They are tagged as dead links, but strangely enough they both still link to the desired information. When is it tagged as 'dead'? Kareldorado (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After checking both references, I can confirm that you were absolutely right. They do still work properly. It looks like a bot added the tag in early September. From my experience, the bot has usually been correct when tagging dead links, but this shows that it's worthwhile to click on the references just in case. I took the liberty of removing the tags for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If these issues are resolved, I'm inclined to support FA status for the article, as it was a great read throughout. Well, not the part about the 2014 World Cup round of 16 game, but then we shouldn't have kept it tied that long anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive remarks. I agree the prosaic level of the current lead is higher than the proposed one, however, Edwin did bring up some relevant concerns. I'll start with slight modifications. This weekend, I will try to implement your proposed changes. As a small consolation about the particular sentence, I make you remember that the first ever US–Belgium encounter ended in a dry 3–0 win. :) Kareldorado (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I'll accept the explanation provided for the repeated wikilinks, in the interest of expediting the FAC. While I'd still prefer to see some of them cut, the article is strong enough overall that I won't prevent one nit-picky issue from further delaying my support. I hope to see more of your work at FAC in the future, if the level of this article is any indication. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, Giants. You did make a constructive remark with regard to overlinking. I'll run through the links soon, allow double links for very important concepts, and try to avoid multiple linking and double links for less important concepts. Kareldorado (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

Resolved

Unfortunately there are some problems with image usage in this article, I fixed several of them, these 3 points should be OK now:

  • PD-old-70 shouldn't be used, when the author is unknown and may have lived 70 years ago. Templates for anon/unknown authors can be used instead for countries, where such laws for unknown authors exist. I have changed several images to anon-tags (see today's Commons:Special:Contributions/GermanJoe).
  • Images from online sources should include an active direct link to the source image, or to the content page where the source image is embedded.
  • File:Belgium supporters' club 1895.gif is currently at FFD, but should be OK (either fair-use on en-Wiki or free on Commons).

However, a few images cannot be used in their current form or need further checking:

These 4 images should be replaced or removed, if the mentioned problems cannot be resolved otherwise (all other not listed images are checked and OK). They could always be re-inserted, if these issues can be fixed later. The management portraits would be nice to have, but none of the affected images seems really essential to understand the article. GermanJoe (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GermanJoe, a genuine "thank you" for thoroughly checking the appropriateness of the images! We are a big step further now. Of course it is a bit a pity that not all of the images could stay, however, dura lex sed lex, and these images are not vital to the article. Some can be replaced by other images. I will see what I can suggest as alternatives. Kareldorado (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe, as you might have noticed I wiped out the four problematic images and inserted three 'new' ones: the illustration at subsect Side Activities, the alternative picture of Martínez, and the Euro 1980 final line-ups at subsect UEFA European Championship. Do you see any image issues remaining, or do you consider all images to be OK now? Kareldorado (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kareldorado, all new images are usable and correctly licensed. Thanks for these fixes, I have updated the status above - all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN15, 30, 31, 34, 39, 145, 224: page?
FN15&153: the source with missing page was redundant, so I dropped it.
FN30&31: problematic. I don't have access to the book in ref 30 now. The fact that this quote is written in the book with ref 30 (Guldemont, 1978) is given in ref 31. At the time I read that magazine, I thought the page number of the article would not be that important. For now, I substituted this sentence with another sentence.
FN34: the source lacks numbers. Can I point to the particular (numberless) Google Book page somehow, you think?
FN39: same as FN34
FN145: the entire book deals about this.
FN224: this source was used in the Euro 2000 Wikipedia article, but without page number, so I'll drop it. Kareldorado (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're citing sources that lack pagination, you should provide some other means of narrowing down where in the book we should look for this information - for example, using section name or number. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kareldorado (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN59, 174, 201: newspaper name should be italicized
Ok, I corrected this. Kareldorado (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think FN80 is necessary
The colours of the Belgian may seem quite obvious... for now I will leave it, but if someone else also objects I will drop it. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does FN101 have a location when the other newspapers do not?
No idea. Someone else introduced this reference, but I don't see the need of mentioning the location and therefore dropped it now. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of FN118 here seems to be OR - it demonstrates that an album by that title exists, not that it has any relation to the subject being discussed
This relation seems extremely plausible, but I cannot find a source demonstrating this. Because of this (and also because it is a minor side remark) I will drop this part. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Website names are sometimes being italicized, sometimes not
This is not intentional, but purely depends on whether Wikipedia's template italicises that type of source (newspaper/magazine/"regular" website/...) Kareldorado (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Lulu.com is a self-publisher what makes McColl a high-quality reliable source?
Good remark. I just replaced this reference and the one mentioned just after it by a reference to a catalog from the Belgian National Archives, which refers to its own source. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of your Google Books links are broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed them. Kareldorado (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this thorough review, Nikkimaria. According to Ian Rose's comment above, a spotcheck was not needed again following the one in the previous nomination. Kareldorado (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I finished with answering your remarks, Nikkimaria. Feedback would be very welcome. Kareldorado (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Before we promote this, I just want to check with Nikkimaria that the changes to the sources are OK. Also, did we check whether Edwininlondon was happy with the changes made? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine by me. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2016 [6].

Tidus[edit]

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Tidus the male main character from the 2001 video game Final Fantasy X as well as a playable one in other crossover titles. I originally didn't make this article Good but I expanded some parts with out-of-universe information to the point a former user congratulated me. Since my English is not very good, I've had this article copy-edited by a member from the Guild of Copy Editors. The article's design is based on the recent FA Final Fantasy character Lightning and my first FA, Allen Walker. I'll try to live up to all of users' demands to make it FA. Regards. Tintor2 (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would like to invite all the users who helped in the article's last peer review. User:Aoba47, 凰兰时罗, User:Jaguar, User:ProtoDrake, Freikorp.Tintor2 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • "Shortly after his arrival, he meets the fledgling summoner Yuna and her guardians" - I am a bit confused on what 'fledgling' means in this context
  • "Both actors enjoyed voicing the character, and Morita also did the motion capture" - awkward, try Morita also 'performed the motion capture
  • "The character has been generally well-received by video-game reviewers" - no need for the hyphen in 'video games'. Also, I would recommend changing "reviewers" to "critics"
  • "overcoming initial flaws in him" - awkward, try ability to overcome personal flaws
  • "However, critics and fans were divided on..." - here I would recommend changing this to reviewers
  • "Due to a negative response from female staff members, the scene was revised several times" - this would read better as The scene was revised several times due to a negative response from female staff members
  • " As the journey continues Tidus, losing hope that he will return home," - comma needed in between "continues" and "Tidus"
  • "The 1UP.com staff initially described Tidus as the "good kind of jock"" - no need for 'the'

This is impressive work. Those were all of the minor issues I found during my first read through. I'll take another look at it later. JAGUAR  17:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, thanks for the feedback @Jaguar:.Tintor2 (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've read through it again and I couldn't find any issues worthy enough for raising here, so I'll support this. Good work! JAGUAR  12:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Support: All of my concerns have been addressed during the peer review, and the copy-edit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors have improved the article as well. Great job with the article! Good luck with getting it promoted. Reading this was definitely a trip down memory lane. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Support: Any concerns I might have had have been addressed by other editors, including the matter concerning sourcing the pronunciation of the character's name. It's not just a good article, it's a great article. Hope it makes it all the way to promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Freikorp[edit]

Very close to supporting.

In the lead 'blitzball' is piped to "Minigames of Final Fantasy", which redirects to Recurring elements in the Final Fantasy series, which doesn't mention blitzball at all. Same problem with 'summoner' being piped to "Final Fantasy character classes", which again redirects to 'Recurring elements'.
"Nojima saw a film" - you don't know which film do you? This would be interesting.
"Tidus action figures and jewelry have been produced." This sounds too succinct to me. How about expanding the sentence to say he is a popular cosplay character, and action figures and jewellery of him have been produced.
"Tidus figures prominently" - are you sure 'figures' is the right word here?
"reveals that he is living in Besaid with Yuna as an illusion of Tidus as a boss character appears." You've lost me. He's living as an illusion of himself? What does the boss character have to do with this? The fact that it's mentioned just leaves me wanting to know who the boss is and what why it's attacking.
"Although fans objected" - I think you could word this better. I don't think it's clear to the reader why they are objecting. How about something along the lines of "Fans criticised the laughter as sounding too forced"

Fantastic work on the article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp:Tried to fix that. About the film, Nojima never mentions it but I'm pretty sure it's The Sixth Sense. Thanks for the feedback.Tintor2 (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I made a few minor grammatical changes. My edits can be seen here. Freikorp (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I also realized just yet I forgot to put blitzball as a fictional sport.Tintor2 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Tidus.png: Non-free image in infobox. Using it to illustrate the character in question seems fine to me, both in terms of pertinence and WP:NFCC. Pretty unlikely that a free image would exist. Somewhat vague non-free use rationale that could use improvement.
  • File:JamesArnoldTaylor.jpg: Free image on Commons. Plausible EXIF, from Flickr, certified by the Flickrreviewbot. The Flickr uploader sure has a very large amount of different images. Used on other websites in lower resolution. Image shows the voice actor, whose performance is discussed in the caption and adjacent section.
  • File:Tidus and Luna FFX Cosplay - MCM Comic Con 2016 (27398643405).jpg: Free image on Commons. Plausible EXIF, from Flickr, certified by the Flickrreviewbot. The Flickr uploader has uploaded other images along the same theme. Used on other websites in lower resolution. Image shows cosplayers, which appear to be a common form of reception of Tidus and is discussed in the adjacent section.

Images may benefit from ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I expanded Tidus' non-free's rationale, but I remember already adding alt to all the images. For some reason, they never show up.Tintor2 (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Also, increased the alts and non-free rationale. @Jo-Jo Eumerus:.Tintor2 (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is OK now from an image perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Judgesurreal777[edit]

  • "Tidus' character was designed by Tetsuya Nomura with a cheerful appearance (in contrast to previous Final Fantasy protagonists), and scenario writer Kazushige Nojima wanted to expand the relationship between the player and the character through the story." - There is something wrong with this sentence; it is like two very different points were mashed together into one sentence. Try a semi-colon or separate sentences.
  • "Tidus is voiced primarily by Masakazu Morita in Japanese and James Arnold Taylor in English. Both actors enjoyed voicing the character, and Morita also performed the motion capture." - Again, not quite right. The part about Morita doing motion capture should be put with the the voiceover, as of now it kinda dangles as its own thought.
  • It should be something like "personal flaws within himself, ", what is there doesn't make sense.
  • In the Creation Section, what kind of "concern" should be made clearer, and that the designer is referring to the traditional or historic relationship between gamer and character should also be made clearer. Also, what about it does the designer want to make different or better?
  • "This connection allows the player to advance Tidus' first-person narration of most of Final Fantasy X" - I honestly don't know what this means "Advance the narration?" Is it trying to say that Tidus moves the plot forward by discovering information along with the character? If so say that.
  • "a rough scenario" - like a rough draft? A short description? Or a scenario, like how Tidus would act in a situation? Clarify.
  • Let's try those fixes for now, the content is there it just needs to be clearer. Great job pushing this article! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. However, I can't one or two of the issues you mentioned. Could you take a good look?Tintor2 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taken a closer look and fixed other parts you mentioned. Is this better, @Judgesurreal777:.Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, I will take one more sweep tomorrow and the be ready to support, great work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Based on the improvements you did and the other copywriting fixes editors have suggested and you have implemented, I believe it is ready for Featured Status. Awesome work! SUPPORT Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Invited to a topic I am not familiar with, I have only minor concerns (and please forgive my lack of knowledge):

  • I think video game needs to appear in the very first sentence.
  • "overcome personal flaws within himself in him" remains unclear to me

Creation ...'

  • "undead person" - is there a link to what it means in video game?
  • What does "as both Tidus and Yuna separated" mean, compared to just "as Tidus and Yuna separated"?

FF X

  • Are Auron and Yuna linked a second time intentionally?

Reception

  • "In 2001, they won Game Informer's Best Couple of the Year award." To whom does that "they" refer?

. Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback @Gerda Arendt:. I edited the article to reflect your comments.Tintor2 (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, only two left: "ability to overcome personal flaws within his abusive father" is still nothing I would know to interpret ;) - "as both Tidus and Yuna separated as the former vanishes" is strange in tense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to split those "flaws" into another sentence and tried to explain more why Tidus vanished @Gerda Arendt:.Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The split resulted in a "sentence" without a verb ;) - I still don't know what "both" means, - when two people separate, the names are enough, no? - English is not my first language, so input from others on the questions would be welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Still can't find both". @Gerda Arendt:.Tintor2 (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now: "His character development that gives him the ability to overcome personal flaws such as his poor relationship with his father, Jecht, and his acceptance to stay in Spira were praised. Additionally, his romantic relationship with Yuna has been considered among the best in gaming." Forgive me not understanding: Is a poor relationship to one's father a personal flaw? Is acceptance to stay somewhere a personal flaw? His romantic with Yuna is the best what in gaming? The best romantic relationship?
  • "Nojima admitted he cried during the game's ending as both Tidus and Yuna separated as the former vanishes due to his creators, the spirits known as fayth, disappeared." - the both adds nothing to that, or does it and I just don't see what? - "vanishes" is present tense, "disappeared" is past tense, and who disappeared is unclear to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried rewriting the those sentences with present tense. Also, when writing "former" and "latter" can be used when referring to two. Still, I changed it. @Gerda Arendt:.Tintor2 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first better than before, and it's a clear construction. I still don't know what "best in gaming" means. Best what? - The other: I like the "both" gone, but something is wrong with the end " due to his creators ... disappear". Do you mean "due to his creators' disappearance? Perhaps skip the reason altogether, - it was said elsewhere, and is probably not why N. cried. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. By "best in gaming" I changed it in "Best in video games". Also, that's why the two of them often are notable in video games article in regards to romance in gaming.@Gerda Arendt:Tintor2 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GamerPro64[edit]

  • Comment - I randomly decided to read this article and I can't help but feel bothered by this sentence: "Because players have the option of renaming Tidus in Final Fantasy X, he is referred to with pronouns ("he" and "him") as in the previous game." There is no mention of his pronouns in the Eurogamer article linked. Also, what purpose does mentioning his pronouns have for this article? I see no absolute reason for it here. GamerPro64 05:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @GamerPro64:. I removed the sentence and source. Tell if there is another thing you would to fix if could give your support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JDC808[edit]

As requested on my FAC, I'm doing a source review.

