Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 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) 22:33, 27 February 2016 [1].

Persoonia terminalis[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC), {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, my main reason for spamming the 5000000th article spot was this - I tried to hit the goal with an article that was improvable to FA standard to show folks that new articles could still be buffed to this level...to show just how much there was still to write. So here we are. This is sort of a co-nom as a bunch of folks have helped along the way - Chevvin, Checkingfax, Koavf, Northamerica1000, Sandstein, ‎Mike Peel, Sasata and many others who chipped in a few edits here and there. Anyone who feels they did a good bit of grunt-work and wanna be co-nom are welcome to put their name to this nom. This was one of the most collaborative articles I've worked on. So have at it folks....I'm here to buff it to the goodest I can....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator As an aside, I would be honored to be co-nominated and I will happily improve the article however reviewers see necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nominator – Yee haw! Count me in. Why is this nom in an archive? Ping me back, Casliber. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sainsf[edit]

I would indeed be honored to be the first to give my comments on the 5,000,000th article. I think some improvement and copyediting is needed here, though the article is fine overall. Here we go!

Lead[edit]
  • ...it was described as a species by Lawrie Johnson and Peter Weston in 1991 please add "his colleague" before "Peter Weston"
    • Done.
  • You can link Australia, described
    • Done.
      • We generally don't link continents - there are enough bluelinks with states and localities.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that can vary with articles. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we seriously need a link for leaf?
      • Similar to australia - linking too-general terms generally unnecessary so removed.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... with subspecies terminalis ... Better write P. t. terminalis, it is the way in many other articles I have seen.
  • Directly naming a subspecies (in the sentence in the previous comment) before identifying both by their name in a separate sentence may confuse readers.
  • ...with narrow short leaves to 1 centimetre (0.4 in) in length Should the "to" be removed or is a measurement missing?
    • Changed to → up to.
Taxonomy[edit]
  • Persoonia terminalis was first treated by Lawrie Johnson of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney in the 1981 edition of Flora of New South Wales as a distinctive subspecies of Persoonia nutans, a broadly defined species that included many forms later classified as separate species. I think we need a rearrangement in this long sentence to make it more readable and easily comprehensible. It could be broken into two sentences. Also, is the description of P. nutans really needed? It is adding to the length of the sentence.
    • I agree the sentence is long and needs rejigging. How it goes is this - P. nutans was a bit of a dumping ground for a bunch of similar-looking plants in Eastern Australia - so folks made some preliminary splits as undescribed subspecies. P. oxycoccoides gets split from nutans and then terminalis gets split from that. So I do think the explanation of P. nutans is important context...will work on this today. I have split the sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sainsf - I did split it....I do think we need the context of nutans. Are you thinking we should somehow rejig the start of it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it just now - it looks excellent! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queensland botanists Trevor Donald Stanley and Estelle M. Ross classed it as a subspecies... Replace "it" by P. terminalis so as to avoid confusion with P. nutans.
    • Done.
  • ... though considered it more likely to be a species in its own right I think "they" is missing.
    • added - I often drop pronouns like this and other folks pick me up on it. It sounds natural to my ears to drop them but happy to concede I am a tad too parsimonious with words at times..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish writing was as simple as hearing! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon re-examining these species, Johnson and colleague Peter Weston concluded that there were several distinct species and Persoonia terminalis was described as such in 1991. What are "these species"? Does it also include P. nutans and P. oxycoccoides? I feel the beginning of this sentence needs to be clearer about this.
  • Who is Peter Richards?
  • I think you are not concerned with the genus here, it has its own page. I guess you meant generic name? Then you should write something like the generic name Persoonia derives from the name of South African botanist Christiaan Hendrik Persoon.
  • About Christiaan Hendrik Persoon. Is it relevant to the article to mention how long he lived or what his author abbreviation is?
  • It has been given the common name of Torrington geebung Seems to invite vagueness.
Precisely. But I deleted the "common name" link - too common to be linked! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. terminalis has been reported to interbreed with P. cornifolia and P. sericea. If you are citing this as an example of interbreeding in Lanceolata group, you should mention in the sentence that these two species belong to this group.
  • Two subspecies are recognised ... a maximum of 1 centimetre (0.4 in) long You should use any one format of mentioning subspecies throughout the article. This format differs from that in the Lead. I have suggested one common format under Lead.
  • Link or locate Torrington.
  • Just a question-I changed the abbreviations to the full words to try to make the taxonomy look more specific, but should I revert it? 96.237.18.103 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Description[edit]
  • It has smooth bark "a" missing?
    • ? - no, bark is a word like 'skin' so needs no article in front of it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My folly.Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The leaf link once again!
  • ...that is both leaf surfaces... comma missing
  • The leaves are rougher than other persoonias Needs a reword like The leaves of this persoonia are rougher than those of others.
  • ...although occasional flowers have been seen to July. Why is "to" here? I guess you should be more careful, I have been pointing out several such errors throughout this article.
    • changed to "as late as July" as the usual flowering period is December-Jan but there can be flowers later until July Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...arising at the ends of branchlets When you were explaining the name 'terminalis under Taxonomy, you said these flowers occur toward the end of branches. Now what are branchlets?
    • changed first to "branchlets". Branchlets are merely little branches. As this is a shrub and not a big tree, branchlet is a more apt name than branch... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...each stalk bears an individual flower that is subtended by a scale leaf at its junction with the stem Not sure what scale leaf means.
    • It's a small rudimentary leaf. I have redlinked it for the moment as we have no article nor article section, and mentioned this as the plants wikiproject. If no-one makes a page in 24 hours I will try to make one. I thought some of the more knowledgeable botanists might have a better idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is Wikitionary-linked now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A proportion of flowers have a true leaf instead, and are described as auxotelic (inflorescences or axes) I think the meaning of the term can be explained in a better way in the brackets.
    • I just took the bracketed bit out as I don't think it added any meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link style
Habitat and distribution[edit]
  • Link outcrop
  • Warialda is a duplicate link
  • ...could be expected to be found there as there is suitable habitat I am not being overcritical, but I think due to the availability of suitable habitat sounds better.
    • ok..I have some misgivings though the second emphasises the reasoning so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both subspecies are found in the Arakoola Nature Reserve... It is weird that though you mention in Taxonomy near which reserve or area the subspecies are found, you do not mention the actual place where they indeed are found there. But you do mention it here. I think the mention of the occurrence of these subspecies should be removed altogether from Taxonomy to avoid repetition or other similar issues.
Ecology[edit]
  • Link bushfire, pollinate, subtropical
  • Temperate is a duplicate link
  • Colletid bees of the genus Leioproctus subgenus Cladocerapis Would look better if you separated genus and subgenus by "and".
    • hmm "and" would make it scan in a manner I have not seen or used, I went with this instead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cultivation[edit]
  • It has been proposed that ... Vague?
    • It was plantsmen and scientists Rodger Elliot and David L Jones who have widely written on Australian plants and published a mammoth encyclopedia on them. So I credited them with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending my comments in batches. It is really a trouble with conominators flooding in and causing edit conflicts and data loss! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can pick up where we are quite readily from the page history, so not insurmountable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so that's the lot. A lot of minor errors seem to have been neglected before the nomination. But let us sort them out together. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: and @Checkingfax: Working with you has been so splendid! So, after finishing a most precise copyediting and thorough reading, I hardly think there is any other flaw in the article. That, of course, barring image review and source review, at which I am not that good.
Therefore this article has my Support on prose. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankyou for being thorough and patient. Sometimes this happens when I've read an article a few times - it is fascinating what the eye misses after a few reads. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM
  • "with one a component of granite outcrops" It wasn't immediately clear to me what this meant
  • "an area of under 100 kilometres (62 mi)" Do you mean square kilometres?
  • Is there any chance you could cite Flora of South-eastern Queensland itself? It strikes me as a little odd that you mention a not-ancient work by name but don't cite it.
  • Is "recurved" jargon?
  • "Initially slightly hairy (or hairless) and becoming hairless with age" This strikes me as an odd way to say this. How about something like "New leaves can be hairless or slightly hairy; if the latter, it becomes hairless with age. They are..."
  • How big are the drupes? Are we talking rosehips, figs, peaches?
    • they are currant-sized...will look for some numbers... annoyingly not one of the sources mentions a size for them. adddd now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Torrington-Binghi area" mean "around the settlements of Torrington and Binghi"? If so, presumably we'd need a wikilink to an article on Binghi somewhere? The first page of Google is suggesting that this is a slang word for an aborigine- am I misunderstanding something here?
    • A look on google shows that it is a name that applies to the area (see here), but exactly howto define it - not sure as yet. I've heard the word occasionally over the past 30 years but will try get a correct definition...redlink time methinks.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The '2' indicates it has a range of under 100 km" Again- km don't measure area, they measure distance (also, what does the "R" mean? And is it worth using the convert template?)
  • "It is rated as 3R[c] on ROTAP,[14]" Punctuation
  • Not a big deal, but maybe you could colour-code the distribution map based on subspecies?
    • (groan) will be tricky. Will take a look to see if feasible tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, not at all a big deal- if it's not doable, it's not doable. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, with the currawong picture, I think the article looks a bit cluttered at most text sizes.
  • Is there a gender-neutral alternative to "Plantsmen"?
  • ""Holotype of Persoonia terminalis L.A.S.Johnson & P.H.Weston [family PROTEACEAE]". Global Plants; JSTOR 225972." What am I looking at here? Is your JSTOR link correct?
    • The number is not the jstor number as such. Entered the url instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, great- I wasn't familiar with the Global Plants project. Would an access date be needed? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that some of your Hunter sources are self-published, so there's no more information to be given in the cites?
    • The only other thing is "A Report to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service" - not sure how to shoehorn that in to both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have {{cite report}}- you could do something like this: "Hunter, John T. (2000). "Flora Survey of Kings Plains National Park" (report). New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1740.2724." This certainly isn't a dealbreaker- I defer to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see this article at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. Not as long as some others, but I think that reflects the limited literature. I wonder if the current image placement makes the article look a little crowded. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

  • "Queensland botanists Trevor Donald Stanley and Estelle M. Ross classed P. terminalis as part of Persoonia oxycoccoides" If they referred to it as a subspecies, shouldn't it be referred to in an other way here? Perhaps say "as P. o. terminalis" in parenthesis after Persoonia oxycoccoides? FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • they didn't formally describe it at al, so can't call it anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He viewed it as a distinctive subspecies of Persoonia nutans" Likewise, (as P. n. terminalis)?
    • It was called Persoonia nutans subsp. D and is mentioned in the footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems remarkable it was named so late, any word on why it was overlooked? Confused for already described species?
  • "though persoonias as a genus" Is it common practice to refer to genus names like this?
  • Support - not much more else to add, so will contribute with an image review as well. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - all images CC licensed, either photos from Flickr or selfmade maps, all with appropriate sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Koavf[edit]

Ready for promotion? No one has commented here for over a week and it seems like all objections have been met. Is there anything else that should be done for this article? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are fine, and since images have been done for a while, I'd recommend tagging. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 96.237.18.103 has expanded the abbreviations under Taxonomy. Though a good faith edit, I guess it has to be reverted as it does not suit the style here. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • what he's done is expanded those binomials where it is the first mention of a species. I could see a case for keeping these expanded, just as I could abbreviating them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

Support from me on prose, with light c/es made. Accessible and understandable to the fabled reader that we pitch for; ie an intelligent lay teenager, while not compromising the interest of the specialist audience that will be the majority reading this page. A difficult balance with botany; well done here, again, by Cas Liber. Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecked inlines 3, 17 & 19. No issues. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 27 February 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) 22:30, 27 February 2016 [2].

Jumping Flash![edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Flash! is a 1995 platform video game that has the distinction of being one of the most overlooked games of all time as well as the first platform game in "true 3D". It was originally hoped by Sony that this game would give them the opportunity to create themselves a "platform star" like Sonic and Mario, but that never materialised. This game was nothing more than a technology demonstration for the then-new PlayStation console and was very quickly overshadowed by games like Super Mario 64. Despite all that, many critics recognise this game's legacy and importance associated with early 3D gaming.

I've been re-working this article for a while now and I believe this meets the FA criteria. I know that after I've exhausted every possible source, and with the help of some others, I've gained some more that I didn't think were possible, so a big thanks goes out to everyone who has helped over the months. FYI, the reason why it failed last time was due to some misinterpretations with some sources, but after an extensive peer review and a copyedit, I believe they have all been addressed. JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a read and let you know what I think! I haven't reviewed an article for some time, but this just happened to catch my eye.--SexyKick 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SexyKick, just wondering if you would still like to leave some input? No rush of course, but I'd hate to see this get closed due to inactivity. JAGUAR  10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I was reading through, I remarked to myself that sentences / paragraphs in the Plot section didn't seem to end with citations. I checked two references in the Reception and Legacy and both held up. But I don't know when I'm going to have time between real life rock, and real life hard place.--SexyKick 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Don't worry about this too much, I'm not that anxious just yet. Plot sections don't need to be sourced, although most of the basic plot is covered in the game's manual itself. JAGUAR  16:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Techtri[edit]

It's certainly in better shape than last time it came up for FAC, but I've still got some concerns. On a quick read through I noticed the following.

Lead:

  • "Jumping Flash! has been described as synonymous with Sony's debut gaming hardware" - By who? There's no reference here, and this doesn't get mentioned again later in the article as far as I can tell.
  • Rephrased to "Jumping Flash! has been described as an ancestor as well as an early showcase for 3D graphics in console gaming", as it's mentioned in the article as well as in numerous sources.[3][4] JAGUAR  14:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Development and release:

  • I think I'm right in saying "PreScreen - Jumping Flash! (April 1995)". Edge (Future plc) (19): 41. April 1995.", "Edge - Pre Screen". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." and ""Staff. PreScreen - Jumping Flash!". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." reference different pages of the same article, so why do they use different titles? Also the date appears twice in the first one for some reason.
  • Fixed both JAGUAR  14:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of combining the two refs that pointed to the same page of the same article [5]. Techtri (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology, vastly differing from other contemporaneous platform games such as Donkey Kong Country and Yoshi's Island." - Sourced to Edge's July 1995 review, but I can't see any comparison in the source between JF! and either of the games mentioned?
  • I've removed the comparisons as it wasn't mentioned in the sources given. However, there are a couple of comparisons with Super Mario 64, but I chose not to mention it here as it doesn't seem relevant. JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what is meant by 3D technology in the sentence "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology.".
  • 3D technology sounds a bit vague, but I think 3D computer graphics would sound more accurate. I've changed it to that JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Geograph Seal image caption states that JF! "features identical gameplay from Geograph Seal". The IGN source states they shared "virtually identical gameplay", which I'd say was a important distinction.
  • Good catch, upon this reflection I've rephrased it to "similar gameplay traits", as the lead also mentions "Jumping Flash! uses much of the game engine used in Geograph Seal". JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Reception and Legacy:

  • "...in 2000 they ranked Jumping Flash! among the magazine's top 120 PlayStation games of all time." - two references here, both with concerns. "Famitsu Top 120 PlayStation games". Culdcept Central. OmiyaSoft. 27 July 2009. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - is this a reliable source? and "Famitsu Weekly PlayStation Top 100". IGN. 21 November 2000. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - I can't see any mention of Jumping Flash in this source?
  • This always bothered me. I asked somebody if Culdcept Central was a reliable source, and he wasn't too keen on it. I was going to bring this up at WP:VG/RS but unfortunately I didn't have time to do it prior to this FAC. Even though it's the only source I can find that mentions a legitimate Famitsu Top 120 list, I myself don't think it's reliable and I can't find any such list anywhere else, so I've had no choice but to remove the entire sentence. Unless somebody has the original Famitsu issue and could translate into English, I'm left with no other choice than to leave as "Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review". If you want, I could remove that sentence entirely and leave it as a score in the infobox? JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just have to know which issue of Famitsu those excerpts are from. Reference the magazine itself. ... cite news |title= |journal= |publisher= |date= |language= |author=Famitsu staff}}</ref>--SexyKick 17:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't find the definite issue or when it was published. Culdcept Central mentions that the list was published "recently" as of 2009, whereas I've searched for "120 PlayStation games of all time" and sometimes it comes back as being a November 2000 issue. I don't think is worth it, so I'm open to removing it entirely or should I leave this be? JAGUAR  19:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew Yoon's Engadget review is a contemporary one right? If so, personally I would move it to after the 2007 IGN review along with the rest of the retrospective reviews, or at the very least mention it was a 2007 review so it doesn't appear to be a review from the time calling it antiquated.
  • Moved this to the end of the paragraph JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1UP cited its first-person platforming as a precursor to Mirror's Edge, despite suggesting that the jumping has remained "woefully out of place"." - Is the source referring to jumping being "woefully out of place" in JF! or in the genre as a whole?
  • In the genre as a whole, as the article is focused on the history of the jump. Reworded to reflect this JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, it it relevant to include it in this article? Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that it's relevant because it's a retrospective on Jumping Flash's legacy participation on the evolution of the jump. It also criticises the game's jumps, which in part is both relevant with reception and legacy. I wouldn't mind removing it from the section but I'd hate to lose out on a good source. JAGUAR  16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Speaking in 2007, Fahey asserted that Jumping Flash! would always have a "slice" in videogaming history" - This is a very clunky sentence and needs rewriting.
  • I agree. I've merged this with the previous sentence to smooth it out a little JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still finding a "slice" in videogaming history. awkward to read. A "slice in" something just doesn't sound right to me. Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I find "slice" a bit awkward. Reworded to "a part in videogaming history" JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find time to give it a more thorough look over later. Techtri (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Techtri: ping, sorry to bother. Just anxious about FAC inactivity. JAGUAR  19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhain1999[edit]