Overall, everything looks to be in order and all seem to check out in terms of reliability.

I did happen to notice an issue with linking. For example with refs 77 and 78, you have Cheat Code Central linked in ref 78, but not ref 77. Overlinking does not apply to references, so make sure all publishers, authors, etc., where applicable, are linked in the references. Another example, all of the direct game references. "Square Co", "Final Fantasy X", "PlayStation 2", and "Square EA" should all be linked.

In Ref 56, the title is "Final Fantasy X/X-2 HD Remaster". It is currently "Final Fantasy X - X-2 HD Remaster" in the ref. --JDC808 ♫ 17:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback @JDC808:. I tried linking all references. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were some you missed, but I got them for you. I support this article's nomination. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and good luck with your God of War review.Tintor2 (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krish![edit]

  • Support: A very well-written and beautifully structured article. It's definitely FA-worthy. Congrats mate!Krish | Talk 08:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

I won't hold up promotion over it but pls check the duplinks in the article -- this script highlights them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2016 [7].

Banksia aculeata[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article got promoted to GA earlier this year (a fairly detailed review by Funkmonk, thanks!). Anyway, I think it is the equal of any of the other 28 banksia FAs. Should be simple fixes which I will fix pronto. and a short article. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I'll have more comments later,but just some number stuff to kick off. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why fractions eg 1 1⁄4 rather than decimal 1.25?
someone objected to the use of decimals with imperial units in a past FA, so have been using fractions ever since. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbers in a range should be quoted with the same accuracy, so, for example, I'd have 2.5–3.0 cm (1–1+1⁄4 in), not 2.5–3 cm (1–1+1⁄4 in)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In late bud the end of the perianth has a characteristic...— comma somewhere?
comma added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
my bad - I use the names in my head interchangeably and changed to the wrong one. Changed to "range" now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • rendering it a valuable food source.— for what?
for animals - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 13 (!) is giving a 404 error
have replaced with a 2013 paper I found Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to support above. I was hoping that the food source bit might be more specific (insects? honeyeaters? both?) but it's not a big deal, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
source doesn't specify but is talking in general terms. Correct answer is likely all of the above...thx 4 support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Josh[edit]

  • "It does not have a woody base, known as a lignotuber, that many other banksias have." This doesn't quite flow right, for me.
flipped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is 3.0–4.3 cm (1 1⁄4–1 3⁄4 in) long and pink at the base grading into cream." It's not fully clear what the it refers to, here.
the perianth - clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The obovate (egg-shaped) seed is 4–5 cm (1 5⁄8–2 in) long and fairly flattened, and is composed of the wedge-shaped seed body (containing the embryonic plant), measuring 1.0–1.2 cm (3⁄8–1⁄2 in) long and 1.5–1.8 cm (5⁄8–3⁄4 in) wide, and a papery wing." Perhaps this could be split; four ands!
split sentence and removed another 'and'... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally hate "empty" external link sections like that. Is there a database record or something that could be linked to? Alternatively, we have Template:Sister-inline and similar.
the sister template is good and tweaked- all other good stuff is referenced already Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

agree, Hesperian made the map in 2009 and I can't find the blank one on commons... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. See the image source= parameter: "It was created by Hesperian, using the IBRA 6.1 data...." That is, I created the base map myself, using a GIS and publicly available vector data. Hesperian 00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hesperian: My apologies! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The photos are great.
great subject matter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that's jumping out at me. Short, but key questions are answered, and you do have sourced mentions of how the species is little-known, so I'm not too worried about that. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • It seems that you're missing locations on your Flora of Australia source, but I admit I'm not sure how that is handled when there are multiple publishers. Is this perhaps published by CSIRO on behalf of the ABRS? The way you cite The Banksia Book may be viable.
added. tweaked as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you linking publishers? Providing states for city locations? There's a little inconsistency, it seems.
notable publishers linked, states added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an inconsistency between "George, Alex S." and "George, Alex".
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, George's name is sometimes linked, sometimes not. There doesn't seem to be a clear pattern; judging from the other names, first mention in the cites only? What's the pattern for linking journal names?
yeah I think first mention of author names is best. Some reviewers have been keen for journal links. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't both including the publishers of journals, but, if you do, do so consistently.
not sure how that got there - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're including PMIDs, do so consistently, but I'd call them redundant to DOIs.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN 10 or ISBN 13?
the books from the 80s didn't have 13 digit isbns... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All sources appropriately scholarly; no spotchecks done. I can't speak to comprehensiveness. (Sorry- that was picky.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that there's some inconsistency between title case and sentence case article titles. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
title cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder / Singora[edit]

I'll review this next week. Singora (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora, I'm about ready to close this based on the existing commentary/checks but will hold open a little longer if you still want to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, apologies -- I've been unusually busy over the last few days and unfortunately don't have time to review this article. I see it's got three supports, so I'm sure it's good to go! Singora (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thx (big sigh of relief!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Choess[edit]

  • In "Description", is "embedded with" idiomatic? I'd say "in which up to ...follicles are embedded".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Taxonomy", "this was only discovered only a century later": I'm not sure "discovered" is the right word I'd use for the recognition of a segregate species. In this case, I might say something like "this distinction was first made over a century later". Instead of "He based the species on...", I might say "As the type of the species, George chose..." The article on B. caleyi links Taxonomy of Banksia as the main article from its Taxonomy section; is this suitable?
tweaked x 3 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Ecology", the same article is linked twice: once at "canopy seed bank" and once via redirect from "aerial seed bank". The terminology should be made consistent and linked at first occurrence. I would say "dependent on" instead of "depend upon", although I'm not sure why.
tweaked x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "Cultivation", is this of interest as an anecdotal report?
yep. added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, this looks pretty good; comparable to the B. caleyi article. The shortness is understandable given that the taxon doesn't have a long history. Choess (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did not find any significant issues. Everything looks to be in good order and the article appears to satisfy the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2016 [8].

Jochen Rindt[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Jochen Rindt, Formula One's only posthumous World Champion, winning the Championship in 1970 by accumulating enough points before being killed in an accident during practice for the 1970 Italian Grand Prix. As a World Champion, his article ranks as high importance in its respective WikiProject.

This is the first article I nominate for FA, so even though I made sure to follow all the regulations, I might have missed this or that, so feel free to point anything out to me. Also, this is the first time I added alt-texts to images, so they might not be completely appropriate. Any critique is welcome! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro: Overall, this looks quite good from a first glance. I don't think we're quite there yet. I think the prose needs a little polish to reach FA standard. From the lead to begin with: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "he became the only driver to posthumously win the Formula One World Drivers' Championship, after being killed in practice for the Italian Grand Prix": I think this might be better in terms of emphasis as "he was killed during practice for the Italian Grand Prix and became the only driver to be posthumously awarded the Formula One World Drivers' Championship."
  • "Rindt started motor racing in 1961, switching to single-seaters in 1963, earning success in both Formula Junior and Formula Two.": Maybe better as "Rindt started motor racing in 1961 and switched to single-seaters in 1963. He was successful in both Formula Junior and Formula Two."
  • "After mixed success with the team": Maybe "mixed results" as success can't really be mixed.
  • "It was at Lotus where Rindt found a competitive car, although he was often concerned about the security of the notoriously unreliable Lotus vehicles": A bit too much going on here. Also, the meaning of "security" in this sense does not really work. What about: "The Lotus car was more competitive but suffered from reliability problems"
Hmm, I feel like there should be some mention of the security aspect, since "reliability" could just mean that his engine failed here and there. But we are talking crashing and potentially, and in the end actually, dying. I'll try to come up with something fitting.
  • I think we need at least another sentence in the lead about the accident, for example saying what happened. Otherwise, we just have that he was posthumous World Champion in the first paragraph, and a passing mention of the fatal accident in 1970.
  • "In the years leading up to his fatal accident": A bit vague. What about simply "In the late 1960s"? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thanks for your helpful comments! I'll tackle the changes tomorrow. Just left one reply above for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have we made any progress on this? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarastro1: Sorry for the delay, I've been terribly busy this past week. I have now made several changes to the lead along the lines of your comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The lead is looking good now. I'll take a look at the rest of the article in the next couple of days. Overall, it looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: I've done some copy-editing and shuffling of the information. As ever, feel free to revert my copyediting if I've messed up, or if you don't like it. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The young Rindt has been described by his brother and friends as a "laddish child", often performing tricks for his friends": I'm not sure this adds a lot about him that wouldn't apply to anyone. The phrasing is also a little uncomfortable, but there is no easy way to rephrase, so I wonder if this part is best cut?
I included it to give the entire paragraph, which covers his tendency for reckless behavior, a little more insight. Without this sentence to start out the paragraph, the rest of the information would stand a little isolated.
  • "he broke his femoral neck": Can we link something here? On first reading, I thought it was a weird typo and that he had broken his neck; I suspect several non-medical people may make the same mistake without a link.
Done.
  • "he had collected eight recorded misdoings with the police": Maybe I'm being a little slow, but misdoings does not sound right. Misdemeanours sounds more like it, but maybe its an Austrian expression?
That was my attempt to translate the German word Vergehen. But yes, misdemeanour is better.
  • "he received his first car, a Volkswagen Beetle, through his parents' spice mill company in Mainz": A spice mill and a Beetle don't obviously suggest a link; how did he get the car through the mill? Sponsorship? A gift?
Well, in the source, that's how it was phrased: "He got the car through the mill". I am suspecting that, since he was the technical owner, the mill provided him with a company car, even though he was not really involved in the mill itself. Writing "company car" in the article might be a stretch though, since it is not phrased as clear as that in the source I used.
  • "In the same year, Rindt's idol, the German Wolfgang von Trips, died in an accident": This is the first we hear of von Trips as his idol. I would expect to see this in the part where his interest in motor racing grew; there is a possibility that it is a throwaway comment in that Guardian article. Is it mentioned anywhere else? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find another source that says it, so I removed that sentences.

@Sarastro1: Thanks for your c/eing and the additional comments. I'll try to work them in as soon as possible. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I added comments above and made some changes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that it was Eagleash who added the source to the car from the spice mill statement, replacing one of mine from the documentary movie. @Eagleash: Could you look into the Henry book and check if it specifies this statement? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Zwerg Nase The book refers to him inheriting an elderly VW. It doesn't definitely specify that it came via his inheritance from his parents business or elsewhere. I don't clearly recall adding the ref. but my intention would be to verify that he started with the VW. There is a diff here with a ref that you added but I cannot find what happened to that ref afterwards. It does not seem to be in the current version. It's possible that I may have removed it by mistake when adding the Henry reference... my apologies if that's the case. Eagleash (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagleash: This is the diff when you added the Henry ref back in January. I have now tweaked the sentence a little bit so that it fits into what you wrote above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwerg Nase: Thanks. Oh dear! Looks like I did delete the earlier ref. Sorry about that. I don't know what that (earlier) ref of yours contained, but should it be restored? Your edit added the spice mill info...does your ref bear that out also? Eagleash (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagleash: No worries, I have now added the older ref to the sentence before to have that covered. The Henry ref should be enough for the car sentence as it stands now, right? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My only worry now is that if we remove the reference to the mill, the sentence loses its purpose somewhat, as I don't think it's particularly interesting or notable what his first was. If we restore "inherited", it begs the question of from whom it was inherited. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • "Rindt drove his first race at the Flugplatzrennen in 1961, in an Abarth Simca 2000. After missing the official application period, he only entered after prominent intervention from a friend from Graz.": This ambushes the reader a bit. How did he get into the race? Was he with a team, or on his own? Did he just turn up? How did he get the car to drive? The rest of the section suggests it was his, but where did it come from? What do we mean by "prominent intervention"? Why was his friend so influential?I think this bit needs a little work.
Did my best to make this clearer with what the source gave me.
  • "almost all the races he entered": I think it would be good to give a number of races he entered here, rather than just "almost all".
Here, I do not really know any numbers. "Almost all" is the term used in the movie by Giesser. Should I just take out the last half-sentence?
  • How did he actually get into Formula Two? We are a little vague, just saying that he entered with Barry.
Well, once more, that is pretty much all I have there. Barry was a relatively successful driver, having raced F2 before, so he took Rindt along. There is not really more I can say about this unfortunately. Everything there is to say I pointed out in the paragraph above: Barry was wealthy and had cars that he could provide to Rindt.
  • "a graded driver": Can we explain/link what this is? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

@Sarastro1: Again, thanks for your comments! These are gonna be a little tough. Mostly, they are vague because the sources are vague... I'll try to make clearer what I can tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I made some changes and commented above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look fine. I think we would be better removing "almost all the races he entered". Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And even more: Up to the end of the Cooper/Brabham section now. I did more copyediting, but feel free to revert. Looking good, hope to finish in the next day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sharing the drive of a Ferrari 250LM with American Masten Gregory for the North American Racing Team, Rindt won the event": I appreciate that "sharing the drive" is accurate at Le Mans, but I wonder would the simpler "driving with" work better?
"Sharing a drive" is what is usually used in this context. "Driving with" makes it sounds as if both would be in the car at the same time.
  • I wonder would a more chronological approach work better for Le Mans? It is a little disconcerting to read of his 1965 win and then read about his 1964 debut.
Done.
  • "with the new 3-litre engine formula": To the casual reader, it may not be obvious of the meaning of formula in this sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

@Sarastro1: Once again, thank you for your comments! I hope we can get through the rest of the article quickly :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Sorry for the delay, real life has been rather manic. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wonder if the 1960-70 section could be split? It is intimidatingly long and I think would stand splitting into 1969 and 1970.
I've split these up now.
  • "straw balls": Can we just say barriers? This sounds a little odd.
Changed this into "straw barriers".
  • "a broken lower wishbone": Is there anything we can link to here?
Linked.
  • "after anti-dive and anti-squat had been removed": Too much for the general reader I think. My preference would be to replace this with "after modifications had been made" but at least we should link to something. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed this.

Provisional Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: I've copy-edited this quite heavily, and so I'd like more eyes on this before I switch to full support. However, I think it's pretty much there, although it might stand a little more tightening in places. This is a pretty impressive piece of work, and the nominator deserves commendation for their research and for their patience with my rather slow review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thanks for all your work! I have made the last changes you suggested.
Now that it's had a looking over from others, I think I can switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Bcschneider53: I notice that in the Formula One World Championship results table, each individual blank cell is divided if there wasn't a race to fit those cells, while in the Non-championship results table, the blank cells are all merged together. I'd suggest consistency one way or the other; I personally prefer the merged cells (which is what's done in the NASCAR tables) but I know most of the F1 tables keep the cells divided, so I won't make a strong case for either one, but I would suggest one or the other in both tables, not both in one of the tables each. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcschneider53: You are of course absolutely correct. I have changed the F2 table accordingly. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support So I see you have chosen the divided format, which is fine. The prose looks to be in much better shape and there are citations throughout. I'll happily support the article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96[edit]

  • "Although his grandfather choose" - choosed
  • This should be "chose", and I've fixed it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use |spell=in on the template for 4 centimetres (1.6 in) to comply with MOS:NUMBERS
Done.
  • "he got a moped and started racing his friends on motocross tracks." - try brought
  • "who finished four minutes ahead of second placed Hill." - second-placed for consistency
  • "he set pole position in the second session - recorded the pole position lap
  • This isn't really an improvement; I've reworded it a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it may also be worth looking here where @Pyrope: has pointed a couple of things out and made a fix. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The more powerful flat-12 Ferraris" - Ferrari cars
  • I'd actually say this is worse, and simple "Ferraris" would be fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rindt's team mate' John Miles" - change to teammate like you have done on the word's two previous mentions

Overall, its a good work and is not far off the FA criteria. I would have to agree with Sasastro1's view that a copy-edit is in order. MWright96 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few of these as I think they're actually my mistakes. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only one thing seemed to be still outstanding, done it. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article looks in better shape than when I last saw it. I have no shame in lending my support. MWright96 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

The article is in excellent shape. I copyedited a little; please revert anything I screwed up. A couple of minor points:

  • The fake brake lights story is entertaining; was that illegal at the time? Would it be now?
Unfortunately, the source did not specify that.
  • What does "costumer franchise" mean?
I added a wikilink here, although the target article is in pretty bad shape unfortunately.
  • "went straight ahead into the straw balls": should this be "straw bales"?
Done.
I guess that was a mistranslation from the German "Strohballen".Tvx1 00:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "drifted through the streets": this is (I assume) the specialized meaning of "drift", which some readers won't know, so I would suggest linking this or adding an explanatory note.
Added a wikilink.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for your comments, I have addressed them as best I could. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. It would be helpful if you could add a note at the target article saying that the term "costumer franchise" is also used, but that's not necessary for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: "Costumer franchise" is actually just one part of what is described in the target article. Lotus itself was a privateer team, a costumer franchise such as Rob Walker's purchased chassis from other teams instead of building their own, so it is a very specific form. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you don't mean "customer franchise"? Tvx1 00:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: I do of course. Funny how no one noticed this so far :D Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Has anyone completed image and source reviews? If not, Zwerg, you can make requests at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • In the bibliography, we need to be consistent in including a publishing location (or not, but my preference is always to include the location)
@Sarastro1: To clarify: Do you mean just the bibliography part? For newspapers, I have always been told in my studies that these are cited without locations, but I do not know if conventions for that are different on Wikipedia. As for the two movie sources, I am also unsure wether adding a location there is necessary, considering that unlike books movies do not usually give you a publishing location. I will however definitely add locations to all the cited books. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography now contains locations. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Newspapers don't need a location I don't think, though some reviewers might prefer one. To me, it's a waste of time. There is still one book, only mentioned in the references, and not in the bibliography, with no location: Der große Preis von Deutschland. Alle Rennen seit 1926. Otherwise OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done as well. Zwerg Nase (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 60, Motor Sport should be italicised.
Done.

Sources look reliable and are otherwise formatted consistently. Spot checks not done. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:48, 22 December 2016 [9].

Nominative determinism[edit]

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lawyer named Sue Yoo? Authors of the book The Imperial Animal called Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox? Coincidence? This is the story of nominative determinism, the hypothesis that people tend to gravitate towards areas of work that fit their name. After the success with the Jacob van Ruisdael article, this is my second article I nominate here. I look forward to your comments.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't think it's necessary to use a non-free magazine cover in this case
Thx for checking Nikkimaria. Is it not sufficient to have the magazine's explicit permission?
Wikipedia-only permissions still require that the image meet the non-free content criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image removed. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:WilhelmStekel.jpg: source link is dead, missing US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it. Would https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Abraham.jpg be ok? Published in 1926. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That one would also need a US PD tag, as well as the author's date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

A fascinating article, interesting to see that this oft-mentioned phenomenon has actually been studied. Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • popular science magazine New Scientist in 1994—is the "science" redundant given the title? Your call
  • New Scientist is not italicised on at least two occasions
  • It's a big ask to assume all your readers know "onomastic" without a link or gloss. I'd also be tempted to link some of the medical specialities
  • "Lord Chief Justice in England"—he's the head man for England and Wales, as the link makes clear, no reason to omit part of the jurisdiction
  • Sue Yoo—nationality would help. if she's Hongkong Chinese, presumably less relevant than if she's American
  • et al. I think should be italicised
  • Maryl, Mass (x2), Calif—it's convention here to not abbreviate US states because not all your readers are American. I'm not convinced that those abbreviations are standard even in the US
  • Oxford University Press (Fowler ref) needs a location
Thanks very much for your comments Jim. Much appreciated. I've made all the changes.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good to me, changed to support above Jimfbleak (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

A couple of minor points:

  • "The term aptronym is thought to have been coined in the early 20th century by the American newspaper columnist Franklin P. Adams. Linguist Frank Nuessel coined aptonym in 1992." I don't think you can have both these sentences without comment, even if the comment is only to point out that the sources contradict each other.
Thanks Mike for taking the time to comment. Would something like this work better for you: "Linguist Frank Nuessel coined aptonym, without an 'r', in 1992"? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Didn't realize they were the same spelling! Yes, that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love Car Talk and can see why you include it (personal favourite: costume designer Natalie Drest), but since there's no secondary source citing it I'm afraid I think it should go. Otherwise what's to stop some other editor from adding every humorous show that ever makes a similar pun?
I think I did come across a secondary source. Let me see if I can find it again.Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can only find blogs that mention nominative determinism and Car Talk at the same time. I, regretfully, have removed all Car Talk reference, including the photo. I shall continue my search for a reputable source in the hope to be able to restore it. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the Car Talk note but the source is still in the source list; I assume that can go. I think that's everything from me. I see Dudley raised an interesting point below; I'll wait till that's addressed but expect to support assuming that gets sorted out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Fixed now. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I made a few final copyedits; please revert if you disagree with any of the changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • This is an interesting article, and I have only so far looked at the lead and background section, but I have some doubts about it.
  • The first comment I checked is not in the source cited. "In England it was not until after the Norman conquest that surnames were added. Surnames became useful when one name no longer uniquely identified a person, for example if there were too many Williams or Robins in one area.". This explanation looks wrong as people are often difficult to identify in Anglo-Saxon England because so many have the same name, so names did not uniquely identify one person even before the introduction of surnames. I therefore checked the source cited, Weekley, 1914, p. 2. There is nothing there to support the text.
Thanks Dudley for commenting. Good spot for the reference mismatch. All the sources were there, but I have added a reference now for each sentence. The Weekley p.2 source is for the four types of surname. The Weekley p.68 is for no surnames before Norman conquest. The Fowler p.11 for surnames as a way to disambiguate people. As for your view that the explanation is wrong, sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow you. Before the Norman conquest, people had one name only. In urban areas this probably did not uniquely identify people, thus leading to the need for surnames. I've removed the example with "too many Williams and Robins" as maybe you interpret them as surnames.
I was querying the relevance of "Surnames became useful when one name no longer uniquely identified a person" as an explanation of the introduction of surnames after the Norman Conquest. One name did not uniquely identify a person before the Conquest, and this causes problems when historians want to identify witnesses to charters, but in texts such as Asser's Life of King Alfred, people are distinguished by means such as giving their title and where they are from. I do not have access to Fowler, but I should be surprised if he said that there was ever a time when a single name was enough to uniquely identify someone. Surnames do not uniquely identify people (e.g. sons often had the same forename as their fathers), but they do identify which family an individual belongs to, and it would be interesting to know whether that is why they gradually increased in popularity. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see. I can make this more clear and try to find more sources. I don't think any source is saying that surnames solved all identification problems, just that they reduced them, so I should make that more clear. Here is what Fowler says on page 11: "The need to disambiguate reference supposedly led to the development of fuller names with a particularizing addition: among many Edmunds, Edmund Ironside would stand out, and among Swein, Swein Forkbeard. With the higher population densities of towns and eventually cities it took more than a single name or patronymic to specify individuals." I will try to find more sources that talk about how and why surnames gradually increased in popularity. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Fowler is an authority on Anglo-Saxon history, and he qualified his view with the word "supposedly". He does not seem to be aware that Anglo-Saxon charters were commonly witnessed by several rural thegns with the same name. It may be, as you say, that surnames made it easier to distinguish people (although in that case it is puzzling that sons often had the same forename as their fathers), or it may be that they were adopted to show which family people belonged to, or it may be just that the Normans were importing a Norman or French custom. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article doesn't need it, I've simply removed the statement about surnames disambiguating reference. It now just states that surnames were introduced after the Norman conquest. I hope that resolves the issue.Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the background section discusses people being named after their occupation, a very different case from people adopting an occupation which reflects their name, but this is not spelled out in the discussion. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this section is just the lead up to how names come about in the first place. The next section deals with the main topic of the article, people gravitating. I think that generally the Background section is meant to set the scene. Would you like an opening sentence of the Background section spelling this out? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this perhaps? "Before people could gravitate towards areas of work that matched their name, many people were given names that matched their area of work. The way people are named has changed over time." Edwininlondon (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments.
  • "theory of synchronicity (a meaningful but acausal falling together of events):" This does not make sense until you look at synchronicity and see that it is connected with Jung's belief in the paranormal. Maybe it would be better to use the definition in the synchronicity article, "no causal relationship yet seem to be meaningfully related".
I'm not sure it is possible to explain fully in one sentence what synchronicity is, but here's my best effort : "(events without causal relationship that yet seem to be meaningfully related)"? Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an affection for objects and concepts that are chronically associated with the self, such as their name" I don't think "chronically" is the right word. The dictionary connects it with disease or expressions of disapproval.
Pelham et al use chronically in their definition, but I've removed the adverb altogether. "concepts that are associated with the self" still works. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mallenbaum, Carly (3 November 2014). This is listed as a source but not used.
Ah, I just removed all Car Talk content as per request from reviewer Mike. Forgot to remove this. Done
  • A first rate article, but I would like to see better evidence that surnames were introduced to disambiguate people. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the controversial statement altogether. If I ever find a better source than Fowler and a clear explanation about why surnames came about, I shall include it as a footnote. The article as a whole is not dependent on it. Thank you for calling it first-rate. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments from Cas Liber taking a look now....

::Not fond of isolated sentences - could the last sentence of the lead slot onto one of the previous paras? As para 1 is about definition my thinking is it could go there ok.

Done
There are alot of "surnames" in para 1 of the Background section - if any can be trimmed without losing meaning I think it'd be a Good Thing...
Done. Good catch, thanks.

Other than that, can't see anything else to complain about...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look Edwininlondon (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. many apologies for forgetting about this one..all good now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2016 [10].