I apologise if any of my concerns have been discussed in a previous discussion, but I noticed a few things:

Lead
  • In the lead, shouldn't 'Robbit' be in double quotation marks ("), rather than single (')? I'm not entirely sure.
  • Changed to double for consistency. I find it hard to remember using American quotation marks on Wikipedia JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my experience, I've regularly seen references placed after direct quotes (see the second paragraph of Fez), so it should be considered for the third paragraph of the lead here, with the term "ancestor".
  • Agreed, I've added a citation after "ancestor"
  • Jumping Flash! spawned two sequels; Jumping Flash! 2.... I'd replace the semicolon with a colon.
Body
  • Link Egypt in "Gameplay".
  • There are a lot of quotes in "Reception and legacy". I don't quite think it's pushing the limit, so it should be okay, but that second paragraph stands out a bit.
  • I've done some minor copyediting and have tried to cut the quotes a bit. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if it's necessary to have two paragraphs in "Sequels".
  • Yeah, the first paragraph seems rather short. I've merged the two together JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a number of issues with the references, but it was difficult for me to explain them all, so I went through and made some changes myself. Please feel free to adjust my changes where you feel necessary.
  • Thank you for the changes! JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There might be more, but I'll let other editors point those out; I couldn't find anything else. This is a really well-written article, and I'll be happy to support the FAC when these issues are addressed. Good luck! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Rhain! I've addressed all of your concerns. I hope I didn't miss anything. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything so quickly! The only thing that really bothers me now is the length of the third "Gameplay" paragraph and second "Plot" paragraph, but these are minor personal nitpicks, and should only be changed if you see an appropriate way to do so. Since that's minor, I'm very happy to Support this FAC. Well done on all your hard work; good luck with the rest of the candidacy! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Much appreciated. I'll see what I can do about the two shorter paragraphs, but I can't think of any more to put in from the top of my head. JAGUAR  22:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Lead

  • The game follows a robotic rabbit named "Robbit" as he searches for missing Jet Pods that have been scattered by the game's astrophysicist antagonist character Baron Aloha. Why are Jet Pods capitalized? I don't believe they're proper nouns.
  • True, I thought they were referring to a specific item but I checked the manual and it seems they're not capitalised in there, so fixed JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jumping Flash! uses much of the game engine used in Geograph Seal, an earlier game by Exact for the Sharp X68000 home computer. Change uses to utilizes.
  • Jumping Flash! has been described as an "ancestor"[1]... Why include the ref when it's already referenced in the legacy section?
  • I can't remember, but it was either in this FAC or the peer review where I got told that a citation was required after a direct quote in the lead. But it's not a big deal, and I prefer no citations in the lead anyway. Removed both the ref and quote. JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game was generally well received by critics, who praised its graphics and its unique 3D platforming gameplay, but it was eventually overshadowed by later 3D platformers of the fifth console generation. The compound sentence here is a bit awkward, as the two independent clauses don't work well in relation to one another. I'd remove the but, and change it to a period, followed by a however,...
  • Good catch, rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game was described as the third-most underrated video game of all time by Matt Casamassina of IGN in 2007. Remove the Matt Casamassina link, as it just redirects to IGN, which is already linked two words later in the same sentence.
  • I could've sworn he had his own article, but I've removed all links JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general note, five sentences in the lead begin with "the game". While this shouldn't be an issue, I feel a bit uneasy about the repetition. You may want to rephrase some of those sentences to alleviate the repetition.
  • Removed some repetition. It does sound better this way JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  • Jumping chains can be performed using enemies and some projectiles. Elaborate on this a bit more, because while I'm assuming you mean jump on enemies head like in Super Mario Bros, but a casual reader may have no idea what that means.
  • I've elaborated on this a bit more. Jumping chains are initiated by jumping on enemies or their projectiles in succession, just like in Super Mario platforms. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Power-ups scattered across each world are picture frames representing carrots to extend Robbit's health, extra lives, time-outs that stop the clock and freeze the level's dynamics for a few seconds, hourglasses that extend the player's time... Their should be mention of the time limit for each level before this sentence, as this was the first time I read about said timed levels.
  • Not exactly a time limit, but every level is 10 minutes long and will end once that time runs out. But you're right, it's a worthy mention so I've included it. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coins that are worth points can also be picked up by destroying enemies that are often anthropomorphic versions of creatures such as kiwis and penguins, but also include robots and plants. Link kiwis and penguins.

Plot

  • All good here, though I'm going to assume limbered is the British-English equivalent of legged. Either way, it works.
  • Limbs refer to both arms and legs; I thought it would be more accurate to describe the creatures. I don't know if it's anything to do with English variants JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release

  • Sony's director of entertainment in Japan, Koji Tada, paired Exact with Ultra to develop a technology demonstration for the upcoming PlayStation console. The last part regarding the technology demonstration is unnecessary, is it was already stated in almost the exact same way it's mentioned in the second sentence.
  • Good catch; removed. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra designed the story, characters and 3D cutscenes, and was responsible for creating the mechanical rabbit protagonist, Robbit. Shouldn't Robbit be lumped in with characters? Ultra designed the characters.
  • I think so. Rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The characters were designed by the Japanese studio Ultra who renamed themselves "Muu Muu" after the creatures in the game. You already stated that Ultra designed the characters. Plus, shouldn't the part about the MuuMuu's go in the legacy section, since the game had an impact on the outside world after it was released?
  • Removed the repetition of character-creation and moved the company renaming to the Legacy section. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and legacy

  • Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review at the time of release. Can you get any more in depth about the review? Also, Famitsu PS seems a little unnecessary, since it's not mentioned in the reception section, and is more or less an off shoot of Famitsu.
  • Unfortunately I don't have access to the review as it's not online. I can't remember who added it. The only extracts I can find are from unreliable sites so I can't use them. Should I remove the review from the section? JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a scan. But I can't read Japanese! Anyway, since I can't elaborate the review, I've removed the prose. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2007, Matt Casamassina of IGN ranked Jumping Flash! as the third-most underrated video game of all time. I don't think it's important to link Matt Casamassina, as it just redirects to IGN, and doing a quick glance through IGN's article, Casamassina doesn't appear.
  • Robbit Mon Dieu was released exclusively in Japan for the PlayStation in 1999, and was the final instalment in the series. It was met with mixed reviews... You should mention how Jumping Flash 2 was received, to keep in line with the mention of Robbit Mon Dieu.
  • I've added a little about its reception, but I chose not to dwell on about it because it would have seemed irrelevant to this article. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • All mentions of 1UP.com have IGN linked as it's publisher. I don't really know the exact publisher, but according to WP:VG/S, the publisher is UGO Networks. Change it if you wish. Since most FA articles I've seen referencing 1UP always use IGN as the publisher, it's not that big of a deal.
  • I don't know what is correct, but I'm going to trust WP:VG/S and go with UGO Networks. Fixed all JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done. With the exception of maybe one or two issues of explaining in more detail, most issues are just minor complaints that can easily be dealt with. Overall, very nice article on a very influential yet completely forgotten game. Fix the issues, and you've got yourself a support. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: thanks for the review! I think I've addressed everything. This is truly a forgotten game, you're right. It was one of the first PlayStation games developed (arguably the first, if you take into account that it was a technology demonstration). This is why the artwork has different dimensions, as apparently PlayStation cases were DVD-shaped in very early North American releases. Writing this article has been a rewarding and interesting experience. Anyway, it seems I owe you one for reviewing this! JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar:, it always amazes me how your able to find those magazine scans. I might have to ask you to find a specific magazine in the future. Anyway, I do feel it's somewhat necessary to include Japanese reviews for games first released in Japan, but as that almost impossible for anyone outside of Japan, I understand. Though I find it weird having just Famitsu listed twice, with different scores, because this will almost certainly confuse the reader. Also, I think I incorrectly phrased my earlier issue with Famitsu PS. What I meant to say was just remove it. It bears no real importance to the article, and it's just an offshoot of the much more distinguished Famitsu. Once that's cleared up, you have my Support. Really, I'm giving you a support right now though. Congrats! Famous Hobo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've dealt with the Famitsu issues you mentioned. Although cited correctly, they shouldn't be in the article as I can't read Japanese for the review. Yeah, I'm not sure if some of the sites the scans are on are considered unreliable, but I'm used to all this digging as I only write retro games. I suppose I can return the favour by helping you searching for information at some point. Anyway, thanks for the support! JAGUAR  17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I officially Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I had my say at Peer review where my comments with Referencing were dealt with. The article is in better shape than it was in its previous FAC. Z105space (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! JAGUAR  13:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from David Fuchs[edit]

  • Oppose for now, due to sourcing issues.
  • Prose:
    • The user interface resembles the view through Robbit's eyes.—The lead is an introduction to the article but content should not be in the lead and not in the body. You need to explain who Robbit is here as well.
      • I've removed this sentence altogether, as evidently a view through "eyes" is what a first-person perspective game is. I've elaborated that players control Robbit. JAGUAR  15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images:
    • There's no real strong justification to use File:Geograph Seal gameplay 001.gif in the article. It's not essential to understanding the game, it's about a different one entirely.
      • I thought that since both games share the same interface and engine, it would be relevant but I removed it anyway. JAGUAR  15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in terms of better illustrating the article, it'd probably be best if there was a better-quality image for File:JumpingFlash003.jpg. It's been triply-compressed and is clearly from a lossy video source as opposed to a solid screencap. That's not a FA issue, but just an overall quality one.
      • Agreed. I'll upload a new one. JAGUAR  15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've uploaded a new image and updated the FAR. JAGUAR  16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
    • I spotchecked statements attributed to current refs 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 20, and 25.
      • Robbit can jump up to three times—once off of a surface and twice in mid-air—the cited Joystiq source doesn't mention the surface and mid-air distinctions when discussing the double and triple jumps; while they can be inferred, especially the latter bit, from the text, I'd hew a bit closer to what they actually say.
        • The Joystiq source says "you can jump up to three times consecutively mid-air", so I've rephrased the prose to Robbit can jump up to three times in mid-air, which allows him to reach extreme heights, which sounds like it's following the source more accurately. JAGUAR  16:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The game is composed of six worlds with three levels each, totalling 18 main levels[7][8] consisting of seven boss levels and six bonus stages.—There's no citation for the "seven boss levels and six bonus stages" bit, and the first part of the clause is misleadingly cited—there's only evidence for the 18 main levels, not the composition of worlds and levels, which need a source. Likewise uncited: Landing on the "EXIT Pad" completes the level. The third level in each world is a boss fight.
        • I've removed the "consisting of seven boss levels and six bonus stages" bit. Just as I was giving up hope, I found the GameRevolution source which says "The game consists of 5 worlds each with three levels one of which includes a final boss". In such, I went with the source and rephrased this to The game is composed of five worlds with three levels each. JAGUAR  16:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Furthermore, I've sourced the "The third level in each world is a boss fight" with the GameRevolution source and removed "EXIT Pad" bit. "Exits" are used some sources, but they lack the description of "exit pads". JAGUAR  16:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you need to go through the gameplay section with a fine-tooth comb and make sure the sourcing here is clear and solid.
        • I've done some rephrasing and rearranging here and there in the gameplay section. JAGUAR  16:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The GameInformer ref 26's archive appears to be broken for me: [6]
        • Strange, it was working a couple of weeks ago. Now fixed. You mean Eurogamer? There is no GameInformer ref in the article? JAGUAR  16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would strongly recommend archiving every web source in this article (some are already); you can use archive.org (for those already existing) or webcitation.org (to make on-demand archives of pages that might not have been scraped.) Link rot sucks and I've had a lot of my early FAs get hit with it; it's nice to be proactive and make sure the references will stand up for any challenged bits later on.
      • Archived all of the web links, with the exception of 1UP, which can't be archived due to its robot.txt (that's what it says whenever I try to archive it). At any rate, they're all working and should be safe from linkrot. JAGUAR  17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I've addressed all of your concerns. Thanks for the review! To summarise, I've rephrased parts of the gameplay section so it more accurately follows the sources, uploaded a new image, archived all web sources and rearranged some sources that caused confusion in the gameplay section. I hope that covers everything. JAGUAR  17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I've made some further alterations to the gameplay section. I took your advice and fine-combed it, so I removed and rephrased a couple of sentences. I also added some missing citations, so I hope it's clearer now. What do you think? JAGUAR  15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through it again this evening or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doing another check I'm still seeing issues. Most enemies have simple actions; they wander around aimlessly or randomly shoot and throw projectiles, and others will directly attack Robbit is sourced to [7][8]. The only bit from both I see as tangentially supporting the statement is While most enemies do not bother you (you can just jump or run on by 'em), others will stand in your way. You have rollercoaster-filled carnivals when the source doesn't mention rollercoasters. I can't check the original manual to see what lines up there but I'm concerned there might be similar elaboration in the prose that doesn't line up with what the source precisely says. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got the physical manual. You can download a PDF file of it but to do that you have to join a member of a forum to access it. The manual is surprisingly comprehensive and is probably the best resource to use for gameplay, I would try to send you a link to line up the writing but I don't know if it will work. Does this work? JAGUAR  16:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: addressed both those points. I removed the "Most enemies have simple actions; they wander around aimlessly or randomly shoot and throw projectiles" sentence entirely because I can't make out how to rephrase that, as the online source is unclear. I've added a couple more points which I extracted from the manual, such as earning an extra life for every 1 million points and a continue option. I hope you can access that manual, because it's by the far the most useful source for gameplay. The scan is 95 megabytes, so I won't be able to put a link in the article (which I know should be fine). JAGUAR  16:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could upload it to Replacement Docs (they only have the sequel there.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded it (spent 40 minutes waiting) but I don't think it worked because the file exceeded the 65 megabyte limit. JAGUAR  20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the previous issues I don't really feel comfortable supporting on that issue, but as I have not found any new issues using sources I can access I'm striking my oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll see if I can upload the manual by cutting some pages. I can't promise anything because the only file I could get is unusually large at 95mb, but the download link is still there if all else fails. JAGUAR  21:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: I hate to disappoint but I can't upload the manual, it's impossible to do so. The only thing I can think of is emailing it. JAGUAR  21:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ident) I've looked through the manual citations and they really need to be made page specific—the manual cites pages 4, 5, and 17, when it's citing for other pages as well (the gameplay information on what's on the screen, for instance, is on page 7.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Voilà, just added harvrefs for the manual along with its individual page numbers. JAGUAR  16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Anything major outstanding? If not then I'd like to close this. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing outstanding at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Masem left some minor comments yesterday and I've took care of them, although he already left a support. I believe I have everything covered in this FAC. Just noticed that this is the oldest nomination, it doesn't feel that long! JAGUAR  22:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, with the caveat that so much is wrong with the prose in the second paragraph of the Reception and legacy section that I hardly know where to start. It might be best to rewrite that paragraph from scratch. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: thanks for the copyedits! I've done some copyediting to the second paragraph of the reception, and I've corrected some minor adjectives so that they are now based on their sources more accurately. Other than that, I couldn't find any misunderstandings with that paragraph. What sort of issues do you see with it? JAGUAR  18:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. That paragraph is better now. I guess I'll let my support stand, but only per my standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If there's anything else I can do, I'll be happy to get to it. JAGUAR  19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
* You haven't used the initials for artificial intelligence anywhere so I suggest removing that from Gameplay section.
  • Good catch, fixed JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a new life will be granted once one" – I think it sounds much better in present perfect form.
  • Changed to present tense JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and will end once the time runs out" – present form, IMO.
  • Agreed, changed JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see six instances of "also". Not a problem but it could be removed in some places where it adds nothing new.
  • I've removed two uses of "also" JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why it says it redirects on the toolserver, but it works fine in the article. I'll leave it as it is, if that's OK. JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Criticise" used over four times in the second para of Reception and legacy.
  • I removed two instances and replaced them with better synonyms JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 – "Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work." Based on this, I would suggest to remove Sony Computer Entertainment staff, ed.
  • Ref 5 – IGN does not need italics and needs to be wiki-linked. Make sure they are not italicized elsewhere too.
  • Done, I never like italicising IGN. Bizarrely, the way to de-italicise names in the 'work=' field is to italicise them! JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35's publisher needs to be wiki-linked. Also, you need to add Ziff Davis's name.
  • Link PlayStation in ref 38.
  • Done, also de-italicised it. JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of expertise so that's all I could spot. They shouldn't be hard to fix. Overall a good article. -- Frankie talk 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: thank you for the review! I should have everything addressed. Your comments were very helpful, I'm glad someone reminded me to un-italicise everything! JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for promotion. Hope you have your first FA with this. I hope I have mine too. -- Frankie talk 07:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frankie! I really hope so. This is got to be my most successful nomination yet. I'm confident you'll get yours. JAGUAR  16:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. IMO it's close to promotion; the only thing needed is source review, which, I think, you should request here. Also, could you take a look at mine which is lacking participation? -- Frankie talk 20:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Frankie! Which one did you want me to take a look at? Is it a featured list nomination? I'll be happy to leave comments. To be fair most of the comments above have been orientated around sources and spotchecking, but I see what you mean. It wouldn't hurt to have an official lookover just so I can get this FAC out of the way. I think every source has already been scrutinised (not sure on the manual, but it's linked in this FAC for anyone to download). I'll request one now. JAGUAR  20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[9] you had also left comments in its PR. :) -- Frankie talk 20:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Looking over it now....