Tahiti rail[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a short article about a bird known from little else than an 18th century drawing. In spite of this, quite a bit has been written about the bird, practically everything of which is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Your usual comprehensive effort, but of course I have some nit-picks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nit-picks are always welcome, I'll answer and fix issues soon. There are a few issues where I'm unsure what to do, so I have left some questions too. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9 inches (23 cm) and similar. I think we normally put metric first in scientific articles, and in this case the islands were French, a long-time metric country, so all the more reason to do so
Yeah, I'm aware of this, but I was unsure because the only measurements ever given are Forster's, who only used inches, so I was thinking it would be "misleading" to state he gave them in metric units first? Also, the Pacific islands weren't French at the time, but ruled by native Polynesians. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally convinced, but I'll accept that for now and we'll see if other reviewers pick up on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it should be easy to flip the numbers if the time comes, I recall there is some kind of parameter for this, if I can make it work... FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12 3⁄4 and similar. I don't like the look of these, why not 12.75?
Hehe, I don't like them either, but that's how they were given by Forster, and I have no idea how to convert them (I am very bad with numbers)... So any help would be appreciated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed to decimal, please revert if unhappy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we normally link sovereign countries like Tonga, also a dup link of this
Here, it is more to direct readers to the island (not the state), like the island of Tahiti, but the subject of the island and the state just happen to overlap. I will remove the duplink, but I'm sure readers would like a link to Tonga, which is not necessarily familiar to most people? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Cook's second voyage around the world (1772–1775), on which— during which?
Then we'll have two "during" in the same sentence, which I think would be a bit repetitive? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ferruginous (rufous) —I've sometimes been told that "rufous" is too obscure by FAC reviewers, better "rusty", as you have later
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The father and son were tasked with—were they paid professionals? Sometimes travellers were amateurs like Darwin, and your phrasing isn't entirely clear
None of the sources about the bird specifically state whether the Forster's were hired, but I assume that would have been the common practice. Only way to source this would be to some literature about the men themselves, but I think this might be a bit off topic? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''only specified Tahiti—specified only''
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tongan bird was placed on a list of extinct birds in a 1981 book, and Forster's plate of the Tahiti rail was used to illustrate the Samoan wood rail (Gallinula pacifica) in a 1989 book.[2]—any reason to not name the books?
Didn't find it necessary, but now added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • of predators—land predators
The source says "One often reads that flightlessness comes about as a result of the absence of predators, and while a number of islands where flightless rails occur do have avian predators, it is probably true that where one finds flightless rails one does not encounter native mammalian predators that are so destructive to ground-dwelling and nesting birds." So I added "(especially mammalian)", since land isn't specifically mentioned, and also added "and reduced need for dispersal" to the factors that allow flightlessness. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("eyebrow") probably only needed at first occurrence
You mean only in the intro? I was under the impression that there should be no information in the intro not present in the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that a gloss is new info. Also, we often have uncontroversial info, such as alternative names, only in the lead (as here) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, but I personally like to have such explanations in the article body as well. You never know if the reader has read the intro, sometimes I don't, because I know the intro is just supposed to be a summary of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forster's Latin description of the bird translates as follows— If it's not your translation, you should acknowledge the translator
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • too bright red—too brightly red?
Yep, was my initial choice as well... FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • end of the 19th century, where after it began to decline; it had disappeared from there some time after 1844.— "thereafter", one word, would be clearer
Not sure how you mean, it should be "it had disappeared from thereafter 1844"? Seems a bit ungrammatical?
I had to read the sentence twice to make sense of it because "where after", as two words, seemed odd, at least to me. What about "...19th century, beginning to decline thereafter;? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Took that. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of very minor loose ends now to sort out before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support above, the parameter you mentioned, if you need to use it is, unsurprisingly, order=flip (I had to read through them all recently to find how to do "million" as part of the string). Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Gallirallus pacificus.jpg: Free image on Commons, the license seems to be correct. Also, apparently this watercolour is the primary source of information we have on this bird.
  • File:Hodges, Resolution and Adventure in Matavai Bay.jpg: Free image on Commons, the license is also plausible. Source link seems to be offline at the moment. It's a painting depicting the landing of James Cook on Tahiti, which is discussed in the section.
  • File:Societe isl Tahiti.PNG: Free image on Commons, derived from File:Karta FP Societe isl.PNG which is also a free image. A map of the place the bird existed on is obviously germane in the infobox.
  • File:Gallirallus.pacificus.jpg: Free image on Commons, caption has a caution note on the colour of the legs, something discussed farther down in the section. License is well supported. An image of the bird in the section describing it seems pertinent to me.
  • File:Buff-banded Rail Fafa Island.jpg: Image of a related bird, free image on Commons. It's used as a comparison image, given that this bird actually still exists. Own work, free license, lower resolution versions of this image taken from Commons exist elsewhere on the web.

Might want to use ALT text for the images, but other than a broken link I see no issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Maybe I can link to an archived URL... FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

According to Bruner, the bird was said to have been common on Tahiti until the end of the 19th century, - should that be "18th century"?

Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this puzzled me too, the source says "It became extinct on Tahiti earlier, some time after 1844. It was said to be very common on Tahiti until the end of the 19th century, when it began to decline in numbers, probably as a result of the introduction of cats and rats (Bruner 1972)." Seems it may be a mistake, so not sure what to do. Maybe I should simply snip the "very common in the 19th century" part? Could be a mistake, the Hume source is even more confusing, it states the bird was discovered in 1844, long after Cook was on Tahiti, so that's a clear mistake, which contradicts the other sources... I think the date 1844 has confused some writers; it is the date Forster's description was published posthumously, but many later sources don't even acknowledge its existence, some stating the bird is only known from the drawing... And to be honest, I think all Bruner's statements are quite dubious, but they have not really been challenged in later literature. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh - in which case we just reflect the sources...which is what is in place. okay, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Ref formatting - FN 10 author looks weird....?
  • Spotcheck to come...
  • FN 14 true to source (source also mentions limited food resources as a reason for flightlessness - any reason not included as well?)
  • FN 1, used thrice, true to source
  • FN 17, used once, true to source

Ok so looking good apart from one minor query above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will fix these later today. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did some edits, looking better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - all good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2016 [11].

Love, Inc. (TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about ... a short-lived UPN sitcom that revolves around five matchmakers working at a New York City dating agency. The series primarily received media attention for its casting of Shannen Doherty in one of the starring roles, and her later removal at the request of the network prior to filming. It also received attention for its prominent use of a multi-ethnic cast. I believe that the article covers all the criteria for a featured article, as it provides comprehensive information on the topic (I was pleasantly surprised to find this amount of information on this relatively obscure show). Thank you in advance for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on reference style The point of having "retrieved on" dates is that if the link goes dead, the reader can go find an archived copy from that date. But since you include the archive links here, there's no need to include "retrieved on" dates; they just bloat up the references which have two other dates too.

(Also, the article has undergone remarkable improvement since July, well done OP!)—indopug (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Indopug: Thank you for your comments. I have removed all of the accessdates from the archived references to avoid bloating the references. Let me know if there is anything else that needs improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Originally developed with the working title Wingwoman, Love, Inc." - As both titles are in italics and next to each other this initially makes it sound like the show was to be named "Wingwoman, Love, Inc". Perhaps put commas around 'Wingwoman' like so, or find another fix.
  • Good catch, I have revised this sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It would have marked her first role in a sitcom." I think you can combine this with the previous sentence.
  • You can wiki link "idiot savant" and "non sequiturs"
  • "which led to some critics accusing the show's writers of reducing the character to an ethnic stereotype" - I only see one critic commenting on this, not "critics". Same issue at "Critics questioned the network's belief that Love, Inc". If there are more sources out there put them in as inline citations.
  • Replaced the more vague "critics" with the name of the publication. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frequently cited as the inferior show" - the two sources in that sentence seem to back the show up as being the inferior of the two, i'm just not sure if two sources counts as "frequently". I'd drop that word myself.
  • This isn't necessary to pass FAC, but i'd strongly recommend archiving all of your URLs so the article has the best chance of retaining its status in the future.
  • All resources are now archived, except for two that I cannot get archived for some reason. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article. It's very well written. Freikorp (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Freikorp: Thank you for your review! I have addressed all of your comments and made the appropriate corrections/revisions. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do or if there is any other way that the article can be improved. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, well done. Freikorp (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bcschneider53[edit]

Overall, very well done. Just two minor questions:

  • Is there any reason the description of Clea in the characters section is significantly shorter than the others? Granted, I've never seen the show, so perhaps she's more of a minor character, but I'd suggest adding a sentence or two if possible.
  • Thank you catching this. The show was attempting to go for the ensemble cast and storylines similar to that of Friends, so I think she is intended to be one of the primary characters. I have added two sentences to expand this section. Let me know if this is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are ratings not available for every episode? In my opinion, if only five of the 22 have viewership figures, perhaps you could do away with that column and instead find a season ratings average; if not, don't worry too much about it.
  • Unfortunately, I cannot find the ratings for every episode. It was a smaller show on a network that would soon close as part of a merger so I doubt that I can find much more information about the ratings. I partially based the article on Making Waves (TV series), which included a partial set of ratings, but I can remove the ratings if you think it is best. I am open to your suggestions. I have included information about the average viewers per episode, the series average, and some other ratings-related information in the second paragraph of the "Broadcast history" section. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, these are two minor quibbles in an otherwise well-written and great article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bcschneider53: Thank you for your review! I have responded to both of your questions. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not an expert in how the ratings numbers should be worked into the chart so perhaps you could ask somebody from WikiProject Television for their advice. Otherwise, prose looks good after being tweaked from others' reviews and everything seems to be in order. Well done and good luck to you! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • (edit conflict) "The series was produced by Chase TV, the Littlefield Company, Burg/Koules Television, and Paramount Television, and distributed by UPN in its original run and later by LivingTV and Nelonen in the United Kingdom and Finland respectively" - this sentence seems a bit too long to read comfortably. I would recommend splitting it into two: The series was produced by Chase TV, the Littlefield Company, Burg/Koules Television, and Paramount Television. It was distributed by UPN in its original run and later by LivingTV and Nelonen in the United Kingdom and Finland respectively
  • "Love, Inc. was originally developed as a vehicle and sitcom debut" - link star vehicle
  • "The series was set in New York, but filming took place at Paramount Studios in Hollywood, Los Angeles and California" - I understand this, but I can see how people are going to get confused with this as Hollywood is in Los Angeles, and that in itself is in California! It sounds like something when you would say "Chicago, Illinois" etc. Is the series set in other parts in Los Angeles and California? If so, how about Hollywood, Los Angeles, and other locations in California. Feel free this ignore though if you think it's best
  • Fixed. Thank you for catching this. I agree with your comment, and have added "other locations in California". Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was cancelled following UPN's merger" - 'canceled' is American spelling, if you want to stay consistent with that
  • Oops, I don't know how that happened. Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "UPN Entertainment president cited the rationale behind Doherty's departure" - shouldn't this be "UPN Entertainment's president"?
  • "The show, as well as a majority of UPN's programs, were officially cancelled" - 'canceled' again
  • 'Cancelled' is spelled with two 'l's twice in the last paragraph of the Broadcast history section, but really feel free to ignore these!
  • "Metacritic, which uses a weighted average" - Metacritic is an aggregator, so I would rephrase the following sentence to: assigned a score of 28 out of 100 based on aggregate of 17 reviews

That's all I could find during my read through of this. Amazing work! It is well written, comprehensive and all of the sources check out fine. Once all of the above are clarified then I'll be happy to support. JAGUAR  19:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jaguar:Thank you for your review! I have addressed your comments. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! Sorry for the late reply, I did get the notification but I can't remember what I was doing this morning. I'm happy that this article meets every aspect of the FA criteria, so I'll lend my support. Amazing work on this! JAGUAR  23:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help and your kind words! And no worries, I know that feeling all too well lol Aoba47 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tintor2[edit]

I'm not too familiar with TV series project but there is something that's bothering me.
  • How do you source directors and other staff members? May be a silly question though. Through the DVD? I mean just in case the staff member is debated.
  • I think that the directors and other staff members for the show are sourced directly from the show itself (using the credits from the episodes as a primary source). Since not all shows are released on DVD (for instance, this show was never released on DVD as it was not that popular), I think the episodes themselves are used as the primary sources. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "The title for each episode references a popular sitcom.[2]" necessary? Seems a bit trivial unless you can dig a bit further.
  • Agreed. I have removed this note. I originally put it here during my initial expansion of the article as a reminder to dig further into it, but I have found nothing much of note. I agree that it is too trivial, and have taken it out. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you want to contact me. I'm pretty sure it can be made FA though. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tintor2: Thank you for your comments. I completely forgot to remove the episode references comment so thank you for the catch. I will prove my review for your FAC of Tidus sometime before the end of the day. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve this article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Now, I support this article.Tintor2 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:LoveIncIntertitle.png: Non-free image, series logo. Seems like all facets of WP:NFCC appear to be satisfied. Image used in the infobox to aid identification of the work.
  • File:Shannen Doherty.jpg: Free image on Commons. It is cropped from a Flickr file, probably that's why it lacks an EXIF - the Flickr file has a free license and an EXIF. The images on the Flickr stream seem to have a varied provenance, so it seems to me. It shows an individual involved in the production process, which is discussed in the section.
  • File:Busy Philipps at TCA 2010.jpg: Free image on Commons, comes from a Flickr file that is certified as free by the bot. Good EXIF, all uploads of the Flickr user have a consistent theme. Image is of an actor whose performance is discussed in the adjacent section.

Good ALT text, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for source review[edit]

@Tintor2: @Jaguar: @Freikorp: @Bcschneider53: @Indopug: If possible, could any of you help me with this nomination by providing a source review? It is a busy time of the year, so I understand if you do not have either the time or interest in doing so, but I would be very grateful and can help with any of your projects on here if you would like. Indopug: since you already have helped me with correcting the reference style, I would greatly appreciate your input if possible. Thank you in advance either way. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. Just give me small time. I'll do it before going to sleep.Tintor2 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And take as much time as you need. If you ever need my help with anything, please let me know. And I am happy to see that your FAC for Tidus is getting a lot of attention; congratulations on that. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is sourced. References are well formated. All dates are consisted and authors are added to most of them. The source review passes. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2: Thank you for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I believe that a consensus has been reached for this review (four "support" votes, with each vote providing comments that greatly improved the article overall, and the completion of a source and image review). I think that this can be safely promoted given all of this, so I would like to check with you about the status of this FAC. I hope I do not sound rude or presumptuous for pinging you and asking you, as it is probably better to wait to receive your message on how the nomination goes either way. Thank you for your time and consideration. Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2016 [12].

Bee-eater[edit]

Nominators: Sabine's Sunbird talk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a family of colourful, conspicuous birds that feed mainly on venomous flying insects such as bees and wasps. I usually try to say something witty in my nominations, but here the beauty of these birds can do the talking. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Jim, Jim, Jim. What a missed opportunity. Look people, we hope you'll bee impressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, yes, I'm slipping.... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Lead

  • need to mention that Meropidae contains 3 genera and 27 species
  • Done, it originally had the number of species, but I took that out because of the potential split of green bee-eater (accepted by HBW) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps mention that the plumage of the two sexes is generally quite similar
  • "the number depending on the species." Why not around 5 eggs? (Fry HBW Breeding has "generally about five eggs in a clutch")

Taxonomy

  • I'm uncomfortable with the 2016 year for Fry's HBW alive family article. The text is identical to the 2001 print edition (see differences) - and thus the text doesn't mention studies published in the last 15 years. I suggest just omitting the year - but keeping the access date.
  • I'm surprised that there hasn't been a phylogenetic study on the relationship between the bee-eaters, rollers, hoopoe and kingfishers. (I've looked but can't find one)
  • The 2007 molecular phylogenetic study by Marks et al should be mentioned in the text, however unsatisfactory - see below

Figure showing the phylogenetic tree

  • Typo - M. orieentalis -> M. orientalis
  • M. australis is M. gularis australis and therefore the two gularis taxa should be combined.
  • This whole tree is unsatisfactory - and it may be better to omit it from the article. It is based on Figure 3 in Marks et al. The difficulty is that at the bottom of the figure Meropogon forsteni is shown as a sister to Merops breweri. Also Merops bulocki and Merops bullockoides are shown as basal to Meropogon forsteri. Marks et al include two other figures that have different arrangements. The authors discuss the difficulty of placing the above species. They lack nuclear sequence data for Meropogon forsteri and Merops leschenaulti as they could only determined the mtDNA sequences (from museum specimens). In Figure 1 they omit these sequences altogether. (I don't understand the statistical methods used in phylogenetic studies).
I am not wedded to the tree either but some indication of relatedness is more useful than an alphabetic list of species even if the sampling is slightly incomplete at this point in time - having the tree will ensure that a future editor will update it to more recent studies. The third tree is a maximum parsimony tree with bootstrap measures of confidence - so the only changes I can think of are to include more explicit caveats (although molecular phylogeny is always a hypothesis and the methods do have their consequences) in the caption. After all Wikipedia and science itself are about verifiability and continuing refinement - not about absolute truth. Shyamal (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • Specify number of primaries (10)(outer often very small), secondaries (13) and rectrices (12) (p.29 in Bee-eaters)(HBW has 12 tail)

Behaviour

  • "Helpers" are first mentioned in this section. Perhaps better to insert here the sentence now at the end of the Breeding section where you explain that they are normally the male offspring from a previous year.

Diet and feeding

  • The first paragraph needs a reference
  • Mention that bee-eaters and kingfishers regurgitate pellets of indigestible material (p.207 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW General Habits "2cm long black oblongs")

Breeding

  • Mention that no nesting material is used (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • Specify colour of eggs (already mentioned in lead) - white as is usual for cavity nesters (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • Mention pellets trodden underfoot (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • Mention that parents and nestlings defaecate in nest (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • perhaps mention smell (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
  • mention that incubation starts soon after the first egg is laid (p.19 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW has "with the first eggs laid")
  • eggs laid at daily intervals. (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • incubation is around 20 days (p.19 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW Breeding)
  • both birds incubate during the day, just the female at night (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • eggs hatch asynchronously (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • if food is short only the older chicks survive (Fry HBW Breeding)
  • nestling period is about 30 days (Fry HBW Breeding)

References

  • Ref 9 - The reference to the HBW alive article on the Asian green bee-eater lists the wrong authors.
  • Wouldn't it be better to rely entirely on HBW alive - rather than having some cites to the print edition and others to the online version (currently identical)?
  • Because Sabine's Sunbird and I edited this largely sequentially, we used different versions. I wondered about this myself. I'll change them all to the on-line version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cite for the quote "the most complex of any bird species anywhere in the world".[11]:298 look odd as it is the only use of this syntax in the article. The text is in Fry HBW online General Habits.

I'll have another look at the article next week. Aa77zz (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz thanks very much for your detailed review and the tweaks you made to the text. I think I've dealt with all the issues except those relating to the phylogeny table. As I said, I don't mind whether it stays or goes, but I'd like input from the editor who added it and my co-nom if they wish to comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz, I've now made the changes regarding the cladogram, and Shyamal has responded above. I can't access the Marks paper anyway, but I think their is some merit in having at least an outline of possible relationships. Your call, I guess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more comments when I can:

  • The lead has "All have long down-turned bills and pointed wings,..." The wings of some species are rounded - as is stated in the body of the article. HBW alive has "The wing shape of bee-eaters varies from round-ended to pointed," - Aa77zz (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've rewritten that sentence since I don't find the comparison with swallows convincing either, I've seen a dozen species of bee-eaters and never thought they resembled hirundines. Now All have long down-turned bills and medium to long wings, which may be pointed or round. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on Breeding has "The eggs do not all hatch at the same time,..". This agrees with the source but the eggs of the Australian rainbow bee-eater can all hatch within a 24h period (Fry et al 1992 p.277) or HBW alive "most eggs hatch on same day") see here. I suggest inserting "For most species" or "generally" etc. Aa77zz (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "For most species" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All looks good
With improvements to DNA sequencing, publication of phylogenetic trees based on insufficient data will hopefully disappear but there will still be differences of opinion on species/sub-species and the extent of genera. Aa77zz (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support. I agree with your comment on phylogeny, but we can but hope that future developments will clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nicely written, reasonably approachable for a non birder. Query I struggle with "in which the wings of both sexes are held out the birds are calling" Is this some ornithological jargon? ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ϣere, no, it's self-generated gibberish. I'd tried too hard to make it concise, now expanded and hopefully more intelligible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the Merops bee-eaters have a line through the eye" gave me a very different mental image than the black bar on this bird's face. Would it be possible to put an image such as this beside that text with a caption ending "with a black line through the eye"? ϢereSpielChequers 22:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Just looking at the existing images, it's clear that even the narrowest aren't really lines, so changed to " black bar through the eye" in text and in caption to your suggested image, always nice to have a Featured Picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments looking ok at a quick glance - will give more of a look later, but just for the moment noting that given we are talking about the bee-eaters as a group, we really need some material on their higher-order relationships as it is fascinating. It looks like there are three papers discussing this. I'll chase Mayr 2009 and continue to discuss on talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas, I'll try to put together something from the new paper Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • At first glance, the images seem a bit crammed, and one photo (white-fronted bee-eater) is used twice. Perhaps some could be pruned? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Synonyms?
  • I'm not sure what you are after here. For family articles, we don't normally list synonyms of genera or species (see tern, nuthatch), which are detailed in the relevant lower level articles. if I've misunderstood, please clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean family level synonyms. For example, Raphidae is tehnically a synonym of Columbidae (not of Raphinae, as one might think), since the former was found to not be a distinct family... But it's not so important. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never come across a synonym, and a quick search yesterday failed to turn up anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, thanks for having a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have more later. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the classification text ready to read, or is it still being worked out? FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been no further comments on the talk page since I rewrote the second paragraph to include the newer papers, so I'm assuming it's acceptable on content. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who created the bird subfamily, Meropia, in 1815." What is the status of this name today?
  • The current Meropidae is just that name adjusted to modern rules, ending -idae. Raffinesque's family Cortamphia is clearly a taxonomic nonsense, so the bee-eaters were a family rather than a subfamily Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although the position of the purple-bearded bee-eater appears anomalous." Why?
  • "from the Pleistocene have been found in Austria, and there are Holocene specimens" Perhaps state how many years ago this was.
  • "sister to all other Coraciiformes." Perhaps state in parenthesis what other grops are included therein.
  • "but suggested new genera" Such as?
  • That was more of a challenge than I anticipated, so ubiquitous has Fry's treatment been for many years. I found one example dealt with in his PhD thesis. I tweaked out "new", I don't think any are still current Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pairs sitting or roosting together are often so close together" The last togetehr seems redundant/repetitive?
  • "attempt to lay eggs in their neighbour's nests" Easter egg links are discouraged, so I'd spell out and link nest parasitism in parenthesis, or similar.
  • How many individuals are in clans and colonies?
  • Dust bathing and purple-bearded bee-eater is duplinked.
  • "returned to the perch to be beaten against the perch to be killed and broken up." Repetitive.
rephrased Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is to ride the back of bustards." Shouldn't backs be plural?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any theories as to why these birds prefer bees and wasps?
All I can find is that the trait may have arisen because hymenopterans are very numerous and ubiquitous, added a sentence to that effect. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but seems there's a typo? "may have because of" FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the brain moved faster than the typing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hole-nesting lifestyle of bee-eaters means that they tend to carry a higher burden of external parasites than non-hole-nesting bird species." How is this correlated?
  • I assumed that it's because of the more insanitary conditions in a tunnel or hole than an open nest, but the source doesn't actual say that or otherwise explain the assertion, I'll remove the sentence if you think it's incorrect or lacking justification, it's not critical Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colonies are increasing concentrated into the" Increasingly?
  • Since the culture section mentions ancient depictions, wouldn't it be more interesting to show one of these than a bust?
  • Yes, but I couldn't find any suitable image, let alone one with a free licence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bee-eaters are fairly catholic" Seems too informal?
  • I don't think "catholic" is an informal term by any definition. It's used here in it's primary meaning, and OED gives no indication of main use of the word being informal, but changed anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stinger is removed by" Only stated in intro.
  • "by sallies from" Likewise.
  • It says they hunt from perches, so I assume it's "sallies" that's the problem, removed from lead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - all fixes look good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, looking through...

but birds apparently of these families were distinct at least forty million ago, - the apparently is oddly placed - what about "ancestors of these families diverged from those of bee-eaters at least forty million ago"
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"the most complex of any bird species anywhere in the world". - I think we can rephrase without quotes. "more complex/intricate than any other bird species"?
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bee-eaters are seasonally monogamous, and some species are monogamous over multiple years, although migratory species form new pair bonds each breeding season. - "monogamous" used twice, try to reword
Rewritten, is that better? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.

Ok then, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for review and support! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, thanks, now requested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, I decided to have a go myself -- most of the licensing looks satisfactory (mainly users' own work or Flickr) except for:

In neither case was it obvious to me that the stated author had released the work... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, thanks for that. The images were in the original article, and I stupidly never thought to check. Replaced with images of the same species. One is an FP(!) and the other is a verified Flickr release, so hopefully OK, thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2016 [13].

Alabama Centennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... you never know where an article is going to go once you begin the research and this one to my surprise led to a sidelight on the career of President Harding of which I was not aware. Commemorative coins are indeed a part of history if not a large part. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review / Singora[edit]

My article, Seri Rambai, is further down the list. It's got supports from DanK, BrianBoulton and Casliber, but will need a source review. Wanna help?

If yes, I'll do your source review as I did before with that Captain Cook coin. I guess you could email me the gear like last time. Singora (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm traveling and am not in a position to send you all the docs. I'm happy to do your source review anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. You're welcome to get back to me later if/when you need a source review of your own. Singora (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • What is the copyright status of the photo of the coin? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This has come up before with Bobby131313 images and I believe I asked at a noticeboard at one time and the feeling was that uploading your own images to Wikipedia is indicative of an intent to license them under the Four Freedoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iridescent[edit]

In case of subsequent variation, this is the version on which I'm commenting. I've conducted no image or source checks and going on faith that every citation says what it says it does.

Lead[edit]
  • The "in 1921 to mark the 100th anniversary of Alabama's admission to the Union in 1819" is jarring, and "the Act of May 10, 1920" doesn't help. I imagine the reaction of every reader to the fact that the act deciding to mark the centenary wasn't passed until a year after the centenary will be "Huh? Why didn't they make arrangements for the centenary before the centenary year had passed?". I appreciate that the causes are touched on in the "inception" section, but there should probably be at least some acknowledgement in the lead that it took place after the event since my first instinct was that a vandal had been goofing with the dates.
  • This is not something about which I know anything, but are the images in the infobox really meant to be that brown? They look to me like either they've been in the bottom of a river, or that they're actually electroplated copper and the coating is wearing off, and presumably neither of these are the case.
Silver coins often exhibit toning, or really tarnish. It is, generally speaking, not considered a good idea to "clean" them, although in the past, this was often done. Still is, by some. It's the images we have.
  • The infobox has the mass and diameter of the coin in metric-only measurement, the thickness of the coin in both metric and imperial measurements, and the silver content in imperial-only measurement.
There was a formatting error I've corrected, and now the diameter shows in inches as well. I felt these were the most useful to the reader. The silver content is in troy ounces only because that's how silver is generally sold in the US. If I added the total weight in Imperial, then there would be the question of whether to use troy or avoirdupois. I chose not to go there (this is true of about forty or so coin articles.
Inception[edit]
  • "the members heard of other states which had gotten or which sought a commemorative coin"—what sort of numbers are we talking about? Was this a really commonplace practice which led to Alabama feeling justly left out, or was it a new fad which they wanted to be in on from the start? I know I can tell from the end navbox how many other commemorative coins there were, but the readers can't be expected to know that. (I'm also not a fan of "gotten", which seems a little inappropriately folksy to me.)
It's all traceable to the 1918 Illinois Centennial. From the sources, it looks like Maine saw the Illinois one, and then Alabama and Pilgrim (i.e. Massachusetts) saw the Maine one. However, Rainey, the Alabama congressman, was a bit vague about it, which I imagine is why Swiatek and Breen didn't say things as a definite fact. There's some discussion in the Alabama/Maine hearings of other anniversaries, but it's not fully accurate (for example, they say there was a coin for the Jamestown anniversary of 1907, but there wasn't.) I like to give as much of a play by play as I can, since this area hasn't been studied in depth, but it's all based on the very limited primary sources and I think it's best kept more or less as is. Gotten changed to "received".
Preparation[edit]
  • "Alabama Governor Thomas Kilby had a three-member commission headed by Owen"—who is Owen? She isn't mentioned prior to this point, and at no point before or after is it explained who she was. (I'm assuming she's a woman owing to the "her committee".)
  • Was this the first US coin designed by a woman? (Skimming through the other coins linked in the navbox it appears that it was, although a couple of other coins don't have their designers named.) If so, this should certainly be mentioned, since it will be one of the most interesting facts about this coin to non-enthusiasts, especially given that it's probably fair to say that 1920s Alabama was not renowned for its social progressiveness.
Yes, it was! Nice catch. I had to do some digging on this. I missed this because a couple of times previously women's designs were considered at some stage but weren't actually used. In fact, according to my source, it's the first coin of any country designed by a woman. I've put that in there.
Production, distribution & collecting[edit]
  • The long first paragraph here is very confusing to me. I think I've parsed it correctly as "They made 6006 of them in October and made the rest of them later; the official record says that the first batch were marked 2X2 and the later ones weren't, but this might not actually be the case", but it's taken me at least three read-throughs to grasp it.
Pretty much. I've divided the paragraph and played with it.
  • "the Pilgrim half lists for between $85 and $650 without 2X2…"—is this an error, as (if I'm understanding it) the Pilgrim half-dollar was an unrelated coin released at the same time.
Oopsie. I had cut and pasted that sentence to get the links and wasn't very careful, obviously.