  • I made these changes to smoothe prose.
  • You need to mention what Robbit is in sentence 2 of gameplay
  • Thanks! Addressed. JAGUAR  14:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Hey, were you going to leave any more comments? I think this is nearing completion. Although comments regarding the sources have been made above, I think a final check over would finally finish this FAC, which has been open since November. I could always leave some comments on one of your FACs in return? JAGUAR  19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • sorry, been busy. I was going to look at sources but saw the discussion with @David Fuchs: above and not sure if that was resolved. I would like to hear from David how he feels things are at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, no rush. I think all of the source issues have been more or less addressed in this FAC, however I wasn't able to upload the game's manual to a sharing site. I left the download link above, but it's a large 95 mb pdf file, which exceeds the limit for uploads (and it was the only one I could get hold of). If anything, I think that's the only thing left to check over. JAGUAR  21:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to reduce the file size to under 4 MB, which can be downloaded here. – Rhain ☔ 22:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for doing that! I tried installing freeware to reduce the size or at least cut a few pages, but I never could get it to work. With that done, the manual can now be analysed, and I think that's the only source left to check. Naturally, I'll do a final double-check myself. JAGUAR  22:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Is there anything else that would need to be done here? I feel that the sources were all spotchecked above, and there are no other issues outstanding. This has been open for a while and I'm eager to do whatever else is needed. JAGUAR  17:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Masem[edit]

  • I found a few awkward wording pieces that I fixed, and there was an issue with the harvard citation that I fixed too.
  • Image check - Both images are non-free, but reasonable with rational for inclusion. I would suggest that on the cover image you link to where you got the cover art. On the screenshot, it is a bit larger ; can you reduce it to 300px wide (50% of the size) and still be okay? Also, a link to the original Engadget article would be good.
  • Otherwise, given the time period of this game, I would not expect to see much more on its development or reception, and thus otherwise seems to cover the game in a coherent manner so outside of the small image issues, support this as FA. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the fixes! I've updated the cover art's rational, as it seemed outdated. I've reduced the screenshot's size to 425 x 300 pixels, and added the original Engadget article to its file. The reduced size of the screenshot looks fine. Yeah, finding any information on this article was a challenge, but it's received a small amount of publicity in retrospective reviews, as it can arguably be considered the first PlayStation game (though it depends on how you look at it). JAGUAR  20:42, 23 February 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) 22:46, 22 February 2016 [10].

Calutron[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the calutron, a spiffy gizmo for magnetic isotope separation. The article has passed GA and A class reviews, which have included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm..." Snakelike sentence. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Ling, I broke it into three sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 2 January 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) 15:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Grapple X
  • Consider the use of alt text for any images used, so they can be interpreted by screenreaders.
    Added ALT text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The costs table could be better formatted for the same reason; use !scope="col" and !scope="row" in to define where columns and rows begin. Here is a diff of an example of how to do so.
    Not sure what the benefit it is - it looks the same as before - but done anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefit is, again, for screenreaders, as the definitions allow them to read the table coherently. It means visually-impaired visitors can still benefit from the information in it. GRAPPLE X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a particular reason why we have inch-to-millimetre conversions? It just seems unusual to see thousands of millimetres given for measurements.
    For some reason, millimetres is the default conversion. It seemed appropriate where we were talking about fractions of an inch, so retained there. Switched to cm for the 184-inch (470 cm) cyclotron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall this is a very high-quality piece, would be happy to support given the above is addressed. GRAPPLE X 10:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I'm happy to support this one. GRAPPLE X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from delldot ∇.[edit]

A beautiful article, I have no major complaints, so I had to resort to lots of very minor prose nitpicks:

  • Too many California's in this sentence: "Its name was derived from California University Cyclotron, in tribute to Lawrence's institution, the University of California in Berkeley, California, where it was invented." Couldn't the reader infer that the University of California in Berkeley is in fact in California?
    Removed. Just had to make sure there was one mention that it was in Berkeley before referring to it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this be in American English since it's mainly about California and Tennessee? "6 August 1945", "25 June 1942", etc. If not, should the measurements use metric first with inches or whatever in parentheses?
    Per WP:STRONGNAT, articles about the 20th century US military use this format. It happens to be thje one the Manhattan Project used consistently. Measurements are in United States customary units. Note however that the US customary unit for fissile materials is metric. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the heavier isotopes are bent less by the magnetic field..." not the isotopes themselves, but their paths? Beams? Streams? Or not bent but deflected?
    Used "deflected", which is probably the term used in the original source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...he theorized that it was the uranium-235 isotope and not the more abundant uranium-238 that was primarily responsible for fission with thermal neutrons." Does 'primarily' mean that some 238 is also responsible? Or other isotopes too?
    Yes. Natural uranium is 99.275% uranium-238, 0.72% uranium-235 and 0.005% uranium-234. According to the Wikipedia, the thermal neutron cross section for fission of uranium-238 is around 0.00002 barns, while that of uranium-235 is 583 barns. So in layman's terms, you get some, but not a lot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated..." Why does it follow from the finding that U-235 is responsible that a chain reaction could happen? This seems stilted without more of an explanation. I understand not wanting to get into the nitty gritty so early, but is there a way this could flow better?
    Changed to: Leo Szilard and Walter Zinn soon confirmed that more than one neutron was released per fission, which made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uranium-235 makes up only about 0.72% of natural uranium,[14] so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 1250 to produce 90% uranium-235 from natural uranium." These numbers don't mean anything to a lay reader, do we need the specific numbers? The words 'separation factor' make sense in context, but I don't actually know what they mean. If it were like "Uranium-235 makes up only about 1% of natural uranium, and they need it to be 90%, so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 900", I could kind of see where the numbers are coming from and the specificity would make sense. But as is the math makes no sense so it's kind of distracting.
    Yes, but think of the kids who are trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. By giving exact dates and numbers, we give them plenty of room to maneuver. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which results in the beam scattering." I prefer the active voice to this noun + -ing construction: "which causes the beam to scatter." Same with "resulting in reasonably good beams being produced in September 1942."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December Lawrence received a $400,000 grant from the S-1 Uranium Committee." Is this a military or government committee? Might it help to give a link or a parenthetical about what this group is?
    There is a link to its article, up above when it first appeals. It was a committee of the NDRC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace one instance of 'work' here to reduce repetitiveness: "the process had been demonstrated to work, considerable work was still required"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the template does this, but "about 3 feet (0.91 m)" would be more sensible as "about 3 feet (0.9 m)" or "about 3 feet (1 m)" given that the 3 ft is an estimate in the first place, so you don't want to be too exact with the conversion.
    It sure does. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lawrence's leadership style. His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm were contagious." Hmm, that's one way of putting it, I heard he was a tyrant!
    That too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transition wording needed to switch from talking about TN to CA: "...training of workers to operate the production facilities at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. By the middle of 1944, there were nearly 1,200 people working at the Radiation Laboratory."
    We're not talking about Tennessee. The Radiation Laboratory remained in Berkeley. It's still there today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohhh, they were being trained in Berkeley to work in Oak Ridge later. I misunderstood. It seems perfectly clear now that I reread it. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo? " a second stage on enrichment."
    Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "special procedures were instituted for handling the silver. Holes were drilled into the silver over paper so that the filings could be collected." This is confusing, I think it means "when they wanted to drill holes, they did it over paper", rather than what it kind of sounds like, that they went out of their way to drill holes.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "handfuls of rust were found inside. Moisture was also a problem" Maybe "also a problem in its own right" or something? It's just that the 'also' sounds redundant because moisture causes rust.
    This is true. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got for now! More in a few days. Sorry to be a total brat about the minutiae. Very nice work! delldot ∇. 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review ∇! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, everything's addressed! Back with more in a couple days. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple more for right now:

  • This sentence switched to hyphens from n dashes: "Alpha process buildings, 9201-4 and 9201-5, another Beta, 9204-2". Same with "The two Alpha I buildings, 9201-1 and 9201-2".
    Got rid of the ndashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think the paras beginning "Groves authorized Alpha II in September 1943" should be a table instead? It's TMI to integrate as prose, too hard to follow all the numbers, and repetitive. Anything that's not building, start date, or finish date could be kept as prose.
    It is prose in both the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but they've got a whole book to fill up, right? I don't know that that means we should follow suit. It's up to you, I'm not going to make a big deal of it, but the prose does feel kind of word salady: a jumble of building numbers and dates. I think a table would be a lot more readable. delldot ∇. 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That noun -ing construction again (also I have a personal vendetta against 'with' as a conjunction with the present participle): "with S-50 product being fed into K-25 instead."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back with more soon! delldot ∇. 07:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last set:

  • Too much 'used in': "Enriched uranium from the calutrons would be used in the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945." you could say 'went into the Little Boy atomic bomb' or something.
    Re-worded to Enriched uranium from the calutrons provided the fissile component of the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By May 1946, studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without accidentally creating a critical mass" This is the first mention that there was a danger of this during production. You might just change it to something like "unlike the racetracks, which had a danger of accidentally creating a critical mass [that could explode?], May 1946 studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without this danger" Or something much better written than that.
    No, the racetracks had very little danger of creating a critical mass, because you can just flick the switch on them if too much uranium-235 starts to build up. The gaseous diffusion plants were rather more complex. Care had to be taken with product though. A bad incident occurred at Oak Ridge on June 16, 1958. Product did not explode, because it didn't come together fast enough, but it irradiated the vicinity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the table "Manhattan Project – Electromagnetic project costs", I think all the figures should be carried out to the same number of significant figures, and either millions or billions should be used, not both. (e.g. 3.69 billion changed to 3690 million) Currently it uses $19.6 million and $6.63 million, I think it would be better either rounding up or using 0's to carry it to the same number of decimals.
    The magic is all in the FormatPrice template. I assume it conforms to the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dangling modifier: "In 1945, the British atomic bomb project built a 180° calutron similar in design to an American Beta calutron at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, Oxfordshire." Could just put the phrase 'similar in design to an American Beta calutron' in parentheses.
    Added commas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anywhere else in the article that the single sentence under Calutron patents could be integrated? It would seem more logical to end the article with the discussion of the more modern-day applications, and this single-sentence section brings us back in time.
    Moved to the Research section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected more info on how a calutron works. The one diagram is small so you can't really see the separate parts or read the labels, maybe it could be cropped or enlarged in the article? (although I know some people don't like the latter).
    I tried to describe it as best I could. I have enlarged the diagram. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that's it from me! Excellent work overall. delldot ∇. 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shoot, did I forget to say support after all that? Sorry! Support. delldot ∇. 03:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- FTR I've checked the relevant MilHist ACR image and source reviews and note that no new images or refs have been added since then, so prepared to close this without further inspection here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 22 February 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) 22:51, 22 February 2016 [11].

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the family of French descent who were pivotal in later medieval English history and the contemporary view of it. Recently received a warm welcome at FAC before becoming embroiled in questions of sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I'm looking at this diff of the changes since the last time I did a prose review, in September. It's kind of slow going, because the intervening edits have a lot of typos. I've fixed a few; I'm down to "In the early 12th century, the marriage of Geoffrey V of Anjou to Empress Matilda, King Henry I's only surviving legitimate child and heir to the English throne.", which isn't a sentence. Please check the diff (from that point) for more typos before I do another prose review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have run through the diff and done a quick copy edit on a few things. Will review again when all the responses to comments are edited in. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Magna Carta": Sometimes with "the", sometimes not. I'm not taking a position either way ... in fact, I don't personally think perfect consistency is required, but generally FAC standards require consistency.
  • "agreed a treaty", etc.: I'm completely in favor (favour!) of exposing everyone, even Americans, to Briticisms in British English articles ... but I'm not convinced that all or even most Americans will work out what this means. In AmEng, this can only mean "agreed that a treaty (something)".
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. It was fine when I commented earlier (after my changes) down to where I said I stopped, and I've just copyedited from there to the end based on a diff from September through today. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Richard_II_King_of_England.jpg
  • File:Agincour.JPG: what is the basis for the "PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR NON EDITORIAL USAGE" notation?
  • To tell you the truth I don't know and have been unable to find out. To resolve I have changed this to a simpler image.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:MS_Ghent_-_Battle_of_Tewkesbury.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my points below have been addressed and I can't find any new ones. I have made one comment immediately below but it has no bearing on my support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • Forgive my confusion here, but I am left wondering one major thing: was the House, in the large, based in England or France? I realize this is a matter of some subtly, but it doesn't really seem to be addressed directly. The lede says "The family held the English throne from 1154" and goes on to describe their history almost solely in terms of English events. However, the maps in the body show that in terms of land, and I assume income, the majority of the family was in (today's) France. A little color here would be appreciated.
  • Hi @Maury Markowitz:— could you please look at this one again because I thought this was clear. The Angevin kings were both Francophonic and largely preoccupied with French affairs. The loss of Anjou, Normandy and Maine reduced this although Henry III retained both his nominal claims until the 1250s and the Duchy of Aquitaine as a peer of France which passed in turn to the Edwards. Edward III claimed the English throne and through this the basis of the Hundred Years War. The War ebbed and flowed, during which Henry VI was crowned king of France and the family began to speak English. I think all this is in there and clear. Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my only concern here is in the lede. Britannica and most other similar sources define the Plantagenets as English. I know this isn't strictly accurate, as this article notes, but I think we still need something to indicate/sooth this confusion. Perhaps something like "Although originally from the continent, and retaining large holdings in France, they are considered to be an English dynasty." Does that make sense? I'm not sure how to word it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the lede mentions "after the Plantagenets were defeated in the Hundred Years' War". For most of those 100 years, English troops were rampaging though France, and I'm not sure they could be said to have "lost". Is it not the case they ended up with more territory at the end? A second map, like the first one in the body, might be useful - the mapping crew is a good source for this.
  • No, it is not the case they ended with more territory at the end, after 1453 the only remaining holdings were Calais and the Channel Islands. I don't think a map of this would be too instructive? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was scourged by monks" - what does this mean?
  • It means severely whipped, I have ammended to this effect.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rivalry between " - should this not be the start of a new paragraph?
  • "Conflict with the House of Valois" - the first para seems to be damaged. Actually this whole section reads oddly and could use some copyediting.
  • "The younger Henry rebelled" - this is a different rebellion mentioned in the earlier para? If so, was Henry the Young not involved in those events?
  • "accept humiliating peace terms, " - to which conflict? Is this the one Younger's wife started?
  • "Richard was captured by Leopold" - why? it seems odd one would simply place another in captivity without a cases belli. is this over the spoils?
  • "was injured by an arrow during the siege" - what siege?
  • Amended to a more general "a siege"—I don't think which one is of great interest.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when Arthur's forces threatened his mother" - how, exactly? A verbal threat or military action?
  • "As a result of John's behaviour" - uh, what behaviour? Winning a battle over rebels? Or did he do something to them?
  • "It was rumoured in the" is this part of the earlier narrative, or did this occur later? Is this the "behaviour" part?
  • The revolt happened before the rumour, I have tried to make this clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "explaining John's sudden capitulation" - what sudden capitulation? Was there a treaty signed in here somewhere?
  • I've rephrased this, no treaty at this point, just a collapse.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I have read the comments at the earlier FAC and of course I defer to those more expert than I in English history, but as an averagely well-read layman I found the article fascinating, and it seems to me balanced and well sourced. I feel I must support its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 15:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments taking a look now. Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually before I do, I recommend @Hchc2009: having a look to see if they are satisfied with improvements since the last FAC as I am not knowledgeable with the area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Ealdgyth: - I'm waiting to see what those two say, as my comments last time were mostly dealt with ok, but theirs not, during the FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to look at this again - but my main question is ... were all the citations checked against the sources that are supposed to be supporting them? If not, its going to be very difficult for me to support this, given the problems I found last FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Largely the answer is yes. All the Jones references which was the main objection last time have been replaced and all those that you identified in your review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concern was whether all the references had been checked back against the original sources; last time around quite a lot proved to have problems when they were examined, and Eadgyth was keen that all the references had all been individually checked. I share her concern with this. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, HCHC2009. While I am wading through these, now would be the time to raise any other concerns (from any reviewer). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update—71/152 checked so far. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update—97/152 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update—99/ what is now 145 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update—110 / 139 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update—112 / 126 checked. 14 to go, nearly there! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—@Hchc2009:@Casliber:@Johnbod:@Ealdgyth:—for information I have checked what I could and replaced those that I couldn't check. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, my understanding is that at present there are no outstanding comments that required addressing at this point. If this understanding is incorrect then please let me know. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Norfolkbigfish. @Hchc2009, Casliber, Johnbod, and Ealdgyth: Can you guys take another look now? It seems to me that now that the nominator has double-checked all citations (admittedly something that should take place before FAC, not during) we need a spotcheck of a selection of sources to verify things from the reviewer perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am keeping an eye on the page. I am not an expert, so am waiting for @Hchc2009 and Ealdgyth: to take a look first. Then am happy to take it from there.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did leave a note on Ealdgyth's talk page but she says she is busy in RL and may not be able to give this a look.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working my way through. A few bits picked up so far:

  • "the term "espace Plantagenet", Plantagenet span in English" - isn't "the Plantagenet space" a more common translation?
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • why isn't Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou linked on first use? (vice 2nd)
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "13th century depiction of Henry II and his legitimate children:" - "13th-century depiction"
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the king's realm" - "the King's realm" (it is a specific king)
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after the king refused" - ditto
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • consistency of how "battle of..." is capitalised
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William had a long career at the highest political levels demonstrating the important role played by royal bastards as well as his competence in administration, diplomacy, and war typical of leading figures amongst the Angevin elite." - very similar (feels like close paraphrasing) to the original cited text of "Longespée was a political figure of the first rank, symbolizing not only the important role played by royal bastards, but the multifaceted competence in administration, diplomacy, and war which characterized leading figures in the Angevin regime" (NB: I haven't checked other references for close paraphrasing, spotted this one by chance).
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is alleged that Pope Adrian IV issued a papal bull in 1155" - alleged by who?
Green tickY—reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Duggan 2005" - missing a page number in the citation
Green tickY—changed to web source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The old king died two days later," - capitalisation
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When close to complete victory, he was injured by an arrow during a siege" - an arrow, or a bolt?
  • "Foolishly John disregarded his allies opinions on the fate of the prisoners" - "allies'"
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Instead he kept his prisoners so vilely and in such evil distress that it seemed shameful and ugly to all those who were with him and who saw this cruelty according..." why the italics here and not speech marks like the other quotes?
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These children probably included nine sons called (Richard, Oliver, Henry, Osbert Gifford..." - second bracket is missing
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recognized as the first Parliament because it was the first time the cities and burghs had sent representatives" - do we really mean burgh here?
Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth checking the dates ascribed to the ODNB entries. "Cooper, J. P. D. (2004)", for example, is dated as Jan 2008 for the on-line version (2004 is the earlier hard-copy edition).
Green tickY It was a pain but all done! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now covered all these—what do you all think?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is back to the point where there are no unaddressed comments. Are there any more notes @Hchc2009:? Thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment. I am not sure that the picture of the state of England in the fifteenth century is balanced. Some of the third para of the lead with its "rampant crime" etc is not covered in the main text. It also arguably exaggerates how bad the situation was. See for example Economy of England in the Middle Ages#Agriculture, fishing and mining. It was a bad time for the aristocracy but not for the peasantry. In the main text the Great Slump is attributed to Henry VI's mismanagement, but not in the article on the slump (which is a stub article but cites a more specialised source). Dudley Miles (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the comment, Dudley. I have removed the unsupported statement regarding crime in the lead as it doesn't really add much. On the subject of balance there are two factors to consider. 1) The question of timing. The cited source Davies notes that "The state of commerce is rather more bleak if we narrow our perspectives to the years around 1450….a deep commercial crisis in the years 1440-70". The link given, Economy of England in the Middle Ages#Agriculture, fishing and mining, doesn't have much to add on this as it largely concerns the 13th and 14th centuries. 2) The article does acknowledge improved financial conditions for the bulk of the population. However, the economy and economics is about aggregate demand. The bulk of commercial activity was undertaken by the aristocracy and wealthy and it is clear that this did go through a sharp depression as Hicks notes "A savage slump of c 1440-80 beset most parts of the economy……war had plunged the government deep into debt and the depression had slashed its income". I hope the lead is now more balanced and the context makes the body less controversial. It is an article about an aristocratic family rather than England afterall. What do you think @Dudley Miles:. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Had a further dig and this article marries up quite well as it stands with England_in_the_Late_Middle_Ages#Economy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now Enough has been done, imo, and the article meets the FA criteria. My comments are above. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- I tend to agree with Johnbod that it's about time to promote this but first: I don't have time to check but can we assume that everything in the Family tree, List of members of the House of Plantagenet, and Titles subsections is covered by the cited material in the main body of the article? I ask because there are no overarching, and very few individual, citations in those subsections. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have removed the Titles section on the grounds it was selective (e.g. didn't even include the duchys of York and Lancaster), didn't really add any further information of note and if completed would probably have justified and entire list article all to its' self. The family tree is all covered in the article and so is the List but I have added overarching citations to Weir's genealogy to both to make sure. @Ian Rose:—if further citations are needed I could work through Weir's work adding theme page by page but I am not sure that adds anything, what do you think, Ian? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tks, I think that should do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 22 February 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) 10:20, 20 February 2016 [12].

Michael Hordern[edit]

Nominator(s): CassiantoTalk 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly 60 years, the English actor Michael Hordern appeared on stage, television, and film. He was as frequent in Shakespearean plays as his more famous contemporaries, Olivier, Richardson, and Gielgud. The title role in King Lear was perhaps Hordern's most notable role for which he sought the advice from Gielgud on how best to play King Lear. Gielgud told him: "All I can tell you is, get a light Cordelia." Hordern was as comfortable playing straight roles as he was comedy. He was, as one critic put it, "one of the great eccentrics of his profession, perched perilously somewhere half way between Alistair Sim and Alec Guinness."

Having worked on this article since Christmas, I feel that this article now meets the desired criteria for it to become a featured article. It has had an extensive peer review and now I'd be most grateful for any comments anyone has to offer here. CassiantoTalk 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Has undergone significant change since the beginning of the PR. Much improved overall, I've been monitoring progress and it definitely meets FA criteria. I was initally concerned (and more fussy than I'd usually be!) that it didn't have enough detail on his film coverage, but I believe it now highlights most of the ones worth mentioning and Cassianto edited it deftly to balance it within reason. It's really a great article on one of Britain's best actors and deserves to be promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Read this a few times (copyediting as I went) during PR, which I followed closely. Comprehensive, very well written, very well sourced, nicely illustrated. I was drawn in and delight to see it here. Ceoil (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I had my say during PR as well. Very well put together article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support having watched Hordern from an early age I was happy too read his life and career so well presented. I was also delighted learn things that I had not known before. MarnetteD|Talk 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Another happy punter from PR. The article was excellent at PR, and I see it's got even better since. – SchroCat (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This had one of the longest and most thorough peer reviews that I can remember – here it is, yards and yards of it. Cassianto dealt with the myriad comments and suggestions calmly and positively. I'm not saying that the multiple reviewers picked up everything, and that no further improvement is possible, but I am confident that the FA criteria are fully met. The fact that so many were prepared to pitch in is a compliment both to Cassianto and, most especially, to Hordern who, nearly 20 years after his death, is most fondly remembered by those who grew up when he was a staple of film and theatre. I look forward to an appropriate TFA in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I had been intending to have my say at the PR stage but didn't get to it until we were already here at FAC. I've had a look through and I could find nothing to quibble about except for a missing comma before a footnote. Excellent work about a subject I had known very little about previously—and as an added bonus my neck of the woods gets quite a few mentions along the way. Very well done, Cassianto, a pleasure for me as a reader. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Prose comments moved to talk)

  • Support Looks good. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Prose comments moved to talk)

  • Supporting now. Excellent job. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 10:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Prose comments moved to talk)

  • Support - looks to me like it meets all the criteria for FA. Good work on the article. Jack1956 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN58: which Wearing? Same with 114
    • Any advice on how I would differentiate between the two? They are the same person with the same year. CassiantoTalk 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could use 2014a and 2014b, or include the year range alongside the author as a form of shortened title in the footnote. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I opted for the year ranges, thanks. Although, I may change to former in the future as I'm pretty indecisive about formatting issues. CassiantoTalk 22:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN77: formatting doesn't match other newspapers
  • Hand-formatted citations are fine, but they've got to be consistent - for example, FN22 has the punctuation as part of the link, 78 has it outside, and 82 and 91 have no punctuation at all
  • Why do FN111 and 155 differ in publisher?
  • FN163: author/editor? Where full book citations are included in footnotes, they should be formatted the same as those in Sources
    • Ive deleted this and have put in a better source. CassiantoTalk 10:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN185: is that the spelling of the work used in the source?
  • Why are FN158 and 191 formatted differently?
  • Sources: North Carolina is a state, should include city. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to conduct both this and the image review, Nikkimaria. CassiantoTalk 10:44, 18 February 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) 09:39, 20 February 2016 [13].

William McKinley presidential campaign, 1896[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... McKinley's groundbreaking campaign of 1896. I did the Bryan campaign a few years ago, now we see the other side of the first modern presidential election. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very clean and readable article; only a couple minor copy edits. Weird to think of Karl Rove as a Reliable Source for anything, but his book on this subject was well-received. Good work, Wehwalt. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I felt the same way, actually. But Rove has the credentials, studied McKinley, and he wrote an excellent book (though I don't agree with all his conclusions). In fact, the publication of the book made me feel I had enough material to go forward. Everyone gets distracted by Bryan's campaign. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support How could I not, I just wrote a McKinley-related article myself! LavaBaron (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was perusing the FA nominations section and, because I have an interest in American history, clicked on this one. In the lead, it is stated that McKinley's victory launched "an era of dominance for the Republican Party." I have no problem with the article saying that the victory as a "realigning election," but the era of Republican dominance did not with this victory. It began with the victory of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. From 1860 until 1912, Republican candidates won all but 2 of the presidential elections of the period. Perhaps the sentence could be amended to say something like this: "McKinley's decisive victory in what is sometimes considered a realigning election brought about an end to the Third Party System and ushered in the Fourth Party System by helping to continue Republican dominance of national politics." Display name 99 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm flexible on the subject, but I wonder if saying "Third Party System" and "Fourth Party System" in text rather than behind links is a good idea, because the reader very likely will not know what they are, and I'd rather keep them than lose them to another article. Instead, I tried to have the explanation be the text, with the articles available by pipe. As for Republican dominance, from the distance of 120 years, of course, we see who was elected and who was not. But from an 1896 perspective, the Republicans had to deal with a Democratic president. The Democrats had won the popular vote in the last three elections, in fact the only Republican to win the popular vote in the past 20 years was Garfield. Barely. Presidential elections were turning on who would win New York and Ohio. Beginning in 1896, Republicans generally had a popular majority and a easy electoral victory, and usually were in control of Congress. Since 1875, Republicans had only really controlled Congress in 1889-91 and 1895 on. Democrats only controlled Congress in the 1910s, because of the Roosevelt/Taft conflict. So I'm dubious that Republicans controlled national politics at any time between Grant and McKinley. What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: Please keep the matter simple. The terms "Third Party System" and "Fourth Party System" will, as Wehwalt indicates, befuddle and confuse British readers, who will not, I believe, read through the link articles. I think the above explanation justifies the wording presently used, but as a possible alternative, can I offer: "McKinley's decisive victory, sometimes seen as a realigning election, ended a period of close presidential elections and ushered in an era of electoral dominance for the Republican Party". This avoids "launching", which seems the word most objected to. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've adopted Brianboulton's suggestion. Please let me know if this does not resolve the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map size
  • File:William_McKinley_campaign_speech_1896.ogg: source link is dead
  • File:Front_porch_campaign_2.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:ElectoralCollege1896.svg should include a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed those. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I gave this a detailed going-over at peer review. It's a fascinating account, one of several of its kind that Wehwalt has expanded and improved. Required reading in a presidential election year (how they used to do things). Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I read this through today with much ease and enjoyment. It also has one of the most attractive lead images I've seen in a while. CassiantoTalk 20:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the review and support. I agree, and it matches the one on the Bryan article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • ref 94: pp. should be p.
  • For the two Kindle books (Dean and Taliaferro) you give the publisher location for the latter but not the former.
  • The OCLC for the Walters book is 477641
  • I'm no expert on state abbreviations, but "Kan" doesn't seem consistent with the earlier "NE", "TX", "OH" etc
  • I don't want to be over-fussy, but footnote "d" deems to contain a little more than simple clarification details, and as such probably ought to be supported by a citation.

Subject to the above, all sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are fixed. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I missed the peer review for some reason, but reading through the article now with critical eye I find nothing to quibble about, and am happy to add my support for the FA candidacy. The article meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 10:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. I will be sure to notify you of the next one!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 16 February 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) 08:02, 20 February 2016 [14].

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 70th Infantry Division was a short-lived British unit (with it's origins in the 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions) that fought during the latter stages of the Siege of Tobruk, before being dispatched to India and broken up to reinforce the Chindits. The article has previously passed it's GA and A-Class reviews, I am hoping the good run continues. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've reviewed all of the changes since its A-class review and believe that the article meets the FA criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "During this fighting, two men – from units attached to the division – were awarded the Victoria Cross.": The Victoria Cross for one of them wasn't gazetted until February the next year, and I'm guessing the other VC wasn't instantaneous, either. It seems unlikely to me the medals were awarded during the fighting, but you may know different. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both your comments. I have amended the references to earning them during the battle, per your observation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I added about a para or two of material to this article, but I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved to be able to review it. I have the following comments:

  • Given that the article traces the (somewhat torturous!) history of the division back to 1939, the lead (especially the first para) is a bit lacking
    Expanded somewhat.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material on the division's operations in 1939 is a bit undetailed, and what's meant by "O'Connor had stated "harshness and unnecessary violence on the part of our soldiers" were to be curbed" is unclear as a result: what were the troops doing?
    Added some material, seems the 8th Division (and the SNS) were being somewhat naughty!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The headquarters was then assigned all troops based there" what did these comprise? (eg, was it basically an infantry division minus a HQ, or something else?)
    I have added brigade info, does this resolve this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good, especially as there's a full order of battle at the end of the article Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and its headquarters transformed into the Western Desert Force (WDF)" - perhaps note that this was basically a corps HQ
    I amended the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful to provide an outline of the 6th Division's order of battle upon formation in 1941 in the text of the article (at least which brigades were in the division). Also, where did its troops and constituent units come from?
  • "he was overruled by London" - it would be preferable to say what individual/organisation in London made this decision Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources used, and others I have just checked out, all agree that Wingate's relationship with Churchill was key; what Wingate wanted, Churchill made sure he got, including the breakup of the division it would seem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now adressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    I believe I got them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest scaling up the map size. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have scaled it up per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and review guys, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Look forward to your continued feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- reminder that the article will require a source review for formatting/reliability, you can request at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I have followed up on your recommendation and requested a source review. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source check

Comment The sources in general look properly and consistently formatted. I'm just about ready to support, but have two minor things. For a few of the references, the square brackets have "1st. pub. HMSO <year>" which is different from the other citations. Is this necessary or have some significance I'm not aware of (if so it should be kept). Second, in the citations section there is a full citation mixed in with the shortened footnotes (It's ""7th Division Commander". The Times. 5 October 1938."). It's rather minor, but I'd like to see the formatting consistent with the full citation in the references and it linked to by a shortened footnote. Anyway, looks good and I'll support once those two things are addressed. Wugapodes (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments, I have made amendments to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sources Looks good! Wugapodes (talk) 02:41, 19 February 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) 08:43, 20 February 2016 [15].

Baron Munchausen[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behold the Baron! The brainchild of an 18th-century con artist who fled his country with a price on his head, the unbelievable Baron Munchausen flourished as an international pop-culture hero from the 1780s onward … much to the frustration of the real-life nobleman who inspired the character in the first place. This article is a GA and has been peer-reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, it's the most comprehensive introduction to the Baron available anywhere, but I look forward to any suggestions for improvement. Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Happy to take a look through. I actually looked at this article the other day for "research" purposes after coming across Nietzsche's mention of him and wondering what was going on.

  • You say that "Most ensuing English-language editions, including even the major editions produced by Thomas Seccombe in 1895 and F. J. Harvey Darton in 1930, reproduce one of the rewritten Kearsley versions rather than Raspe's original text." and then immediately say "Raspe's English version of the Munchausen stories became the core text for almost all later versions, not only in England but also in Continental Europe." I'm struggling with this.
    • Yes, that is a bit weird. I've removed that confusingly worded second sentence.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an original German sequel was published in 1789" Title and translated title?
    • Fixed. This info was in the collapsible table of translations and sequels.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which circulated widely soon after the book was published" Which? The original German translation?
  • I'm all for tying the various Wikimedia wikis together, but is a link to the German Wiktionary really all that? How about knocking together an entry for the English Wiktionary and linking to that instead?
    • Now that you mention it, a link to anything seems like overkill here, since the word is clearly defined in the paragraph. I've unlinked it.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's an "academician"?
  • "a film version was made in 1980" The version you're linking to is apparently 1979? The same film is mentioned further down, again with the 1980 claim.
  • "was the second most popular series on the air" In the US, I assume? I must confess that the article occasionally seems to have a slight US-centric tone.
    • Good point! Please point out any other American-centric wordings so I can fix them.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a modern-day descendant of the Baron" Hardly- "modern-day" to those 75 years ago, I'm guessing!
    • Fixed. Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article, and I'll be "back for more" in the coming days. I've made a few copyedits. I want to pre-emptively defend my redlinks; per WP:REDLINK (and see also my Signpost piece on the subject) redlinks are not something to be scared of; while I see the value of interwiki links, they are of minimal interest to the large number of readers who are unable to read German/French/Russian/Italian/etc. We can have both a redlink and an interwiki link if we make use of the template I've added. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Josh, good to see you at FAC, I've been a fan of your work for a long time. To start off, I've reverted your addition of a link to de.wp in running text when we had a perfectly good page here (on the 2012 film) ... I can't think of a single case where putting such a link in the text itself has been okay at FAC, but maybe others know more than I do about that, since I don't focus on link issues. I also reverted your addition of the {{ill}} template, based on the discussion we already had about this at PR, I'll reproduce it here: - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"His cousin, Gerlach Adolph von Münchhausen [de]": The {{ill}} template is fine while an article is being developed, but it's not fine at WP:FAC (and I would argue, not at PR or GAN either), because non-Wikipedians are unlikely to know what "(de)" means, and even if they know, it won't help them unless they read German. It would be better to write a stub on en.wp and link to that; the stub can then link to de.wp.
@Dank: Thanks so much! I'll polish up the article.
One question: can you give me a source for your assertion that the {{ill}} template is "not fine at WP:FAC"? I can't find anything in the MOS to discourage it, and indeed H:ILL seems to encourage it.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing it rejected once, and rarely brought up in the first place, but that's not much of a source. It doesn't seem like a hard call to me, for two reasons: 1. The purpose and effect of the template is a big "under construction" sign, in the hope that someone will notice that there's work that needs to be done here, and get to it. FAC is for articles where the work that obviously needs to be done already has been done. 2. I don't always keep up with new trends so I could be wrong, but it looks like a honking big Humpty-Dumptyism to me. Do you know of any professionally copyedited print text that uses "(de)" to mean "better information can be found for the thing immediately preceding, if you follow this note or reference, in German"? If not, then let's have a look at where it's used on the web, and see if the tone is suitably encyclopedic. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I'll remove the template from the page. Thanks again!--Lemuellio (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • End of quoted text. I'll stop there for now, I just wanted to jump on this to see if we can get everyone on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry- it did occur to me that the interwiki template might cause a bit of controversy. I don't like the idea of interwiki links dropped into the text in the place of links to enwp (red or blue), but I know that some people are frustrated at the thought that we redlink when there are perfectly good articles on other language Wikipedias. The template offers a degree of compromise between the two, but I agree that it's not ideal for many of the same reasons you're concerned about it. That said, you are wrong that we have a perfectly good article on the 2012 film, unless I misunderstand the claim- there's an article on dewp, but not here on enwp. If we have to make a choice between an interwiki link (useless to most readers, who cannot read all of these languages) and a redlink (actively encouraged by our guidelines) then it's an easy choice- we should be redlinking, or, if we're really opposed to redlinks (an attitude contrary to our guidelines!), creating stubs. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I thought I remembered an article on the film, must have been hallucinating. I think the bottom line is: at FAC, we can and regularly do ask people to create stubs, for all kinds of reasons, this is just one more reason. It's not a problem for me if the stubs link prominently to de.wp. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, I have replaced them with simple redlinks; I of course have no objection to people creating stubs, and hope that someone (at some point) will! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing.
  • Regarding the collapsed tables, see MOS:DONTHIDE at WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the tables merely provide further details of a bibliographic history already covered in summary form by the article text, it seems to me that this sentence from MOS:DONTHIDE addresses the situation: "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." It sounds like the two of us are reading this MOS section differently.--Lemuellio (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The table contains information not already present in the main text, so it doesn't "consolidate information covered in the main text". "sections or cells ... in tables" can't mean "the whole table". This subsection of MOS has AFAIK had a consistent interpretation since the beginning of the style guide. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I'll uncollapse the tables.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Corinne[edit]

  • However, Münchhausen was considered an honest man, rather than a liar.
I recommend reversing the order of the parts of this sentence:
  • However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man.
Putting "rather than being considered a liar" first creates a link to the previous sentence, and putting "was seen as an honest man" second creates a link to the next sentence. If you feel that the phrase is too long, then it could be shortened to:
  • However, rather than a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. (or)
  • However, instead of a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. Corinne (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like your first suggestion. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By trying to be "about [both] the literary character and his historical namesake", this article becomes confusing. It's as if the Jerry Seinfeld (character) article had all the Jerry Seinfeld stuff as well. As I see it this article is basically the character article; but unlike in the Seinfeld case the real person's article doesn't need to exist as he isn't notable.