These are all relatively minor points, and I assume I'll be supporting this unless anything problematic subsequently comes to light. ‑ Iridescent 09:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Iridescent. I think I've dealt with those.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with the usual proviso that I haven't verified sources, but I've no reason to doubt they say what this says). It might be worth a final sentence noting how many other commemorative coins were issued subsequent to this, to put it in some kind of context. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed for that review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Another facinating coin article from Wehwalt.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Just a couple of minor points.

  • "Numismatists Anthony Swiatek and Walter Breen speculated that": you might make this "speculate" to make it more immediately clear to the reader that Swiatek and Breen's speculation was not in 1920; it wasn't until the later part of the sentence that I realized they were writing about this later.
  • Not sure this is needed for FAC, but I'm curious: if Congress did not authorize the centennial commission as the vending organization in the legislation, how did they become authorized?
In practice, the Mint allowed orders from them and (I imagine) would not have allowed any orders from, say, Farran Zerbe or another promoter. These were early days for commemoratives.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ohio's William A. Ashbrook": suggest "Ohio representative William A. Ashbrook" since I gather this discussion took place in Congress.
  • "James Fraser suggested that his wife, Laura Gardin Fraser, a noted sculptor, create the plaster models, and this occurred": "this occurred" is a bit clunky. How about: "At James Fraser's suggestion, the plaster models were created by his wife, Laura Gardin Fraser, who was a noted sculptor in her own right".
  • You have a link in a note to Cross of Gold speech#Background; I think this should be piped so the reader sees English text rather than the wikitext code for an anchor. Perhaps "see the background to the Cross of Gold speech", and link the whole phrase starting with "background"?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done those things, though slightly differently than you suggested in a couple of cases. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Your fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed for the thoughtful review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Everything that needs a citation has one, and the sources are of encyclopedic quality. The only issue I encountered was that one source lacked a location, which I added for consistency's sake. All good here. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged, thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2016 [14].

Montreal Laboratory[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having written about the British and American components of the Manhattan Project, this article is about the Canadian part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. There have been no changes since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I could not find various issues other than the lead's first paragraph being a bit small and three references used for "They were succeeded by George Weil in November 1945." Other than that, I hope this article becomes a FA. Also I've recently made my first FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1 and I would appreciate any feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Overall, a worthy candidate.
  • Why are commonly known country-names ("Canada", "United Kingdom", "Switzerland", "Austria") linked? Why are three geographical names bunch-linked at the opening?
  • Uncomfortable switch from "United Kingdom" to "Britain" in the opening sentence. Later, I see "England". Me, I'd be using "UK" and "US", but it's up to you.
  • "The Maud Committee was uncertain as to whether this was relevant"—perhaps two words could be removed ... do you agree?
  • "although there remained a possibility that a reactor could be used to breed plutonium, which might be used in one."—"could/might have been used"?
  • "Due to American concerns about security (as many of the scientists were foreign nationals) and ..."—"as" is often a problem; I'd used "since", but here, why not just remove it altogether?
  • "Director"—MOS, CMOS, and the Oxford NHR all say to minimise unnecessary caps.
  • I guess two temporal vaguenesses are OK in the lead—"eventually" and "for a time"—presuming that they're clarified in the body of the article.
  • "in order to"? Please.

I've read through just the lead and first section. Tony (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Tony.

  1. Someone keeps linking country names. Unlinked them, and I'll keep a watch to make sure they don't come back.
  2. I have to use the future in the past tense about the plutonium. Today we know that you can breed plutonium in a reactor, and that it is fissile, and can be used in an atomic bomb. But back then neither was certain; the element had been theorised, but not yet discovered.
  3. All my sources agree that NRX was the most powerful research reactor in the world when it was started in 1947. However, they don't say what replaced it. In Canada it was superseded by NRU, which started up in 1957. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Not much to complain about here, but I have a couple of minor quibbles.

  • "For the purpose, he obtained 450 kilograms (990 lb) of uranium dioxide in paper bags obtained from": "obtained" twice.
    Deleted second "obtained" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "notably proximity to materials such as heavy water": is "proximity" the right word here? I would have thought access, not proximity, would have been key.
    Changed "proximity" to "access" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Auger assumed the position instead": I assume this refers to the position offered Kowarski, but it's been several sentences so a more explicit reference would be helpful.
    Changed to "Auger became head of the experimental physics division instead" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also tried to recruit Harry Thode": who is "He"? The referent appears to be Laurence and Mackenzie, in which case it should be "They".
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It established the Combined Policy Committee to control the Manhattan Project, on which Canada was represented by Howe": suggest "It established the Combined Policy Committee, on which Canada was represented by Howe, to control the Manhattan Project", assuming that's the intended meaning.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appointment of Cockcroft as head of the AERE baffled me till I realized that it was a UK organization; most of the alphabet soup in the article refers to Canadian organizations. Can you make it clearer within the sentence that Cockcroft was being pulled from Canada? After the "Cockcroft did not depart" sentence I realized I must be missing something, and clicked through to the AERE article.
    Changed to: "the British government suddenly announced that Cockcroft had been appointed the head of the new Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Britain" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks in good shape to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- I think we still need image and source reviews if you could chase pls, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the A Class Review included an image review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2[edit]

The article seems to be ready to be promoted. However, one big issue I have is that huge caption in Establishment. Is it possible to make it shorter? I can't tell who is who especially because it lacks colors and the full size is not enough. Other than that, I think the first paragraph in the lead needs a bit more of expansion, but that's just nitpicking. I'll support it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colour film was very expensive in the 1940s. I've removed the long caption, and expanded the lead paragraph by two sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

  • The first external link showed up as dead on the link-checker, and a manual check confirms that it is a goner. This might be an active version of the page, but you would know more about that than me. All other links are in working order.
    Yes, that is the page. They moved it slightly. I preferred this version to others because it highlights the very minor differences between the U.S. and British versions of the document. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 2 needs a publisher listed (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, from the looks of it). All other references are well-formatted.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Restricted Data (ref 13) a reliable source? At first glance, this looks like somebody's personal blog. Is Alex Wellerstein an expert in the field? That's probably what it would take for this source to be reliable.
    Yes, he is. He is an assistant professor at the Stevens Institute of Technology, and specialises in the Manhattan Project.[15] He also writes aboiut it for the New Yorker.[16] Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the sources appear reliable enough to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2016 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2016 [17].

Dick Cresswell[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Been a couple of months since my last nom, let's hope I remember how it goes... Unusually among the subjects of my air force bios, Dick Cresswell was not an ace, nor did he achieve high rank, but he did manage to be in the right place at the right time to achieve several 'firsts' in RAAF history. His main claim to fame was commanding No. 77 Squadron three times, most notably during the Korean War, when he oversaw its conversion from Mustangs to Meteors, and so became the first man to command an RAAF jet squadron in combat. He also seems to have had a reputation as a bit of a cowboy, so perhaps it's no surprise that he once got himself into hot water for practising with his revolver in the vicinity of a fellow officer who was ticking him off... Tks to everyone who participated in the article's recent GA and MilHist A-Class reviews, and to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looks great. Very nice piece of work. Just a few quibbles.

  • Perhaps link Air Member for Personnel? I'm not sure average reader would be familiar with the term. There is a specific article on the Australian post, but it's one sentence and a list of holders.
    • Yes, the Australian AMP page isn't much, but if I had to link anything I think it'd have to be that one -- shall I do that? If I ever get round to writing an article on the Australian Air Board I'd probably merge AMP with it and leave a redirect...
      • If you asked me, I'd add something about Australia/Commonwealth air forces to the article on the RAF AMP, then move the Australian article to "List of Air Members for Personnel (Australia)"; but that's out of scope for this FAC. --HJM
  • The business with his court-martial is very intriguing.
    • Was the informal nature typical of the time? (Obviously there was a war on and the RAAF was in its infancy so perhaps it was).
      • I wasn't aware that the court martial process sounded informal here -- is there any particular wording that suggests that?
        • It sounds like he turned up one day expecting to fly and suddenly found himself in front of a court-martial. --HJM
          • The way Odgers' bio puts it, that's just how it was... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which is sort of my point! ;) Was that normal? It seems ... if not informal then ... abrupt? --HJM
              • It seems a bit unusual to me too but I really don't know how unusual in terms of air force courts-martial, Odgers doesn't comment on that specifically. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we know why the sentence was relatively mild? Or why an officer as senior as the AMP would get involved? Or why the sanction was effectively reversed?
      • Although the court martial is mentioned in several sources, only biographer Odgers goes into detail, and he doesn't comment on the severity or otherwise of the sentence. Lukis got involved because Cresswell went to him to resign. Re. the reversal, Odgers comments "Clearly, the RAAF was softening its attitude toward Dick", but this appears simply observation/opinion.
  • Cresswell questioned the decision through official channels, with the result that he retained the position of wing leader What was that all about? A spitting contest between two officers?
    • I figure Cresswell preferred the position of wing leader to squadron commander, given he'd already been squadron commander, but that's not stated outright. In any case, he asked the Dept of Air for clarification and the dept said he was to stay as wing leader, and Steege kept him as squadron CO, so Cresswell had two jobs for a while -- I felt this could be summarised as we have it in the article.
    • Okay, another question: what's the difference between a wing leader and a wing commander? --HJM
      • Wing commander is a rank, equivalent to lieutenant colonel, and wing leader is a position, like commanding officer or executive officer. It's actually quite difficult to find a definition of the position, even though it's frequently mentioned in sources -- Darwin Spitfires is the only one I know that spells it out, hence my using it here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know it's a rank, but you have just above No. 81 Wing's new commanderemphasis mine (who is a group captain) giving instructions to a squadron leader, who is to be come the wing's leader. What does the leader do that the commander doesn't? --HJM
          • The terminology the air force uses for positions vs. ranks can be maddening, I grant you... ;-) To clarify first off, Steege wanted Cresswell to be a squadron commander (position) not squadron leader (rank) -- Cresswell had been a wing commander (rank) since Jan 44. As to the difference between the wing leader and the wing's commander, the wing leader has tactical control of the formation in the air, but the wing's commander is in charge of the formation over all (operationally and administratively). The implication is that Steege wanted to have tactical control of the wing in the air as well as overall command, but the source doesn't state that explicitly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's as far as the top of the Korean War section and I'm out of time; I'll revisit tomorrow hopefully. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much for stopping by, Harry -- look fwd to further comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back to do the second half of the article but it might take me a couple of days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming:

  • What were his duties as Director of Air Staff Policy?
    • Source doesn't elaborate, I'm afraid.
  • Do we know why he wasn't interested in climbing the ranks further?
    • His quote about his resignation in 1957 suggests he expected to be desk-bound if he stayed.
  • the RAAF Antarctic Flight impressed his Beaver it took me a moment to parse the intended meaning of "impressed" here ('pressed into service' vs 'made an impression') and I'm not sure it would be clear to everyone; I'd suggest linking to Wiktionary or rephrasing
    • Heh, fair enough -- tweaked.

And that's it. I struggled to find anything to criticise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks again Harry! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I'm happy with your replies, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Harry. Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "the first RAAF commander of a jet squadron in war" You say this twice in the lead.
    • Heh, actually I repeat all three of the "firsts' from the lead para in the second para, the purpose being to put them in context having spelt them out initially to establish his notability -- if I did the other two more subtly, perhaps there's a way I can tweak the third similarly?
  • Presumably his mother was related to Geoffrey de Haviland, and I think it is worth spelling out his family connection with aviation.
    • Geoffrey isn't mentioned specifically, just the family/business, which I tried to established using the link.
      • I think the sources you mention justify mentioning that she was a relative of aviation pioneer Geoffrey de Haviland, and it would be helpful in explaining his interest in flying.
        • Again, while I'm sure she must've been some relation of Geoffrey's, I prefer not to state what isn't explicit in the source. The article does mention that Dick's interest in aviation was piqued by his mother's stories. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Wing leader' seems a bit obscure. I could not find it in OED or wiktionary, but it is mentioned in Wikipedia on Wing Commander as being of the same rank. I see it is discussed above. A few words of explanation would be helpful - or maybe create a stub article explaining and link to it?
    • Do you mean in the lead, as it is defined at the relevant point in the main body?
      • I missed that. How about adding your explanation to Wing commander (rank), and then linking to it in the lead?
        • I'm not sure about adding this role info to a rank article, but I think I can put together a new, brief article specifically for wing leader that we could link to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Following up, Harry and Dudley, I've put together a new article that should tell you most of what you wanted to know about wing leaders and weren't afraid to ask, linked it in the article and dropped the inline definition that I think sort of just sat there anyway. Tks for prompting me -- deliberately or not -- to do it, as it was probably overdue... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Great. I assume from what you say that wing leaders were not used in action after WW2 - e.g. in Korea? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • AFAIK the RAF had no squadrons in Korea, let alone wings, and though there was talk of forming 77 Sqn RAAF and 2 Sqn SAAF into a Commonwealth Mustang wing, it never happened. The RAF had several combat squadrons in the Far East during the Malayan Emergency and after, and some might have formed wings but it doesn't necessily mean they had wing leaders, unless they contemplated throwing entire wings into combat there, which seems a bit unlikely to me. That they had wing leaders in Britain and Germany in the 1950s suggests that they did indeed contemplate throwing entire wings into the air in Europe if the balloon went up...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wing flew 1,125 sorties in October and November, dropping over 400,000 pounds" - bombing Japanese ships and/or army in New Guinea?
    • Fair enough, should be able to expand that.
  • " In an unusual move, the RAAF did not raise him to wing commander" Is it known why? Because he had made enemies?
    • No-one elaborates -- the implication, as you might glean from the Stephens quote re. his DFC, is he had some enemies but nothing explicit re. this situation, just that it was a curious decision.
  • "The communist advance" I would prefer Communist with a capital C. Is there a rule on this?
    • Been a while since I've seen it brought up so not sure if there's a guideline, nor do I have a strong preference, so would tend to use what most of the sources do. In this case, checking again, Alan Stephens and Steve Eather use lower case, and Robert O'Neill, George Odgers and Doug Hurst capitalise it, so I guess the "cappers" have it!
  • That's it. A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Won't get back to this for a few hours, but to get started,

  • "In this capacity," I would omit. I'm not sure what it adds, and it isn't very clear what capacity. Commander? He was acting as pilot when he shot down the plane.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was trying to say was that he was commanding the squadron when he achieved the first "first", as well as the subsequent ones, but I guess it's not that important.
Resuming ...
  • "Manly West" as Manly is the only Sydney-area location (that is, Manly) that non-Australians might have heard of on the list (other than Sydney), it might be worth a link. I note the only Manly West article is to a place in Queensland.
  • Heh, that was an annoying one for me... Manly West sounds like a suburb but isn't, it's just a locale in Balgowlah (not Manly, so that link doesn't help).
  • "on his first day of operations three days" I might try to separate the "days" a bit more.
  • Yeah, I didn't like that either, will try and think of something that's clear but not repetitive.
  • "No. 77 Squadron transferred from Iwakuni in Japan to Pohang, South Korea, on 12 October, to support UN troops advancing northwards from the Pusan Perimeter" I might ax the comma after "October".
  • Will do.
  • "Air Vice Marshal Scherger" I might remind the reader with something like "his onetime commander at Wagga Wagga" or similar.
  • Will do.
  • "during the developing crisis" I'm not sure what it adds. Surely we are not discussing the runup to war in June 1950? I'd cut it. I also might eliminate the "had" earlier in the sentence, if the source will allow.
  • No, not June 1950, we're referring to the Communist advance and Allied withdrawal in December, mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • " fitted to the Australian aircraft" if we are discussing the Meteors, this may be confusing as they were British-made. I might simply say, "fitted to them".
  • Agree, will trim.
  • "act as a MiG-15" I might say "simulate a ..."
  • Good idea, will do.
  • "Cresswell later recalled" does "later" add anything?
  • Not much, consider it gone.
  • Do we have a burial site, if he was?
  • None of my sources say, I'm afraid.
  • That's all. Very well done. I look forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks very much for that, Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actioned per my responses above, happy to discuss further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Excellent article, and I struggled to find much to comment about. The following two things came to my eye for comment or consideration.

Lead

  • It looks odd linking the Korean War, but not the Second World War: any reason?
    • I tend to feel it's superfluous linking WWII as it's such a well-known and wide-ranging conflict, which I don't think you can say about Korea. I might be more inclined to link WWII if I mentioned it in an article that didn't also discuss/link some of the war's specific theatres, campaigns or battles. In any case I'd be prepared to defer to local consensus.

WWII

  • "He souvenired": is it really used as a verb? (I guess it must be, but it jars a little to my British eyes!
    • I have to admit it's a kind of shorthand I like (as opposed to "He took as a souvenir") but again if consensus is against it I'd reluctantly alter... :-)

– The Bounder (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As long as you've considered the points and are still happy with the, that's all fine with me - neither of them are deal breakers. Excellent article and I thank you for it. – The Bounder (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2016 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2016 [18].

Gottlob Berger[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gottlob Berger, one of Heinrich Himmler's key aides, who was responsible to a significant extent for the expansion of the Waffen-SS from a supposedly "racially pure" organisation to one which made a mockery of Hitler and Himmler's racial ideas by recruiting from almost all of the countries occupied by Nazi Germany during WWII. Berger was arrested and tried for war crimes after the war, but got off pretty lightly in the end, despite his responsibility for several significant crimes. He was also a close friend and ally of the notorious Oskar Dirlewanger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:War_Ensign_of_Germany_1903-1918.svg includes an error tag
    • I've deleted all the flag icons, I'm not a huge fan of them anyway.
  • File:Uw_plaats_is_nog_vrij_in_de_Waffen_ss.png: what is the copyright status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, wasn't PD in The Netherlands in 1996, so not PD-US. Have replaced it with one from the Bundesarchiv. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments This is a very good article about a horrible person, and a good snapshot of the crazed empire building which was a feature of many senior Nazi officials. I have the following comments:

  • "but his organisational skills were largely responsible for the growth of the Waffen-SS to a total of 38 divisions by war's end" - this is probably too strong given that the expansion of the SS was also due to Hitler's preference for it over the Army. Berger seems to have made the "best" of this opportunity.
    • Adjusted.
  • "briefly held in custody after Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923" - did he play any role in the Putsch, or was he arrested as part of a general round up?
    • the sources don't mention any part he played in the putsch, so I assume he was just rounded up with the rest of the Nazi's.
  • "Berger played a key role in directing the fifth column Sudetendeutsches Freikorps during the Sudeten Crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1938,[12] and the organisational skills he had displayed there marked him as highly suitable for the SS recruiting role" - this seems a bit out of place at the end of the para
    • moved it to the end of the subsection.
  • Was Berger's duties at the outbreak of war limited to recruiting members of the SS only, or was he also involved in overseeing recruit training?
    • In September 1939 he was only the head of the recruiting department, training was the responsibility of several other departments within the SS-HA.
  • " Waffen-SS,[20] a term he coined in an agreement dated 2 March 1940.[21] He used the new term..." - I'd suggest including a translation of the term here - noting that the name means "Fighting SS" would help to illustrate why it was seen to be attractive to the other branches of the SS
    • Done. "Armed SS" is probably the more common translation.
  • The final sentences of both paras in the "The "national legions"" section are a bit too similar. It also seems a bit narrow to attribute the German failure to expand these units to administrative issues: very few people in occupied countries were willing to volunteer for the German military.
    • Tweaked the first para a bit with some more material from Stein. The willingness of people from occupied territories to enlist varied across the board, for example, the pro-German nationalists among the Dutch were fairly keen, at least early on, but the Flemish less so.
      • The wording is still a bit similar: the first of the two paras could cover the problems during recruitment and initial training, and the second the problems which arose later on? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Berger handle what look to be multiple full-time jobs during the war? Did he delegate the work to others, or leave it undone?
    • He had multiple department heads and a good-sized staff. I haven't seen any information indicating that he delegated any more than would have been usual for a man with multiple departmental heads, or that he failed to address any work he had. He was obviously an excellent administrator, which was probably why Himmler wouldn't give him a combat command.
      • OK, but it seems likely to me that corners would have been cut. Himmler also had lots of jobs, and didn't do most of them - the idea was to get his finger into as many pies as possible. This kind of double up and empire building was common for the senior Nazi bureaucrats, with historians noting that it messed up the processes of government, such as they were. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You may well be right, the overlapping chains of command that Hitler (and Himmler) implemented certainly had that effect in a lot of places, notably in German-occupied Serbia, but I haven't been able to locate anything that says this of Berger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When did Berger assume command of XIII SS Army Corps?
    • He didn't, his was more of a kampfgruppe command, which included the XIII SS Army Corps, itself commanded by SS-Gruppenführer Max Simon. I've tweaked it.
  • More generally, it's not really clear what he did during 1945 prior to the German surrender at present - can this be fleshed out?
    • There isn't much to go on. He was obviously involved with the POW role (particularly with the Prominente), and had the kampfgruppe command as well, so they put him in the Alps. There can't have been too much going on with Waffen-SS recruiting at that stage...
      • Fair enough. Some of the other senior Nazis also went to ground at this time. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was convicted under that part of count three relating to the murder of French Général de division Gustave Mesny, a POW who was killed in reprisal for the death of Generalleutnant Fritz von Brodowski at the hands of the French resistance in October 1944" - this isn't mentioned earlier in the article. What was his role here? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved the mention up, it was a command responsibility-type charge applied to Berger because he was in charge of the POW camps at the time of Mesny's murder.

Support All my comments are now addressed. Great work with this article - having high quality articles on Nazi functionaries is an important element of building our coverage of Nazi Germany. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick. A pretty nasty lot, but I agree, we need to improve our coverage of them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Assayer[edit]

I am not sure, if a featured article of the English wikipedia has to be based on the relevant Non-English literature as well. Nonetheless, since the subject is German history, I will name a few studies. While there is no book-length biography of Berger, a couple of articles have been published in German by:

  • Alfred Hoffmann: Der "maßlose Drang, eine Rolle zu spielen": Gottlob Berger. In: Täter, Helfer, Trittbrettfahrer, ed. by Wolfgang Proske, Vol. 1, Reutlingen 2010, pp. 21-51.
  • Gerhard Rempl: Gottlob Berger. "Ein Schwabengeneral der Tat". In: Die SS. ed. by Ronald Smelser & Enrico Syring, Paderborn 2000. pp. 45-59.
  • Joachim Scholtyseck: Der „Schwabenherzog“. Gotthold Berger, SS-Obergruppenführer. In: Die Führer der Provinz. NS-Biographien aus Baden und Württemberg, ed. by Michael Kißener & Joachim Scholtyseck, Konstanz 1997, pp. 77-110.
  • Gerhard Rempel: Gottlob Berger and Waffen-SS Recruitment: 1933-1945. In: Militärgesch. Mitteilungen 27, (1980), pp. 107-122.

The article is largely based on books by Adrian Weale and George Stein, respectively. While Weale's book is apparently a synthesis of various studies studies published in English and suffers from the author's apparent inability to read German (review by Richard J. Evans), Stein's study was originally published in 1966 (1984 reprinted in pbk). It is by now considered to be outdated. Publications by Rupert Butler, Chris Bishop, Chris McNab, Jonathan Trigg are not high-quality. Kübler is national-socialist in outlook.

The standard work on the Waffen-SS is still Bernd Wegner's study of 1980, 9th ed. 2010, published in English as "The Waffen SS" in 1990. In recent years the interest in the Waffen-SS has reinvigorated. A representative collection of essays is Die Waffen-SS. Neue Forschungen. ed. by Jan Erik Schulte, Peter Lieb, Bernd Wegner, Schöningh, Paderborn 2014. Many of the contributing authors have also published monographic studies (mainly revised PhD. theses). On the recruitment process, see in particular René Rohrkamp, »Weltanschaulich gefestigte Kämpfer«: Die Soldaten der Waffen-SS 1933-1945. Paderborn 2010.