You should therefore treat this article as a straightforward fictional biography, with the real guy's info there only to provide background to the character. In effect though, none of the content will drastically change, just remove the WP:MOSBIO elements: the real guy's infobox, the bolding of his name in the lead, and his birth/death dates (move them to Historical figure). And start the article with "Baron Munchausen is a fictional German nobleman in literature and film, created by the writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in 1785". That'll make it crystal clear what this is article is about.—indopug (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am sympathetic to this approach, and was thinking about it as I read through the article. On the other hand, I suspect that the real-world Munchausen is notable. Perhaps the shift in focus suggested by Indopug along with the creation of a short article (there's easily enough here for a good start class, and that'd give you somewhere to put the infobox/categories, which don't really belong here) would be the best way forward. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the namesake is notable by WP standards; since inspiring the fictional character is the reason he's remembered and written about, he strikes me as a pretty clear case of WP:BIO1E. On the other hand, that's exactly what makes this article's focus a bit tricky to pin down: in order to explain the fictional character sufficiently, the historical storyteller has to be given good coverage as well. The fiction/reality overlap seems unavoidable. As one of the writers quoted in the article says, "These two barons are the same and they are not the same…"
I'd be glad to hear others' opinions on how to handle this. If removing the second infobox and unbolding Hieronymus's name will make this article less confusing, I'm happy to oblige.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all barons are "notable by WP standrds", certainly this one. But I think the existing approach is correct, though a little clarification at the start of lead would help. I too was briefly unsure of the subject here, but it did not last long. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, for the purposes of this review, that we needn't decide whether the real-world baron is notable. That said, a slight shift in focus to make sure that we're clear that this is an article about the character (so, debold the real name in the lead, remove the infobox but keep the image, remove the categories added for the person) is likely appropriate either way. If someone chooses to create an article on the baron, it can be linked as appropriate (or taken to AfD if we/someone is of the view that he is not notable, though I remain fairly sure that he is). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and shift the focus, and see what happens. Thanks.--Lemuellio (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an improvement; I am leaning towards supporting, and will take another look through in the coming days. (Shout at me if I haven't said anything in a week...) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. I think the article is very good, but there may be elements I have missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck due to the reintroduction of the topic ambiguity. This needs to be sorted before this can be promoted to FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn: I think I've successfully undone the ambiguity; please do let me know what you think of the article as it now stands. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed- I'm happy to support on the condition it stays as-is in that regard. Sorry for running you around a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Dore-munchausen-illustration.jpg: source link is dead, and should use original rather than upload date
    • Thank you for this image review! I've done my best to remove the problem on the Commons page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rudolf_Erich_Raspe.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:G_a_buerger_sw.jpeg, File:Gottfried_Franz_-_Munchhausen_Underwater.jpg
  • File:Stamps_of_Germany_(BRD)_1970,_MiNr_623.jpg is tagged as being non-free
    • Thank you for catching this. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Muenchhausen-1lats.jpg: the given tag states that Latvian coins no longer circulating by 2004 are PD, but this coin is dated 2005
    • According to the tag: "Per 2004 amendments of Latvian copyright law … reproductions are allowed … [if] criteria for reproduction set by issuing national bank or country are met. … [T]he criteria limit reproduction of coins as actual objects (i.e. tokens, medals etc.), which could be mistaken for genuine coins, but have no requirements for images that are flat (i.e. drawings, paintings, photographs, etc)." So, unless I'm misreading the tag, it would appear that any photograph of any Latvian coin is free for use as long the photograph itself is freely licensed.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:BaronM.jpg: freedom of panorama in Russia does not extend to sculpture, so we need a licensing tag for the statue itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sculpture is by Andrey Orlov (b. 1961) and was unveiled in 2004, so it most likely cannot be used here. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Never do an FAC too close to Christmmas though! Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • "However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man." What does the "however" relate to? The preceding sentence does not seem to indicate anyone considered him a liar. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentence beginning "However" is to clarify that despite the unusual nature of Münchhausen's performances (he told long outlandish stories about things he claimed happened to himself, and told them as casually as if they had really happened and were not at all astonishing), his contemporaries were able to recognize that what he was doing was storytelling rather than lying.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think "rather" would be enough to make that point (seems a bit like a pleonasm now), but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a bit of a potentially confusing issue, in that the original German books use the exact same name for the fictional character as the real person, while only the English translations use a slightly different name. I've listed some resulting issues below.
    • On the contrary, "Munchausen" is the original name of the fictional character (see the Fictionalization section). It was only in translation into other languages, including German, that the spelling shifted to "Münchhausen" to match the real-life man's name.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the issue was that the German version is identical to that of the real life person, unlike the English version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raspe, probably for fear of a libel suit from the real-life Baron von Münchhausen" But was the real person actually a Baron? It seems "Baron" is considered a type of "Freiherr" in Germany, according to the German Wikipedia. Yet it seems the real life person was never referred to specifically as a Baron there? If "Baron" simply substituted "Freiherr" in English translations, this should probably be stated somewhere, and the real life person should perhaps not be referred to as one.
    • The German WP says that the honorific "Baron" can be applied to a Freiherr (bisweilen mit der Höflichkeitsformel „Baron“ angesprochen). So, to the best of my knowledge, the real-life person can accurately be called "Baron von Münchhausen". Raspe, at the very least, seems to have considered "Freiherr" and "Baron" equivalent.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "von" used in the name of the fictional character as well? If only in translations, this could be noted, as the lack of umlaut is noted too.
    • I've never seen the "von" used in versions of the English original; only in German translations.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the full name (or the words "real life") should be added to the caption of the image that shows the real life person ("Münchhausen circa 1740 as a Cuirassier in Riga, by G. Bruckner"), to differentiate the two.
  • Could dates be mentioned in relation to the various reviews under "Critical and popular reception"? Now it is unclear whether commentary is contemporary or from much later.
    • I'm not sure how necessary that is, since the commentators are all wikilinked and so their time periods can be easily checked. (There's a year given for the one unlinked exception, Sarah Tindal Kareem.) I can definitely add a few words to clarify that the review in The English Review is contemporary, though.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what others think about this, but I think it would be helpful to add date after the name of the artists in the captions of the illustrations.
    • I'm not sure either, but I'd be happy to do so if there's a consensus in that direction. So I'd value a second/third/fourth opinion on this.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pearl's popularity gradually declined between 1933 and 1937, though he staged several comebacks before ending his last radio series in 1951.[9]" I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the subject of the article?
    • It seems like a good way of establishing how long the Baron-as-radio-phenomenon lasted, so I would recommend keeping it in.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but as is, the reader wouldn't know that the two issues (Baron's/Pearl's popularity) are connected, since you don't mention whether Pearl used the Baron as a character until the end. If he didn't, there isn't much relevance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I'll fix it. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since a lot of text is devoted to von Münchhausen's telling his stories, an image like this[16] that is used on the German Wikipedia might be fitting to illustrate that.
    • For a while, that very image was indeed used to illustrate this article. However, it's unclear when exactly that image was made—and, therefore, whether or not it's fallen into public domain—so it was eventually removed.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the artist died in 1934 (more than 70 years ago), and the images were published before then, those images are definitely in the public domain. Where was this concern raised? FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Herrfurth images are definitely PD in their country of origin, but WP has to follow USA copyright laws, which (alas!) are considerably weirder; see WP:PD. In brief, for these images to be in PD in the USA, there needs to be proof they were published before 1923. I can't track down the publication date, so the copyright status remains a mystery to me.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the images would also need to be nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. I'll do that[17], and the resulting discussion will decide what will happen. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The image was kept by an administrator[18], so it should be safe to include. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in. Thanks so much for looking into this!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The character is loosely based on a real baron, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen" Perhaps bold this name in the intro, as it is also a subject of the article?
    • For a long time, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen was in bold on this page; then, during this FAC discussion, there was some conversation about whether or not the real-life man really counted as a subject of the article, and eventually the name was unbolded. I could go either way on it; please don't be afraid to reopen the conversation above. And thank you for all your comments!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the real life person doesn't have an article, and has a substantial amount of text devoted to him here, I'd say he's a subject, but well, I guess it's a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - me, I'd re-bold. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment there's a 2-2 tie, so I'll take a stand myself now. I'll be bold and re-bold (pardon the rhyme).--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, makes sense, also since the article has categories about the real life person as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted per LEAD. One of the burdens of FAC (for better and worse) is MOS compliance. Bolding is for synonyms of the title. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Dank! I think the "To bold or not to bold" problem stems from the ambiguity, already raised on this page, about what the article's subject is. If the subject is the fictional Baron, full stop, then clearly Hieronymus's name should not be in bold. But if the subject is both Barons—in other words, if the article is for all intents and purposes a joint biography—then both names should be in bold, as is done on all the rest of Wikipedia's many joint biography articles.
Me, I'd argue that the joint-biography approach makes a whole lot of sense; it would be ridiculous for (to take a random example) Maud and Miska Petersham each to have their own biography, since they're notable specifically for the work they did together. The same logic seems to be applicable here; without the fictional character Hieronymus comes dangerously close to being a WP:1E, and without the historical personage the fictional Baron has no context whatsoever.
Of course, I don't own the article, so I'm happy to go whatever way a strong consensus leans.--Lemuellio (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this, once again. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The categories for the real life person were also removed at one point; perhaps they've been added back now. I think the best solution would be to create an article for the real baron; given the amount of information about him in this one, it probably wouldn't be too difficult. The worst solution, I think, is this ambiguous "two subject" article. I note that this isn't really a joint biography at all, but an article about a real person and a fictional version of that real person, and we have plenty of precedent for separating them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be against separation. But I think as long as the real life person redirects here, he is certainly a subject of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The redirect guidelines allow that a redirect can be appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article"- this case seems to be an example of that. If we're not having a separate article, this should be treated as a subtopic rather than as a second main subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess the main problem here is that we don't seem to have a clear precedent, so that it becomes a matter of taste/opinion. I'd go with a split (with a summary about the real person, of course). The real life person seems to be notable enough. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A split is fine by me, as long as the real-life Münchhausen really is notable on his own; that's the point that seems unclear at the moment. That he was adapted against his will into a pop-culture icon is remarkable, but it's only one event. It's true that he was born into a noble family, but to the best of my knowledge, nobility doesn't automatically imply notability.
This is where the article differs from, say, Jerry Seinfeld (character); the real Jerry Seinfeld has a public life separate from his fictional persona. Münchhausen was so much more private an individual that it seems difficult to pad his biography out any further without steering dangerously close to WP:PSEUDO.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think more info about him could be found in German sources, if one really wanted to be comprehensive. And considering that we have articles about the spouses and parents of various US presidents, who aren't notable past being just that, I think this case is notable enough as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, but please note WP:INVALIDBIO: "relationships do not confer notability". (See also the essays "Other stuff exists" and "Inclusion is not an indicator of notability".) That more info could be found in German sources is probably true, but seems to fall under the category of arguments described in the essay "But there must be sources!".
Again, I have no personal reasons to oppose a split, but since several reviewers have indicated support of the article as it stands, it looks to me as we need a strong policy-based reason to leap the one-event hurdle and split the article.--Lemuellio (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that 1E applies. If tomorrow J. K. Rowling was to reveal that Harry Potter was based on Harold Lotter, a schoolfriend who is now an assistant manager in a shoe shop, the creation of an article on Lotter could be opposed on those grounds. The real Baron has significance as the source of the fictional character, but also as a member of the nobility, a minor celebrity of days gone by, a military man with connections to other notable people, a part of a somewhat-notable family and perhaps for other reasons. I suspect there would be sources available, and I'd be inclined to say that there's easily enough material in the current article/its history to create a decent enough start- or C-class article. If, on the other hand, you're of the view that he's not notable, surely that's all more the reason to clarify that the current article is very much not about him. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty close to supporting, but I'd like to see this issue resolved somehow... As Josh points out, the Baron seems to be historically notable in his own right. You could argue that he has of course been overshadowed by the fictional character, but that does not take away from his own achievements and significance. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like the best compromise, at least for the moment, is simply to make it unambiguous that our focus in this article is the fictional character. I've re-removed "and his historical namesake" from the hatnote, as well as the categories describing the historical figure.--Lemuellio (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The new image layout looks good. I'll just go ahead and support this, as the remaining issues don't hold it back for me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from delldot ∇.[edit]

This is an excellent article, I have no major complaints. I do prefer it with the real baron covered in this article, it is an important part of the story with their similarities and differences, and his feelings on the coverage. I think it would lose a lot if he were split out. A few nitpicks:

  • "with each of the three trying to outdo one other" one another?
Good catch! Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some of his most well-known stories" best-known?
Very good. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the para beginning, "In the first published illustrations, which may have been drawn by Raspe himself..." wouldn't it be great to have examples of each type of illustration accompanying the para?
One of the images attributed to Raspe appears under "Fictionalization"; illustrations by the 1792 artist, Cruikshank, and Doré can all be found in the gallery "Illustrations for the stories".--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make sense to arrange these next to the paragraph that discusses them to illustrate the changes that take place? This is a minor thing and up to you, but it does seem like the perfect time for images. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good thought. I've moved the Raspe image into the gallery, which appears just above the two paragraphs discussing illustrations; now the whole evolutionary process can be seen together. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is a complex one." Would it change the meaning if we cut out wording just to say, "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is complex"?
Good idea!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really great work! delldot ∇. 01:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, everything looks great. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although I should disclose that I have made a number of prose edits, both to improve article clarity and to ensure that all sections of the article are properly summarised within the lede as per WP: Lede. Well done to the primary authors of this article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coordinator note - Lemuellio, this will need a source review and, as this seems to be your first time at FAC, a source audit for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Unless I have missed them somewhere, please request at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Marvellous article. Coming in late but seeing none of the confusion between real-life and fictional baron. All is clearly signposted. Some comments regarding the sources:

Thank you! I've tried to address your concerns below. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few books lack an ISBN.
    • Since quite a few of the books are older, they won't have an ISBN to begin with … so really, for sake of consistency, I'm not so sure that any of the books should have an ISBN listed. What do other editors advise? Consistency for books with ISBNs, or consistency across the whole bibliography? I'm completely open to suggestions. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some characters not rendering well in Balina, Marina; Goscilo, Helena; Lipovet︠s︡kiĭ, M. N. (2005)
    • I'm guessing those are the t︠, s︡, and/or ĭ characters. I'm sorry to hear you're having problems with them, but since they're part of the spelling of a person's name I'm not certain they can be replaced with plain old ASCII "t", "s", and "i". Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At my first FAC I learned that placenames for publishers need the country or state, unless they are really obvious. Bayreuth for example needs Germany added
    • Thanks! I've added where it seemed appropriate, though of course "obvious" is a bit subjective (e.g. I've left Geneva, Edinburgh, and Boston as they are). If there's a specific policy in place to determine how detailed placenames should be, please do point me toward it. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foreign language references need English translations as well. And also state the language they are in (I can spot only one "in German")
    • I've added language tags. Could you please clarify what you mean by "English translations"? I can't remember seeing anything in the MOS about this. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Mitchel reference links to page 100 on Google books, but actually starts on page 98
  • the Nietzsche book seems to be from 2009 and by Random House according to the link to Google Books. And Kaufmann was also editor.
    • Added "ed." for Kaufmann; thanks. Random House owns Modern Library, which would explain the Google Books attribution. As for 2009, I think that's an error. The usually reliable WorldCat lists the edition as 2000. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency: Orly's first reference has only the initial R but the second one has first name
    • I think the usual practice is to give the author's name as it's printed in the source, even if that introduces an inconsistency. If there's something in the MOS to discourage that, please let me know. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency: Raspe only has initials, whereas virtually everybody else gets full name
    • Same as immediately above. Again, thanks very much! Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

  • Earwig's copyvio check clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • references - some use 2 digits for page range (e.g. "Investigating the Barons: narrative and nomenclature in Munchausen syndrome"), others use all digits. align them
  • Willis, Donald C. (1984) and Schwartz, Alvin (1990), have no ISBNs
  • ...references otherwise look in order.

Spot checking..

  • Seccombe (1895) used multiple times - checks out ok.
  • Apel source (used once) - all in order.
  • Nagle (used once) - all in order.

i.e.very minor tweak above and good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page ranges and missing ISBNs fixed. Thanks so much! Lemuellio (talk) 15:06, 17 February 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) 09:58, 20 February 2016 [19].

William Etty[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
William Etty is something of a case study in changing fashions. A wildly wide-ranging and exceptionally gifted artist, he was once considered England's answer to Rubens and Titian, and the man who unified the diverging artistic traditions of English, Italian, French and Netherlandish art after generations of separate development owing to the French revolutionary wars. Unfortunately, he had the bad luck to die just before the great upheavals in European art and culture, and is nowadays remembered (somewhat unfairly) only as the man who brought pornography into the mainstream. His life is an interesting mix of contradictions—a poor northern boy who became an inveterate reactionary, a Francophile who hated France and the French, a devoutly religious man who made his living painting (in John Constable's words) "revel routs of satyrs and lady bums", a proud Yorkshireman who spent his entire adult life in London. This is a long article (although not unduly long—it wouldn't even make the top 150 in terms of size), but I don't think it's appropriate in this case to split it as the change in his style over time is an important part of the story.

Before any MOS purist complains, the placement of Andromeda looking out of the page is intentional; in art if she's not centred she's almost always depicted at the edge of the frame looking outwards. Likewise, I feel Holman Hunt's picture of Etty sketching works better with Etty looking out of the page, whatever MOS says to the contrary. ‑ Iridescent 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with brief comments
    • There are several formatting details that are not as I would wish, and occasionally text was sandwiched between images and margins (aggravated no doubt by my use of zoom to make the text larger & spare my poor eyes). However, I will let others hash out all these formatting questions. I have only one question: why was Etty voted in as an RA in Feb but was not fully a member until Dec? [And speaking of Feb/Dec, it would make both me and MOS happy if you would put &nbps; between numerals and months such as 16 August or whatever]. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The RA's admissions system followed (and still does follow) the masterpiece system inherited from the mediaeval trade guilds. Election gives one the right to create a diploma work, and only once that diploma work is judged up to scratch (and gifted to the institution to which one's applying) does one actually get the title. Thus, Etty was elected in February 1828, but it's only when Sleeping Nymphs and Satyrs was completed, donated to the RA collection and deemed of decent quality that he actually got the certificate.
      • Regarding formatting, pretty much anything with left-aligned images is going to get a sandwiching problem at some screen widths and resolutions as things stand; as long as formatting doesn't disrupt the flow at typical sizes (between a smartphone and about 1400px width), and doesn't actually make the text unreadable at higher widths, I don't consider it an issue, although others may want to wade in. At some point in the future, the WMF are introducing a maximum text width with further screen width whitespaced (view BBC News in a wide window for an idea of how it will look), which should make the issue moot. I'm loath to remove images if at all possible; although this looks a little cluttered with images, they're carefully chosen to illustrate his changing style and the key points of his career, and there aren't any obvious ones to remove. ‑ Iridescent 10:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something about the masterpiece system could profitably be inserted into a well-cited footnote, it seems to me. Otherwise, my work is done here. ;-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • How's that, which expands on the existing footnote to (hopefully) make it clearer what the purpose of a diploma work is? ‑ Iridescent 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A huge undertaking taken on with skill and taste; have now read most of it, with little inclination or need to ce. My impression is: Wow. Support. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • I bridled somewhat to see Reynolds' portrait of the Prince in Wales looking unusually puddingy used as a representative example of his work (even though I wrote parts of WWW's bio). Almost anything else would be better.
    • Per the talkpage, I used that because I think Reynolds's painting of WWW ties in nicely with Etty's later work for the Williams-Wynns. I've no strong attachment to it if you want to substitute in something else. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the association of "the Torso of Michelangelo" with the Belvedere Torso is strong enough to link it in the text. I assumed it was that before reading the note, as M's near-obsession with it was well-known. But whatever.
    • It's likely the "Torso of Michelangelo" was the Belvedere Torso, but there's enough doubt that I'm reluctant to state it as fact. Farr explicitly says that while the BT is the most likely candidate, there's also a possibility it referred to the River God model, or even to a partial cast of David. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Sketch from One of Gray's Odes (Youth on the Prow) - work in a link to the poet in the note? (ok, linked later)
  • "the private Titians of that nobleman" - you might link to those that have articles in a note. Diana and Callisto and Diana and Actaeon etc.
    • In this context the actual works are less important than the fact they were seen as vaguely smutty, as the quote is clearly an insinuation that neither Etty's work nor Titian's was fit for public display. This is so footnote-heavy already, I'm reluctant to add more. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a passage from Homer's Odyssey in which sailors resist the irresistible song of the Sirens" - not exactly!
    • A near enough approximation, surely? Anyone who wants the full story can click through to the articles on either the book or the painting. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were thought by the English a uniquely Netherlandish form" - seems rather strong, whatever the source says; there must have been plenty of French and even Italian examples in English collections by then. "Mainly" for sure.
    • I agree; George Lance was already producing and exhibiting them in England, albeit with little impact. Changed to "primarily Netherlandish". Etty was the first major English artist until Sickert to treat still life as a significant genre in its own right, rather than a painting exercise. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmm "public display in the cellars of the National Gallery" - "basement galleries", perhaps? In my book cellars have bare walls of brick or stone.
    • "Cellars" is what the NG themselves called the makeshift room under the staircase where the Vernon Collection was housed prior to 1850 (or The National Cellar-ius to Punch). Feel free to change to "basement" if you think it reads better. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ten or more years ago the Royal Academy had a (free) display of some 20-30+ of its Etty drawings and studies for several months. Might be worth mentioning.
    • I've found it impossible to find any sourcing, although I agree if it can be found it would probably be worth mentioning. The main narrative of that section - that the Tate exhibition in 2001 rescued Etty from being a curiosity confined to the Lady Lever/Anglesey Abbey bastions of kitsch in critics' minds, the publicity surrounding Sirens in 2010 prompted the press to start looking at him more closely, and the YAG retrospective rehabilited him back into respectability - is accurate, I think, but in an ideal world it would be nice to have more on where his works have been exhibited. (He was so prolific, and his works have historically been so cheap, that they tend to pop up in all kinds of unlikely collections.) ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor quibbles on a very fine piece. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My points adequately dealt with. The corner-stone of a fine series of articles, FAs & not. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • May I ask about the practice of stating page ranges in the Bibliography in addition to the footnotes? I note that you have done this in other articles but not in The Wrestlers. It's not an issue per se, but it seems a bit redundant.
  • I don't see any other issues. I suppose I had to raise some trivial question so as to feel I'm earning my keep. --Laser brain (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the page ranges, but on The Destroying Angel people were getting very het up about their absence, so from then on when I've cited a chapter as a separate work I've included the page range. The extra effort—and space—is marginal, and if people find it useful I don't see any reason not to include them, even though I personally also consider it redundancy. (My preference would be to treat a book as a single work and have the footnotes say "Jones in Smith, 1988"—I think treating each chapter as a separate work makes the bibliography look unnecessarily bloated—but recognize consensus is against me here.) I can see a use-case for including them, if people want to read a particular chapter on Google Books; for legal reasons Gbooks in the UK only lets one read a limited number of preview pages of copyrighted works before locking you out and telling you to buy the book, so it can be useful to know exactly where to start. ‑ Iridescent 17:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notes -- this is close to promotion but:
  • Looks like we still need an image review.
  • I'd expect to see a citation for the last sentence in Candaules.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
Support on Images All the images look good. Most are public domain and the ones that aren't are appropriately licensed on commons based on their original publication. Wugapodes (talk) 01:29, 18 February 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) 08:50, 20 February 2016 [20].

The Last of Us[edit]

Nominator(s): – the editor formerly known as Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of Us is a 2013 video game, developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. The game's four-year development was significantly documented, which led to a wide anticipation for its release. It became one of the most acclaimed video games, earning over 240 Game of the Year awards. It is highly regarded as one of the greatest video games of all time. I've been working on this article a lot over the past year or so, and I now feel satisfied that it is well-written, and sufficiently meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Here's what I see

Lead

  • The box art needs an alt text.
  • Players control Joel, a man tasked with escorting the young Ellie... by saying "the young Ellie", your assuming readers already know who Ellie is. Introduce her as "a young girl named Ellie", the same way you introduced Joel.
  • players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth to defend against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures... Really nitpicking at this one, but when stealth is mentioned, its almost as if your saying stealth can be used as a physical weapon like guns. Maybe reword that? If you don't agree, that's fine, like I said, really nitpicky.
  • Players can also upgrade weapons and items using items scavenged from the environment. items is used twice and almost back-to-back in the same sentence. Reword the sentence or replace one of the items with another word.

Gameplay

  • Players traverse post-apocalyptic environments, moving through locations to advance through the game's story. I feel locations is a bit too general, since they go through buildings, houses, sewers, etc.
  • Players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth, defending against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures... If you changed it in the lead, change it here. If not, ignore this and move on.
  • Players also control Ellie and Sarah throughout the game's winter segment and prologue, respectively. I know this having played the game, but from a casual reader's viewpoint, who's Sarah?
  • In combat, players can use long-ranged weapons such as rifles, shotguns and bows, and short-barreled guns such as pistols and revolvers Link long-ranged weapons, and short barreled guns, though I couldn't find an article for short barreled guns, so link what you please there. I wouldn't recommend linking the actual guns though, as it could get pretty crowded with links.
  • Physical abilities, such as the health bar and crafting speed Link health bar, since that's pretty much a gamer only term.
  • Equipment such as health kits and Molotov cocktails can be found or crafted using collected items. Wouldn't this part go better with the crafting sentence? Besides, the previous sentence mentions how you can use health kits to heal, and then its explained how to make health kits, which seems weird.
  • Players solve simple puzzles, by using floating pallets to move Ellie, who is unable to swim, across bodies of water, and using ladders or dumpsters to reach higher areas. This is a hard cut from periods with combat, and kind of caught me off guard. Try opening the sentence with "During these periods, players may have to solve simple puzzles..."
  • Players' companions, such as Ellie or Tess... Once again, who's Tess?
  • In every mode, players select a Faction—Hunters or Fireflies While I guess this is fine, since you introduce them as factions, you may want explain a bit more about each group, since they're both important to the singleplayer. Also, why are faction and hunters capitalized? Fireflies is fine since that's there name.

There's just some initial comments for now. Will take a full look later, but so far, very good job. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Famous Hobo! I've gone through and fixed most of your concerns. However, I was confused as to what you mean by "Link long-ranged weapons", since I could find no article on the subject. In addition, the capitalisation of Hunters and Fireflies is also present in the source, which I followed. Let me know if I missed anything from above, and I look forward to seeing more comments. Thanks again! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 02:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's continue. Just as a side note, I'm doing this during classes, so my editing schedule is rather all over the place. My apologies for such disjointed comments.

Plot

  • In 2013, an outbreak of a mutant Cordyceps fungus ravages the United States, transforming its human hosts into cannibalistic monsters. Cordyceps is already linked in the lead and gameplay, so unlink it here. Also, in the lead and gameplay, you call the enemies zombie-like, but in this section you call them cannibalistic monsters. Pick one and stick with it.
  • Link Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City the first time each are mentioned, since you linked Austin and Wyoming. Also, any particular reason you mention the state Austin is located in, and not Pittsburgh or Salt Lake?
  • Ellie expresses her survivor guilt and asks Joel to swear that his story is true; he does. I'm a little uneasy about saying Ellie has survivor guilt. It's implied at the end by her facial expression, but it's never explicitly stated, which might border on original research. If Ellie does state this, that's fine, but if not, you may want to reword this sentence.

Development

  • This is presented in a scene in which Joel and Ellie discover a herd of giraffes, which concept artist John Sweeney explained was designed to "reignite [Ellie's] lust for life", having suffered following her encounter with David. This may just be me, but what suffered? Ellie or her lust for life, or both. You may want to rephrase that to better explain the significance of the scene.
  • This minimalist approach was also taken with the game's sound design and art design. Remove the design after sound.
  • The sound department began working early on the sound of the Infected, in order to achieve the best work possible. This is a really awkward sentence, thanks in part to the double use of sound and work.
  • Unlink Pittsburgh, as it should be linked in the Plot section.
  • The art department were forced to fight for things that they wished to include, due to the high demand during development. Replace fight with negotiate, sounds more encyclopedic. Also, could you go into just a little more detail about the high demand? What was demanded of them?
  • The team created new engines to satisfy their needs for the game. Link to game engines, as most casual readers will not know what a game engine is.
  • Downloadable content (DLC) for the game was released for the game following its launch. Repetition of for the game. Simple mistake.
  • The Sights and Sounds Pack included the soundtrack, a dynamic theme and two avatars. Was the dynamic theme for the home screen on the PS3? And where would the player be able to use the avatars (I'm an Xbox gamer, so I don't know a whole lot about the PlayStation, but on Xbox, players can customize their home screen with different themes, and players are given a virtual avatar they can customize. Does the PS3 have something like this?)
  • Sony announced The Last of Us Remastered, an improved version of the game for the PlayStation 4. It was released on July 29, 2014 in North America.[54][a] Remastered features improved enhanced graphics... In the first sentence, changed improved to enhanced, and in third sentence, remove the enhanced.

Reception

  • The word found is used 12 times, felt is used 14 times, in the Critical reception section alone, so you should try to limit the excessive use of that word.
  • In the second to last paragraph of Critical reception, Oli Welsh, Andy Kelly, Matt Helgeson, and Richard Mitchell all have their full name, but it should be kept to simply their last names, to keep in line with the rest of the section.
  • Sam Einhorn of GayGamer.net felt that the revelation of Bill's sexuality "added to his character ... without really tokenizing him". Why does Bill need to be linked here? Since he was already mentioned in the plot, he should be linked their, if you want to link his character. If you do this, then you need to link Tess, Henry and Sam, Marlene, etc.
  • A kiss between two female characters in Left Behind was met with positive reactions. You should go into more detail about this, such as who was it (it feels a little random saying two female characters) and why was it positively received, in the same fashion Bill's sexuality was described.
  • Prior to its release, it received numerous awards for its previews at E3 I feel this should go before everything in this section, since it's sandwiched in between the highest rated games of the year by MC and GR, and all the year-end lists.
  • Baker won an award from Hardcore Gamer,[143] while Johnson won awards at the British Academy Video Games Awards,[114] and DICE Awards,[120] and from The Daily Telegraph. Did Baker seriously just win an award with no description? Like, Best voice actor? Same goes for Johnson.
  • Naughty Dog won Studio of the Year and Best Developer from Cheat Code Central,[139] The Daily Telegraph,[118] Edge,[155] the Golden Joystick Awards[140] and Hardcore Gamer. This is almost word for word of what is in the first paragraph of the Awards section.
  • At IGN's Best of 2013 Awards... What makes the IGN awards more special that it deserves its own line?

Adaptations and possible sequel

  • The comics serve as a prequel to the game, chronicling the journey of a younger Ellie and another young survivor Riley. As Riley was already mentioned in the Left Behind section as being Ellie's friend, you can just simply call her Riley instead of another young survivor.
  • On March 6, 2014, Sony announced that Screen Gems will distribute a film adaptation of The Last of Us, written by Neil Druckmann and produced by Sam Raimi. Remove Druckmann's first name.

Alright, that's it. All that's left is the refs section, which I'll take a look at soon, but I can tell you that ref 115 needs to be fixed, and ref 103 needs the publisher part fixed.