On the whole the article seems a little unbalanced. There is much information about the organization of the different units, but it is not always clear what Berger has to do with this. For example, the paragraph about the Baltic divisions doesn't even mention Berger or his and Himmler's promises of autonomy to Latvians and Estonians. His role in crushing the Slovakian uprising is passed over rather quickly. Neither do we learn much about Berger's ideology. As early as 1938 Himmler had proclaimed that he intended to recruit "non-German Germanics" for the SS, and in 1940 Berger dreamt to win over millions of men with German ancestry in the Americas and Australia at some point. Moreover, Berger reasoned that by transforming the SS into a full-scale army it could be established as a real alternative to the Wehrmacht. On this see Bernd Wegner: Auf dem Weg zur pangermanischen Armee. Dokumente zur Entstehungsgeschichte des III. ("germanischen") SS-Panzerkorps In: Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 28 (1980): pp. 101–136. More material on the soldierly role models of the SS can be found in Knut Stang: Ritter, Landsknecht, Legionär: Militärmythische Leitbilder in der Ideologie der SS. Frankfurt 2009; Berger's and Himmler's ideas of the Islam have found some attention in recent years, for example by David Motadel: Islam and Nazi Germany's War. Cambridge, MA, 2014. --Assayer (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm also not sure of the requirement for non-English sources on en WP, although there is no doubt that biographical articles on non-English-speaking people have made it to Featured status without a significant weight of foreign sources. I will see if I can get access to Wegner, thanks for that advice and the pointers to other sources. I would ask that you provide some evidence that Stein is outdated, particularly given that you have listed a 35-year-old book as being the standard work on the subject. For example, in my main area of specialisation, books from the 1960s and 70s remain standard texts on aspects of interwar and WWII Yugoslavia. Same goes for the reliability of the other sources. A negative review in an academic journal would be the sort of evidence I'd be looking for. Having said that, this isn't a dissertation, it is WP, so the issue is meeting the reliability requirements unless you consider an extraordinary claim has been made somewhere. Berger was the head of recruiting, not the organiser of the new divisions, so the history of the changes in recruitment is germane to his biography. Finally, thanks for the mention of the Slovakian uprising, I will take another look at that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with Stein's work is, that it reproduces the image of the Waffen-SS as an military "elite". Sönke Neitzel characterizes this (with reference to Stein and Höhne) as a myth which originated with the Nazi propaganda during the war. ("Des Forschens noch wert? Anmerkungen zur Operationsgeschichte der Waffen-SS," In: MGZS 61 (2002), p. 406, 415) According to Jens Westemeier recent research has shown that Stein's overall judgement, namely that the significance of the Waffen-SS is to be found "in its part in the great battles for the defense of Hitler's Europe", is grossly misleading. (Himmlers Krieger, 2014, p. 13.) Thomas Casagrande criticizes that Stein takes judgements by Eicke and other commanders about the military worth of the "Volksdeutschen" at face value. (Die volksdeutsche SS-Division "Prinz Eugen", 2003, pp. 305-6.) Wegner provided a social history of the Waffen-SS and in that respect his work is still unsurpassed. Later editions have been revised and improved. Considering that it is available in English I am surprised that it is not being used more often in the English Wikipedia.--Assayer (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is a fair analysis of Stein, despite the title of his book. He outlines what was essentially a two-tier system, the second of which he describes as far from "elite". He's also far from the only writer that identifies what was effectively a two or multi-tier arrangement within the 38 divisions of the Waffen-SS. He observes that what made the first tier "elite" was largely about the size and equipment of those formations, not necessarily the personnel or even training, although indoctrination obviously played a part. Other authors have observed better relationships between officers, NCOs and men in Waffen-SS formations when compared to comparable Army formations, for example. Comparable Army formations would also fit the "elite" description, largely for similar reasons. I have found that Wegner is held by my state library, so I will go and have a look and see what he says about Berger and his recruiting activities. In response to your comment I have added more about the Slovak uprising and some additional material about Berger from Kroener et al in various places. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to pop into the library and go through Wegner, as suggested. I have started adding material from it, though most of his mentions of Berger are in passing or in footnotes, and the material added consists of fairly minor tweaks here and there. Based on my reading, there isn't a large amount of material in Wegner that really adds to Berger's biography, or even to the chronology of Waffen-SS recruiting that I have tried to capture as a way of reflecting Berger's impact on it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added 15 new citations from Wegner covering some additional material regarding Berger's involvement in ideological indoctrination, rivalry with other SS leaders, his relationship with Himmler, the issues with Volksdeutsche and "Germanic" recruitment and a number of other bits and pieces throughout. There isn't much there about Berger himself, but I have tried to capture what little there was, as well as material regarding recruiting more generally. As already noted, I have also added material about the Slovak uprising. Further, despite your comments about Stein, I consider him reliable for the material he is used for in this article, his overall judgement of the Waffen-SS isn't being used here, merely the history of the recruiting process and related material. I believe the article has been improved by the addition of the material from Wegner, and believe it meets the Featured Article criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Berger's SA career was limited by his soldierly ideas of politics and leadership". What soldierly ideas?
    • The source doesn't say. I assume that means they were very "black and white" and limited in vision?
  • "Berger had achieved the rank of Major der Reserve in the Wehrmacht by 1938, but his initial rank upon joining the Allgemeine SS was SS-Standartenführer, based upon his SA service." Presumably this means that he was then too junior to have suggested camouflage jackets, but this could do with spelling out.
    • No, full colonel equivalent was quite a high rank prior to the war, when the largest SS formation was a regiment (Standarte) commanded by a SS-Standartenführer. So there is no implication there. To avoid it, I've moved the rank bit down to the next para.
  • "Berger played a key role in directing the fifth column Sudetendeutsches Freikorps during the Sudeten Crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1938,[13] and the organisational skills he had displayed there marked him as highly suitable for the SS recruiting role." I would delete the word "had".
    • Done.
  • "creating separate sections to deal with recruiting inside and outside the Reich.[37] This latter section" Which latter section?
    • Clarified.
  • Operation Barbarossa - this should be linked.
    • It is already, piped to invasion of the Soviet Union
  • "Not content with this fairly minor and surreptitious recruiting effort, Berger proposed to raise a seventh Waffen-SS division from the ethnic Germans of Yugoslavia, something that had been a long-term plan of Berger's." The first and last clauses seem superfluous as you have said in the previous paragraph that Berger had proposed to recruit in Yugoslavia.
    • Removed the last clause, I think the first is still useful to connect the two ideas.
  • "Tyrolean General Levy Act" Why was a law of the County of Tyrol relevant to Yugoslavia?
    • A bloody good question, and the source doesn't explicitly say. I believe that once German sovereignty was established, the act could be used by way of a general application to any territory under German rule. I've added a clarifying phrase. Let me know what you think?
  • "when an SS judge issued an arrest warrant for Dirlewanger, the SS-HA chief intervened with Himmler saying, "Better to shoot two Poles too many than one too few. A savage country cannot be governed in a decent manner" Presumably Dirlawanger was charged with crimes against Poles, but it would be helpful to clarify.
    • the source says the unit was involved in anti-partisan operations, I've clarified it.
  • "In August 1942, Berger wrote a letter in which he railed against moves to promote SS ideology as a substitute for religion." This could do with expanding. Was he religious and were his rivals (who?) against religion?
    • I've not seen any material about Berger's religious views, but Wegner spends quite a bit of space exploring whether SS ideology was actually functionally equivalent to a religion. The SS itself was basically anti-Christian, but the basis of this was really anti-clerical rather than anti-belief. This is a quite complex issue and quite tangential to Berger himself, and on reflection, I've removed the sentence.
  • "he historian George C. Stein observes that few of the "national legion" recruits were motivated by "political or ideological idealism"" So what did motivate them?
    • The usual. I've added some of the factors Stein mentions.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By this time, the crisis in the "Germanic" project was obvious" This appears to mean by the end of the war, when presumably there were bigger problems than the crisis in the Germanic project.
    • No, in August 1943. I've clarified.
  • " In the German-occupied territory of Serbia, the General Government (annexed Poland)" It sounds odd to describe a government as a territory.
    • It is a bit weird, but that is what it was called. I've piped the link for clarity.
  • "only 3,000 members of the division escaped encirclement and destruction" Out of how many?
    • 14,000, added.
  • "In this role, Berger proposed a plan to kidnap and enslave 50,000 Eastern European children between the ages of 10 and 14, under the codename Heuaktion" You have already said this above.
    • Only in the lead. It is mentioned again in the War crimes trial section, but just by name.
  • His only meeting with Hitler mentioned in the article was when he claimed to have received a dressing down. Are other meetings known?
    • I haven't come across any. I assume that Himmler was the main go-between when he wanted authority to act on ideas.
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: absent a source review, but this looks to be good to go. Can I have dispensation for another nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. --Laser brain (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by K.e.coffman[edit]

  • Lead could possibly be a bit streamlined (shortened).
    • The lead is within tolerances for WP:LEAD and properly summarises the article.
  • Lead states that Berger was the "father" of the Waffen-SS; in the body of the article this statement is cited to Adrian Weale. I cannot see what professional education he has, but he does not appear to be a professional historian. If this statement is kept, I'd prefer to see corroboration from other sources for this statement.
    • I fail to see why it needs to be corroborated, the context for it is explained.
  • Waffen-SS is italicized while the main article does not use italics; suggest removing italics as this would improve readability and would be consistent with the main article.
    • It is italicised in accordance with MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, so the main article should be italicised rather than the other way around.
  • Suggest removing non-highest awards from the infobox; it would shorten the infobox which is quite long
    • Sounds like a personal preference to me, this article is consistent with other Featured military biographies.
  • Structure: the article lists the events chronologically, which gets repetitive. This also results in a long table of contents with each subsection further subdivided into sections. Suggest possibly restructuring, or at least coming up with a summary header for each sub-section (i.e. 1941) to convey the key development/outcome for the year, and then using "TOC limit" to "hide" the sub-sub-sections.
    • It is a logical structure. Other reviewers seemed to be ok with it, so on balance I'll be retaining it as is.
  • I think it would help the readers if the article was shorter, as a key requirement for a featured article is: "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Upon reading the article, I felt that certain areas could be streamlined, such as:

References

  1. ^ Weale 2010, p. 215.
Don't believe this passage is necessary, as it discusses Berger's claims and then states that the author this is being cited to doubts this account. Could easily be omitted.
I think it tells us something about him.

References

  1. ^ LBW 2015.
This could be streamlined, by omitting where Berger was a school inspector at, and omitting where he was a senior official. The section on early career could be streamlined, to allow reader to move into the content that covers Berger's Waffen-SS involvement. Similar:
Along the same lines: "...resisted by the Main Welfare Office for Ethnic Germans (German: Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle or VoMi) ..." -- German language translation is unneeded since interested readers can click on the link.

References

  1. ^ LEO-BW 2015.
This is unneeded, especially with the use of German words for common terms: Volksschule, Realschule. Wikipedia does not need to teach readers foreign languages. It would also be expected that Berger would have received some schooling before attending teacher training.
This is the same argument you are using elsewhere, but as I have pointed out elsewhere, the requirement is that the article be comprehensive, and providing where he went to school is just part of meeting that criteria. For goodness sake, it is information included in his entry in a dictionary of biography! The rest is personal preference.
  • Berger's evasion of Wehrmacht-imposed recruiting restrictions came to a head in June, when the Chief of the OKW Operations Staff, Generalmajor Alfred Jodl initiated an investigation of SS recruiting operations within the Reich. The result was that around 15,000 SS inductions were held up by various Wehrmacht military district headquarters. Berger became aware of Jodl's inquiry and advised Himmler that even their inquiries had underestimated his success, giving the example that the Wehrmacht believed he had exceeded the June quota for SS-Division-Totenkopf by 900 men, when in fact the true figure was 1,164. He boasted to Himmler that during the whole recruiting campaign, he had signed up 15,000 men for SS-Division-Totenkopf, when Hitler had only authorised the recruiting of 4,000 for the division in the same period. To justify his actions, Berger pointed to the fact that, just before the French surrender, Hitler had ordered the release of over-age SS reservists. In the SS-Division-Totenkopf, this meant 13,246 of the 20,000-strong formation.[1]

References

  1. ^ Stein 1984, pp. 95–96.
Similarly, the above passage could be streamlined as I was getting lost in all of the numbers, down to single digits.
No-one else appears to have a problem with it.
Copyediting to remove similar detail would result in a more readable text as the reader would be confronted with fewer numbers, bluer link and / or foreign language terms.
This is just your usual carping about what you call "intricate detail". I call it being comprehensive.
  • This may be a personal preference & outside of the scope of this review, but I'm more accustomed (from English-language literature) to SS Division Totenkopf, SS Division Das Reich, etc. vs SS-Division Totenkopf and SS-Division Nord. (There's also inconsistency as "SS-Division Totenkopf" is also rendered as "SS-Division-Totenkopf").
  • It is personal preference. I have fixed the inconsistency.
The less Germanisation of unit names, the easier it would be for the reader (IMO). Also, as a matter of personal preference, I find it easier on the eyes to avoid italicising German ranks: see sample link or as used in the English translation of Germany and the Second World War: link.
That is your personal view, but it is not supported by MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
For example, compare 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) with the name as it appears in Jozo Tomasevich: 13th SS Division "Handschar".
See above.
  • Section "Re-organisation" appears to be too detailed and not following summary style.
    • I reject that. It is comprehensive.
  • There are some instances of overcite, such as:
  • Wounded four times,[1] he was awarded the Iron Cross First Class,[2] and was considered 70 per cent disabled at the time of his discharge.[1]
  • That isn't overciting, it is close citation, so the reader knows where the information comes from.

References

  1. ^ a b Weale 2010, p. 118.
  2. ^ Weale 2012, pp. 246–247.
  • Providing an exhaustive list of decorations, including minor, appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Suggest trimming the list & having minor decorations go, such as:
There are probably more that could go.
That is a personal preference of yours demonstrated in your deletion of awards from infoboxes and articles elsewhere. I don't propose to change it, it is comprehensive, which is one of the Featured criteria.
  • Re: "While it achieved successes and proved itself competent in counter-insurgency operations against the Partisans in eastern Bosnia,[1] the division earned a reputation for brutality and savagery, not only during combat operations,[2]" -- I would prefer this to be cited in its entirety to Tomasevich. I.e. does he say that the division "achieved success"?
  • Why would you "prefer" it to be cited to Tomasevich? Tomasevich doesn't provide that information.

References

  1. ^ Bishop 2007, pp. 137–138.
  2. ^ Tomasevich 2001, p. 499.
  • In a similar fashion, Tomasvich would be preferable here, as more authoritative than Weal and more current than Stein:
  • While Weale states that they were mainly motivated by anti-communism,[1] the historian George C. Stein observes that few of the "national legion" recruits were motivated by "political or ideological idealism", but were instead motivated by such factors as a desire for adventure, better food, the prestige of the uniform, and personal circumstances. According to Stein, Berger had no illusions about the motives of his West European recruits, but paid mere lip service to the idea that they joined the "anti-communist" cause out of idealism.[2]
  • This is frankly ridiculous. Stein and Weale make these statements, Tomasevich does not. He was an authority on Yugoslavia in WWII, and didn't write on the Waffen-SS except as it impacted on Yugoslavia. This comment is way off base.

References

  1. ^ Weale 2010, p. 303.
  2. ^ Stein 1984, p. 141.
  • Speaking of which, the article contains 35 citations to Weal & 50 to Stein. I would prefer to see other sources used more, such as aforementioned Tomasvich and Germany and the Second World War.
    • They are where the information resides. I've explained Tomasevich above.

Overall, I feel it's a solid article that could be further improved by following summary style and making the copy more readable. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for having a look, but given we are at odds over a number issues regarding your personal preferences and odd ideas, it will not surprise you that I take a review by you with a generous helping of salt.

@FAC coordinators: User:K.e.coffmann and I have been at odds for some time over his editing approach, so I don't believe his review here is entirely in good faith. In my view it is more a way to promote his various agendas regarding sources, style and content on articles about the Waffen-SS. I believe that should be taken into account when closing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, to be on the safe side I should probably recuse from this as I've been involved in the discussions PM alludes to, through my MilHist connection. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a close look today or tomorrow. Thanks for the heads-up! --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2016 (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/December_2016&oldid=757657348"