Thanks, Famous Hobo. I fixed your remaining issues. In regards to the reception of the kiss in Left Behind: this is explored in more detail in the article about the DLC, which is why it was only touched on briefly in here; if you think it should be removed, let me know. As for the references: I'm not sure why the URL for reference 115 isn't being accepted, but there's nothing wrong it as far as I can see (I don't think Wikipedia likes the "http://o.canada..." part). – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, sorry for a late response. So I did a small spotcheck of the refs, and everything came out good. The only remaining issue I have with the article is how Sarah and Tess are more or less thrown into the Gameplay section. When Sarah is mentioned as Joel's daughter, a casual reader will probably get confused, and ask why she doesn't play a big part in the game? Same goes for Tess, can you call to them at any point in the game for help? But they can be left if you want them. Other than that, everything else checks out. Very, very, nice article, it's pretty apparent just how much time and effort went into this, and after addressing all of my nagging issues, I can now safely give my Support. Congrats . Famous Hobo (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, Famous Hobo! I decided to remove any mention of Sarah and Tess from the Gameplay section altogether, as they're not really necessary, and only add confusion. I appreciate all of your comments. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

  • I noticed that the images in the gameplay section and the development section are missing alt texts
  • ""Listen mode" lets players locate enemies through a heightened sense" - minor, but I would personally change this to allows, as it may sound more encyclopaedic for the lead
  • "In Austin, Joel" - minor, but I would recommend Austin, Texas Disregard this as mentioned above
  • "The addition of Ellie as AI was a major contributor to the engine" - I think this should be fully written out as artificial intelligent, as it's prominent in the article
  • "The game missed its original projected release date of May 7, 2013, pushed back to June 14, 2013 to allow for further polishing" - this sentence could to with a conjunction. How about The game missed its original projected release date of May 7, 2013, as it was pushed back to June 14, 2013 to allow for further polishing
  • "Nightmare Bundle, released on November 5, 2013, added a collection of ten head items, nine of which are available to purchase individually" - so after purchasing the Nightmare Bundle, the player still has to buy the nine head items?
  • "early access to customizable items and brawler skill for the game's multiplayer" - what is the brawler skill?
  • "Mc Shea of GameSpot" - is this meant to be "McShea" or is this a pseudonym?
  • "It is one of the best-selling PlayStation 3 games" - this should start with As of 2014 or 2015? Feel free to ignore
  • "and the Spike VGX 2013" - why isn't this written out fully?
  • "but were interrupted when the whole team shifted development to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End (2016)" - might sound better as but were interrupted when the whole team shifted development to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, which is scheduled for release in 2016

I'm sorry for coming late to this FAC, but as FamousHobo made a comprehensive review above, my review was slightly shortened due to various improvements already made. All in all, this is a great article! The work put into this has been impressive and admirable. No doubt I'll be support once all of the minor issues are out of the way. JAGUAR  17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Jaguar! I've tried to address them all. Regarding Tom Mc Shea: that's how he spells his name, so that's how I wrote it in the article. Also, "Spike VGX" is the full name for the awards show. I should also let you know that the images aren't missing alt texts. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them! With all of my concerns addressed I'll be happy to support this now. I must have got confused with another website that uses pseudonyms. JAGUAR  16:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: Many thanks. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indopug[edit]

Comment since there's an article for the remaster, why mention its platform and release dates in the infobox here?—indopug (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: You bring up a good point. I want to bring up some other examples: Halo: Combat Evolved lists Xbox 360 and Xbox One in the "Platform(s)" parameter in the infobox, but does not list it in the "Release date(s)", whereas The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time does not mention the 3DS version at all. I initially followed the structure of the Grand Theft Auto V article, back when it had a separate article for the re-release, but that's an unusual case, since the re-release was the same game with the same title, and The Last of Us Remastered is different in that respect. Do you think the PlayStation 4 version should be removed from the infobox entirely, or excluded from "Release date(s)" only? – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 13:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine if you don't remove entirely it from the infobox, but definitely do from the Release date(s), which lists far too many for an infobox. (I edit music articles, and album infoboxes strictly require the earliest release date only—I think the same should apply for video games too)—indopug (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more points:

  • If you ctrl+F "game" on Firefox and hit highlight-all, you can see the word is overused throughout the article. It makes the prose repetitive and reduces readability. Other examples of repetitiveness: three paras in Critical response begin with "many reviewers" saying something about the game. The next three paras also begin very similarly.
  • When you 1) say that "The Last of Us is one of the most awarded games of all time, winning over 240 Game of the Year awards" and 2) have a separate article for the awards, listing out names of innumerable magazines and awards just makes the section thoroughly unreadable. Instead include some commentary on the glut of awards? What the developers had to say in reaction? As it stands the section is basically redundant to that first sentence.

Having a relook, I think the problems stem from the fact that Reception is so long. I believe its thirteen paragraphs can be cut down to five or six more concise ones (three for summarising reviews (whether it is any good or not?), and one each for sales and awards). A lot of the stuff (about violence and sexuality for starters) in Critical response should probably be split off into an Analysis/Themes section.—indopug (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, Indopug.
  • You say that that the infobox lists "far too many" release dates, but with video games it's fairly common to list multiple release dates like this. There's actually a discussion about this at the moment. Regardless, I have removed mention of the PS4 from the infobox.
  • I don't know if the word "game" is really overused in the article. Highlighting all instances of the word shows that it's used pretty sparingly in the first few sections, and then significantly in the Reception section, but this is simply because a lot of video game journalism publications use the word "game" in their name (Computer and Video Games, Eurogamer, Game Informer, GameSpot). Not to mention the 140 instances of the word in the references alone.
This is what I mean, even if you ignore the publication's names, there seems to be at least one 'game' every sentence (across Critical response). The solution is simple: replace it with "Last of Us" and "it" every now and then:

Many reviewers found the game's combat a refreshing difference from other games. Game Informer's Helgeson appreciated the vulnerability during fights,[64] while Kelly of Computer and Video Games enjoyed the variety in approaching the combat.[61] IGN's Moriarty felt that the game's crafting system assisted the combat, and that the latter contributed to the game's emotional value, adding that enemies feel "human".[66] Joystiq's Mitchell reiterated similar comments, stating that the combat "piles death upon death on Joel's hands".[67] Welsh of Eurogamer found the suspenseful and threatening encounters added positively to the gameplay.[63] Tom Mc Shea of GameSpot wrote that the game's artificial intelligence negatively affected the combat, with enemies often ignoring players' companions.[65]

—indopug (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the Awards section, I basically copied the formula that Grand Theft Auto V (an FA) uses for its Awards section. I understand your concern, but I don't know how I'd go about rectifying it.
Not a fan of that either, but at least there the list of items isn't as long as here (The sentence that begins "The game appeared on several year-end lists" has 23). As for rectifying it: aren't there more retrospective pieces on the game's awards out there? Ones that list out the numbers of Game of the Year, Best Actor, Best Writing etc awards it won? That way within a few sentences you could summarise the glut of awards.—indopug (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the length of Reception: I can't see any way of cutting down the reviews into three or four paragraphs, unless entire paragraphs are basically removed, and I'm not very enthusiastic about doing that.
  • I tried writing a Themes section in the past, but it was determined that the information would be better suited in Reception.
Thanks again. Let me know if you have more concerns. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 02:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: Any comments would be appreciated. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: Anything? – Rhain ☔ 14:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, if I were willing to put more of my time in FA reviewing as in previous years, I would've opposed this for failing 1a (since I don't any more, I'm just leaving feedback).
Good writing does not constitute sentences filled with long list of items (apart from the examples of this I pointed out above, I just saw the neverending "The game also topped the charts in the United States,[94] France,[95] Ireland,[96] Italy,[97] the Netherlands,[98] Sweden,[99] Finland,[99] Norway,[99] Denmark,[99] Spain,[100] and Japan.[101]"—why not just "The game also topped the charts in the United States, Japan and countries across Europe", or just "across the world"?).
To summarise: I do not believe what this article needs is just copyediting; a significant rewrite of Reception is needed.—indopug (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor amendments to the article, per your suggestions. I don't believe a rewrite of Reception is needed; your only remaining problems seem to be Awards, and a sentence in Sales, which I don't personally see as problems and nobody else has mentioned it. However, it doesn't appear that you are going to either support or oppose this article, so I appreciate all of the comments and feedback that you have provided. – Rhain ☔ 08:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review from ProtoDrake[edit]

I have gone through the article using Checklinks and found no faults. But when I manually went through them, I spotted a few things that needed dealing with.

  • Ref 3 has the wrong date: the cited video was published on Feb 24, 2014. Please fix this.
  • I must unfortunately take responsibility for as I started the trend (before WebCite did some kind of update and made the whole thing worthless): the WebCite archived references for GameTrailers and YouTube don't work.
    • In addition, the GameTrailers urls are out of date since their website move. This can be used for the time being for the 2014 Awards. Hopefully the original GameTrailers video will come back up at some point.
  • Ref 127 is inconsistent with the rest of the IGN-related citations. It needs correcting.

That's all I saw. When these concerns have been met, I'll have another look through to see if I missed anything. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ProtoDrake! I went through and fixed the inconsistencies, and replaced the GameTrailers URL. Also, since YouTube and GameTrailers can't be archived properly, I removed their archive URLs; I hope this is alright. Let me know if you see any other problems. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 00:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhain1999, thanks for the prompt response, spotted a couple of other things.

  • While most of the refs are down in the reference table, a large portion of them are still in the main text. I've seen these two styles used separately, but not in a combined form. I can see the reason for using the table, but maybe you could restrict this to the larger refs that incorporate multiple citations, unless there is a reason they cannot be incorporated into the main text.
  • The Joystiq and Edge links are technically dead, as they will redirect to Engadget and GamesRadar+ respectively. You need to specify that they are dead urls in the citations. Also, double-check the archived Edge urls as some of the later ones have developed a tendancy to attempt a redirect to GamesRadar+.

That's all I saw this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ProtoDrake. I addressed the Edge and Joystiq issues. The main reason that some of the references are down in the table was to avoid an unreadable "Awards" section (if you take a look, it's hard to read even when restricted to using ref names). Would it be better to move these back into the main text, or to move all of the references down the table? Unless it can stay as it is, of course. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 09:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhain1999, that's quite reasonable, and can remain as is. I can't see any further issues, so I'll give this a Pass on the source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: Many thanks. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 10:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review from PresN[edit]

All of the images are done right, but... there's three gameplay shots. Most video game articles get by with one image; with such an important game I could see two, but one shot for visual design and two for gameplay mechanics is a bit much. The second gameplay image adds nothing except showing Ellie attacking someone, which is not, in my opinion, a big thing that needs a visual to explain. In any case: one of the screenshot images needs to go, preferably one of the gameplay ones. You need to either drop one or replace them both with a new single image. --PresN 20:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, PresN. The reason I wanted a second screenshot was to display how the artificial intelligence system is used in the game, and how Ellie will assist players in combat. If you feel as though this is unnecessary, I can remove the screenshot and re-position the existing one. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just don't think the Ellie screenshot adds enough to the article that isn't already covered by text or the other image, sorry. --PresN 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Not a problem; I understand, and I appreciate your feedback. I've made the changes. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 00:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review: Pass --PresN 01:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Muchas gracias. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 01:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JDC808[edit]

Sorry being a little late to the party. I haven't actually done any reviewing in awhile and I just happened to notice this on the list of FACs for WP:VG and thought I'd have a look.

First, before I begin reviewing, I always go through and do some copy-editing, especially if it's minor stuff. My thoughts are why tell you that you made a typo or need to add a word for grammatical sense when I can easily fix that? Anyways, I've gone through and copy-edited.

Critical Reception

  • After the first time you mention the name of the reviewer and their publication, you don't need to continuously mention that they are of that publication. For example, in the very first paragraph, it says "Andy Kelly of Computer and Video Games", then throughout the remainder of the section, whenever Kelly's review is used, you put "Kelly of Computer and Video Games" or a variant of that. In that first paragraph, you already told us that Kelly is the reviewer for Computer and Video Games, you don't need to continuously tell us that throughout the section. After the first time you tell us which publication the reviewer is from, all we need after that is just the reviewer's name (unless a reviewer from another publication has the same last name; in that case, "[last name] of [publication]" after the first mention would be okay, but that's not the case here).

Sales

  • You mention "It is one of the best-selling PlayStation 3 games." Looking at the link, it's the third best-selling PlayStation 3 game. Why not say that it's the third best-selling instead of a generalized "one of the best-selling"?

Other

  • As part of the marketing for the game, early access to the demo was included with early copies of God of War: Ascension. I feel this could be mentioned right after the sentence in the Development section that mentions its release date was pushed back, or maybe even the very last sentence of that paragraph. On that note, there's not any mention of the demo.
  • There was an easter egg in Uncharted 3 that referenced the virus and was essentially the first teaser (at least that I know of) for The Last of Us. Could this not be mentioned somewhere in the Development section?
    • I just looked at the dedicated Development article and it mentions it there, so I guess it would be okay to let it slide here. However, the demo with Ascension is not mentioned anywhere there. I'd say if you don't add the Ascension mention here, at least add it there.
  • I find it a little odd that there's not a dedicated Release section, even if it were just a sub right before "Additional content". Was the game released worldwide on June 14, 2013? --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JDC808. I appreciate your copy-editing.
  • I find that it makes sense to add the publication after every instance of the reviewer's name, since they're representing the publication. This has also been used on other FAs, such as Grand Theft Auto V, Seiken Densetsu 3 and Fez.
  • Added information about the demo to the development article.
  • I don't think a dedicated "Release" section is necessary for this article, especially considering that a lot of the information is summarised in the development article. The PS3 version launched worldwide on June 14, 2013; the PS4 release dates are covered in a footnote, and in its dedicated article.
– Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 01:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through the Critical Reception section, it got exhaustive continuously seeing "[last name] of [publication]" or a variant of it. They are representing the publication, but you already told us that when you first mentioned them, so it becomes very repetitive afterwards. There are other FAs that do as I'm suggesting.
  • In regards to a dedicated Release section, okay, and I wasn't suggesting putting all of the releases for the remastered version in it. --JDC808 ♫ 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JDC808: If I'm being honest, I much prefer to include the name of the publication upon each mention, but I can certainly remove them if you insist. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - though I'm personally not a fan of how the Critical Reception section is done as noted above, it's not enough of a reason to keep this from being an FA. --JDC808 ♫ 03:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JDC808: Merci beaucoup. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 03:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

There a quite a few duplicate links in the article, which you can display by installing/invoking this script; pls run and check over if these dupes are really necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I found that none of them were necessary, so I removed them all. Thanks for linking the tool; that should be useful in the future. – Rhain ☔ 14:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks. Now, my apologies for not checking this sooner, but it doesn't appear to me that we've had a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, an extra hoop we ask those who haven't yet had a successful FAC (correct me if I'm wrong on that score) to jump through. Such a check can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Does ProtoDrake's source review not count? – Rhain ☔ 09:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We distinguish between "source reviews" for formatting and reliability, and "spotchecks of sources" for accurate use of cited material and avoidance of close paraphrasing (or outright plagiarism) -- unless I've misread it, ProtoDrake's review is mainly concerned with formatting, i.e. the former type of source-related review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I assumed this would be the case, thanks for replying. I'll request a spotcheck. – Rhain ☔ 10:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber[edit]

Right, using this version in case references get moved around......

  • FN 52 - material faithful to source
  • FN 70 - material faithful to source
  • FN 82 - material faithful to source
  • FN 86 - material faithful to source

i.e. all looking ok. Was about to do Earwig's but timing out and am going to bed in a minute. Anyone is free to run it. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC) done it now. all clear apart from one false positive...so lookin' good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 February 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) 13:05, 20 February 2016 [21].

Migration of the Serbs[edit]

See Migration of the Serbs (painting)


Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: previous FAC before name change Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Migration of Serbs/archive1 Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two weeks since the article was failed due to lack of reviews and I figured I'd give it a second shot. It is about a 19th-century Serbian oil painting by Paja Jovanović. I've addressed all the concerns that were raised at the previous FAC and hope a sufficient number of reviewers will come round to taking a look at it this time round. 23 editor (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – There's a touch of WP:OVERLINK (Budapest, Belgrade, The Bible, United States, New York) and although false titles are generally, and most commendably, avoided, there's one for "Author Tim Judah" and another for "Historian Katarina Todić" (who, by the way, must surely opine that "there are" rather than "their are"). Nothing of any great moment there, and though I am anything but expert on the visual arts I am happy to support the FA candidacy; as far as I can judge the criteria are met. – Tim riley talk 22:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim. Your comments have been addressed. 23 editor (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Most of what I might have commented on (as in a recent GA on another painting) has been improved in the last few days, making this a worthy nomination. I think "naturalistic" is meant rather than "naturalist", and one or two wikilinks on such styles of painting and a few terms like ethnography might be in order, but in truth this is a highly-polished article that would already look fine on the front page. I've added the category History paintings: perhaps this term might be linked in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time, Chap. I have addressed your comments as well. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – definitely worthy of FA status. Nice work!--Zoupan 02:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zoupan! 23 editor (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support One might hope for a more sophisticated analysis of the style than Filipovitch-Robinson seems to offer, but there may well not be one. Otherwise my points last time have been dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. 23 editor (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: an interesting and well written article about a beautiful paiting. I think, the following modifications are necessary before its promotion:

  • First sentence under the subtitle "Commissioning": "In the early 1890s, Hungarian officials announced plans for a Budapest Millennium Exhibition to be held in 1896; it was to mark the 1,000th anniversary of the establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, reaffirm Hungary's "national and territorial legitimacy" and the Hungarian people's "natural and historical right in the areas they inhabited."" (The Kingdom of Hungary was established in 1000, and Hungary celebrated the 1,000 anniversary of the Hungarian Conquest in 1896).
  • Fourth sentence in the lead: "Measuring 580 by 380 centimetres (230 by 150 in), the first painting was completed in 1896, and presented to Patriarch Georgije later that year." Borsoka (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Borsoka! Here are the changes . Thanks for taking interest in the article. If there's anything else to improve, feel free to bring it up. 23 editor (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ian. I was hoping Nikkimaria would take a look at the image licensing. 23 editor (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods; those that are, should
  • File:Serbmigra.jpg has two slightly different copyright tags - the second appears correct
  • File:Migration_of_the_Serbs.jpg: the given licensing would mean that the work is non-free in the US, absent another tag. But is there a reason why this tag would not apply to the above image as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've made some tweaks. What do you think? 23 editor (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing any changes on the second image? On the first, you'll need to add a parameter to each tag to avoid those error messages. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Alright, I've clarified that lithographic prints of File:Serbmigra.jpg were published shortly after its completion in 1896 (as mentioned in the article). I can't seem to get rid of the error message under Licensing though. 23 editor (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I've now realized that there is a more serious problem, which I apologize for missing earlier: copyright law in Serbia changed in 2004 from life+50 to life+70. Since these works were still under copyright at that time, they would have been affected by the extension. Assuming so, we'll need to transfer them to en.wiki as they likely would not be free in Serbia. 16:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I'm not sure I follow. Should all three images have non-free use rationale? 23 editor (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. If they were published before 1923, they are in the public domain in the US, which means we can host them on English Wikipedia as PD. However, Wikimedia Commons requires that images be PD in both the US and the country of origin - in this case Serbia - so if they are not PD in Serbia they should not be hosted there. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Nikkimaria, I think I've finally managed it. What do you say? 23 editor (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First image is fine. Second has the correct licensing, but will need to be moved to English Wikipedia, unless it's PD in Serbia for another reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my utter incompetence, Nikkimaria. How does one move a file from Wikimedia to English Wikipedia? You'd think I'd have picked up on the procedure given that I've been editing for quite a few years now. Guess not. 23 editor (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries - it's deliberately made easier to go the other way. You'll need to download the Commons file to your computer, upload it locally through the "upload this file" interface, copy over the image description information, and tag the Commons version for speedy deletion. Do check first that there's no other reason the image might be PD in Serbia though. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All done , Nikki. Thanks for your patience. Kind regards, 23 editor (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Would it be okay for me to put up a new solo FAC since this has been up for nearly three months and has 5 (+1 ) supports and no opposes? 23 editor (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be okay. You might list a source review request at the top of WT:FAC (unless Nikki has the time to take care of it first). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cas Liber[edit]

I'll take a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref formatting all in order.
  • Earwigs' copyvio check all clear
  • Filipovitch-Robinson 2005 used once. material faithful to source.
  • Judah 2000 - p.2 used twice. material faithful to source. I can't see pp. 14-15 here in Oz.
  • Judah 1999- pp.30-31 used once. material faithful to source.
  • online ref 28 - used once. material faithful to source.

Spot check all in order. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 20 February 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) 12:02, 20 February 2016 [22].

Black American Sign Language[edit]

Nominator: Wugapodes (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dialect of American Sign Language (ASL) spoken by the Black Deaf in the American South that arose out of the segregation of schools for the deaf prior to Brown v. Board. It covers the sociocultural history that led to the language split as well as the features that distinguish it from other dialects of ASL. Research into the dialect has only been going on intensively for the last two decades and the article incorporates the most comprehensive studies of the dialect as well as a number of small scale studies. Wugapodes (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Hi Wug. (I'm proud to say, I got the joke in the name, right down to "octopodes".) Reading through now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first school exclusively for the Black deaf—The School for the Colored Deaf, Dumb, and Blind": It doesn't sound like the school was exclusively for the Black deaf; was it?
  • I'm occasionally removing repetition of words when there's a way around repeating them. My crude understanding is that psycholinguists approve of this kind of copyediting; see for instance The Sense of Style (and I'll be happy to hunt up a page number). You can always revert, and then it's up to the FAC coords to decide if it makes a difference to them. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The use of repetition by BASL signers is considered to be pragmatic rather than clarifying as most instances were of declarative statements and, cross-linguistically, pragmatic repetition in statements is common.": I'm sorry, I didn't follow that.
  • "A study in 2004 by Melanie Metzger and Susan Mather found that Black male signers used constructed action, with or without constructed dialogue, more often than White signers, but never used constructed dialogue by itself.": At a minimum, those links will need to turn blue for readers to know what you mean.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Glad you brought this to FAC. It's a fascinating subject, and I'd like to see it on the Main Page one day. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback and especially the copyedit. The article's better for it. I rechecked the source about the Skinner school and revised the sentence accordingly, I tried to clarify the sentence on pragmatic repetition as best I could, and I plan to create an article (or two) on constructed action and dialogue, I just need to find more sources. Wugapodes (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your changes look good. Welcome aboard. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That it is a dialect (rather than, say, a style) should be referenced (and the word linked), and perhaps discussed further. Not all the sources seem to describe it so. There are no specific examples of differences mentioned, which one would certainly expect in an FA on a dialect. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment! I do agree that specific examples of signs that vary should be included and will add them in this weekend. I sourced the sentence in the History section that claims it is a dialect to Ethnologue. I did not include a discussion on the terminology as it has very little to do with the language variety itself, and there is no controversy regarding the terminology to discuss rather just an evolution in the terminology and scholarship. To give a brief overview, early work referred to it as a language variety (which encompasses styles, accents, and dialects) because there was very little data on it. Then McCaskill, et al. put forth a lot of data in the first comprehensive study of the variety in 2011. In 2012 Clint Brockway, adjunct faculty at UA Little Rock, put forth an argument in favor of calling it a dialect based upon the available data, particularly in McCaskill, et all. 2011 (this isn't to say Brockway's essay was very influential in the field--it wasn't--rather, it shows what those paying attention to the data were thinking and the arguments in support of it). And in the most recent version of Ethnologue (2015), BASL is refered to as a dialect showing there is at least some agreement in the field that it can be considered a dialect. This is how language typology typically works and isn't worth discussing as the discussion would simply be "We didn't have data, then we had data, then we called it that because we now have data" which has almost nothing to do with the dialect itself, but rather the academics surrounding it. Wugapodes (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree with that. You should cover this in the article. At the moment, that it is a dialect at all is unreferenced, though you keep saying it is. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you saying that it's unreferenced? This edit added a citation to Ethnologue. Ethnologue has a section entitled "dialects" the first dialect listed is "Black American Sign Language". Even the Dictionary of American Sign Language in 1965 put the variety spoken by African Americans under the heading "Dialects". If you would like a particular line referenced, you need to be more clear than just stating it's unreferenced.
If you add a reference after a comment saying there is no reference, you need to say here you have done so. Don't expect reviewers to to follow every edit to an article between visits; there are often very many of these and they won't be doing that. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did. Third sentence of my first reply to you: "I sourced the sentence in the History section that claims it is a dialect to Ethnologue." Wugapodes (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot include a discussion of whether to call it a variety or dialect because there are no sources about it. There's no conflict between the two terms, and no conflict within the field as to which term to use. "Variety" seems to be used in primary sources (McCaskill 2011, Lucas 2015, etc) while "dialect" in secondary (Stokoe 1965, Ethnologue 2015, Brockway 2012, etc). Brockway seems to be the only person to do a literature review and argue for "dialect", but while no one has rebutted him, his essay isn't the same quality of source as the others in the article possibly being self-published.
The choice between the two terms seems largely dependent on the author. I chose "dialect" because it is used more frequently in secondary sources like The Dictionary of American Sign Language, Ethnologue, Brockway, All Things Linguistic, etc which are independent of the subject. It's the term people not working on the language call it upon looking at the primary literature. McCaskill, Lucas, and others researching the dialect are not as independent of the subject matter. So I chose the term used in the most recent secondary sources rather than primary sources.
If you would like to discuss whether that decision is justified or not, I would be glad to do so, but there is no discussion in the literature to put in this article, and I can't create it from my own analysis of sources. Having laid out my reasoning twice, if you would like me to take a particular course of action, I need something more substantial than "can't agree". Wugapodes (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If "The choice between the two terms seems largely dependent on the author", maybe you should say something along these lines, rather than silently selecting a single term. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no source that says that. We don't need a footnote every time an editor uses editorial discretion. If we did most of our articles would be footnotes or discussions on why certain words were chosen over others. Because "language variety" and "dialect" are not contradictory but synonymous, because the claim that BASL is a dialect is reliably sourced to multiple independent sources, and because there is not consensus for the change (considering none of your arguments have convinced me the change is good or necessary), I will not be making the edit you suggest. If any of those things change (particularly consensus), I will reconsider. Wugapodes (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by delldot[edit]

resolved comments from delldot ∇.

An interesting read! Lots of comments, mostly just minor wording tweaks:

  • Per WP:DATED, would it be better to change "legally desegregated for 60 years" to "legally desegregated since the 1950s"?
  • This is very minor and picky, but is there a less wordy way to say "segregation created two speech communities that led to ASL diverging into two dialects"? Could it say "caused ASL to diverge into" without changing the meaning? Also, was there only one dialect prior to this?
    • I chose that wording because it's rather precise. The two communities helped the divergence but I'm wary of a causal relationship. Speech communities are formed all the time and don't lead to new dialects, and besides that the sources don't support a causal relationship. It's probably impossible to say how many dialects there were then, but there was likely only one in the community I was referring to in the sentence. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetitive sentence: "The first school for the deaf, The American School for the Deaf (ASD), was founded in 1817 but did not admit any Black deaf students until 1952." Could you take out one or two instances of 'deaf' and retain clarity?
  • I would split this long sentence into two: "Seeing a lack of educational opportunities for the Black deaf, Dr. Platt Skinner founded the first school to accept the Black deaf—The School for the Colored Deaf, Dumb, and Blind—in 1856 in Niagara Falls, New York, saying: '[it] is the first effort of its kind in the country ... We receive and instruct those and only those who are refused admission to all other institutions and are despised on account of their color."" Also there's the repetition of the word 'deaf' again.
  • I think use of 'as' to mean 'since' is discouraged, because it makes the meaning more ambiguous. e.g. "integration was sparse as some institutions allowed Black students"; "As the education of White children was privileged"; "as Oralist methods often forbade usage of sign language"; "as younger signers would have more contact with AAE".
    • Done? I suggest you take a look at this one. My ability to distinguish between 'since' and 'as' is terrible unfortunately and I'm not sure how well I managed. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Took a crack at a couple of them, see what you think. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this sentence, is there a reason for 'usage' instead of 'use'? My understanding is it's best to use the more common word (e.g. choose 'while' over 'whilst'). "Oralist methods often forbade usage of sign language".
    • Nope, I just felt like it at the time. I agree with you so I will change it. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might it work better for flow to move the last sentence in the third para (beginning "Despite the decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954") to before the one in the same para beginning "Black Deaf children thus became a language community isolated from the White Deaf"? I see why you did it that way, but my way you have '1. info about school segregation, 2. the effects on Black Deaf signers, 3. examples of the effects after integration.'
    • I see your point, though the reason I have it there is chronological. The schools were segregated, speech communities formed, dialects diverged, schools were integrated. I felt like chronology was that better way to organize the history section. I do agree that yours works thematically, and may be better. I'm unsure of what I prefer at the moment. What are your thoughts? Do you think a chronological or thematic organization is better in this instance? Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either is fine actually, I don't know why I got worried over this one sentence. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the first para in the History section necessary? The lead has the info, and it's repeated a couple paras down. Seems like unnecessary repetition.
    • Done. I merged the opening line in with the next paragraph and deleted the repetitive sentence on speech communities from it. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I needed an explanation of 'phonology', so I followed the link and got "Phonology is a branch of linguistics concerned with the systematic organization of sounds in languages." Maybe a sentence or parenthetical to explain what phonology means here?
    • I changed the target from Phonology to American Sign Language phonology which is probably better. Your thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool. I'm in the camp of define everything in your article so people don't have to stop reading yours to go to the linked article. But I know others are fine with it this way. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence: "Other loans words modified existing signs..." Should it be "loan words"? "loaned words"?
  • Small list of references, which means a heavy dependence on a few resources. Is there not much else written on the subject? I did a quick search and found this chapter, was there nothing usable in it?
    • That chapter is largely a summary of McCaskill, et al. (2011) which is the main source for this article. McCaskill is the first and currently only systematic study of the dialect unfortunately. There are remarkably few reliable sources that are independent of its findings, and so I chose to cite it many times rather than cite other books that just reiterate its claims. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions I still have after reading this article: How many dialects of ASL are there? How similar is BASL to the others? What percentage of overlap in words is there? The last sentence in History says "Carl Croneberg was the first to discuss differences...", maybe this para could expand more on what some of the differences are? P. 41 in this book mentions some numbers from one study about differences in signs. (Ooh, also answers my above question about phonology!) I'm from natural sciences--give me numbers!
    • These are hard questions to answer. Your first is part of an open question in linguistics as a whole. Depending on how you count, there can be tens to hundreds of dialects of ASL (see Varieties of American Sign Language which only lists national varieties derived from ASL) as dividing between accent, dialect, and language is more of a heuristic than a strict science (see the Linguistic Society of America's page on how many langauges are there to see how counting languages is still problematic). Numbers are also hard to come by as I don't think they've been produced. Your last two questions refer to lexicostatistics which would be a valuable addition if they existed for this dialect. I can try and expand on Croneberg's contribution, though it wasn't strictly related to BASL (it was about the sociology of the Deaf community as a whole and just touched on the issue). The book you linked is a good one (notably by two authors of McCaskill, et al. 2011). Though I tried to stay away from including numbers too often. I realize there is a lack of numbers in the lexical variation section so I will fix that. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool. I like the addition of the numbers. I guess my confusion is that the whole article talks about BASL vs. ASL, as if ASL was this monolithic thing. (e.g. the signing space image). Is there one standard ASL with a bunch of deviations, or is any ASL speaker you talk to going to be speaking southern, western, midwestern, or whatever? And is BASL much more different than any of these, or would speakers of any two dialects have the trouble understanding each other that McCaskill described with her teacher? I don't know if the information exists to add to the article but anything you could do to clarify that I think would be helpful. delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is, there isn't much data on those questions (though I would love those answers too!). But I think I could clarify better and will try to do so.
The long answer (based on a lot of synthesis of sources) is that research on ASL in general is comparatively limited in linguistics. There's a lot of regional variation in ASL on the level of accents, and a lot of work on it, but not a lot on the sociolinguistics of it (work on that has only flourished in the last couple decades). Add to that the limitations of the work on BASL—research has really only been done in the South, has focused more on identifying the dialect than in depth descriptive work—and there's just not a lot of large-scale comparative work.
However, I think part of the problem is I'm assuming a lot of background knowledge and can probably clarify a bit more. I worried about turning the article into a sociolinguistics text book, but may have swung too far in the other direction. To answer your first question, there is a "standard" ASL in the same way there is a "standard" English with prescriptive rules, but it is different from the actual spoken varieties. In fact, no one actually natively speaks "Standard American English" (or Standard ASL for that matter). Standard languages are a product of language ideology and in (socio)linguistics are used as a kind of null hypothesis. Basically, there's this idealized standard that you compare dialects to. The confusing part is that prestige dialects often co-opt the name of the language, like how Mandarin Chinese is considered "Chinese" despite just being one dialect of the whole of Chinese dialects, or Midwestern American English considered "accentless" despite being an accent itself. There's a reason we joke that a language is just a dialect with an army and a navy. Anyway, I'll get to trying to clarify or add a section explaining those things Wugapodes (talk)
Yeah, that's helpful, I'm eager to see what you add. I don't want to get you in trouble with others for going outside the scope of this article, but if you stick to summarizing you should be ok. delldot ∇. 00:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I made this edit which added a bit on standardization and prestige dialects (and gave links to them). I also related it to perceptions of BASL itself (though there isn't much information on that). Sorry it took me so long, I needed to find a few more sources on tangential topics. I hope the added material is helpful. Are there any other recommendations you have for the article? Wugapodes (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I think the para could use a bit of copy editing for awkward wording ("there are still regional accents of ASL similar to spoken languages", "considered bad", "different groups of people".) But I think the content is great. I noticed in the lead commented out is the fact that "the two dialects are mutually intelligible", which I think is a really important point that should be included. Well, at least now it's implied, but it's contradicted by the quote from McCaskill. delldot ∇. 07:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about that comment. I have included it. McCaskill's quote doesn't really contradict it though. She recounts when the schools were first integrated and the dialects first came into contact, while the study on code-switching is from about 30 years after in the 1990s allowing some time to increase familiarity and some convergence. Plus mutual intelligibility can still cause misunderstandings. Scots and American English are mutually intelligible, but if I'm talking with a Scots speaker, I'm going to be rather confused. Wugapodes (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image Typical ASL Signing Space representation.svg doesn't have a corresponding box for BASL. The caption just says "outside of this area"--kind of vague. I'd be happy to alter that image in inkscape if I knew how big to make the box. Then you could have them side by side for comparison.
    • The reason the image looks as it does (I created it) is because only the ASL signing space is well defined. For BASL, the signing space is only referenced as larger, I could not find a concrete description of how much larger it is. So I display the typical signing space and say that BASL allows signs outside of it because that's all I really know from the sources. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a short article, and I'm wondering if it's really comprehensive. e.g. The Oxford Handbook of African American Language that I linked to above mentions prosity and rate differences in BASL and ASL. It also mentions some implications for the future, maybe the article could include some of these.
    • To be quite honest with you, my biggest concern was comprehensiveness. There is a lot we do not know about BASL; the first systematic study on it was only finished 5 years ago. However, I believe the article is comprehensive. While there is only so much information available on BASL, the best information in the field is included in the article (and as more becomes available, more will be included). To address your point, the chapter touches on prosody and speech rate (which itself is a problematic metric, but you're not here for a linguistic methods course so I'll let it be), but there isn't any real information on it. Hill, et al. simply state they noticed some differences in head and torso movement as well as speech rate but don't explain or offer any analysis. I am hesitant to include it because it's a rather weak claim compared to the other information and I believe would be undue.Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad so far though! delldot ∇. 08:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments, delldot! I've been busy the last few days, and I'm really sorry that I'm just noticing this. I'm unfortunately going to sleep at the moment, but I will address all of these first thing in the morning (probably around 1900 UTC). Wugapodes (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed your points. Sorry if I'm long winded, but you gave me a lot to think about. Only a few of my responses need your attention, and feel free to ask more questions or disagree with me if you think things still should be changed. Wugapodes (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, your responses were great. The only thing I didn't strike was the question of how different BASL is from other dialects of ASL (i.e. are all dialects of ASL that are spoken by mostly non-Black signers more similar to each other than to BASL, or is BASL just one among many different dialects, not more divergent than some other types?). I don't know if it's possible to fully answer the question given the paucity of study, but I'm eager to see what you do with it. Thanks for all the work you've put in! delldot ∇. 01:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything's dealt with now. I hope you'll keep adding info as further studies become available, as we discussed. But it looks like this is comprehensive for what exists. Great work! support. delldot ∇. 21:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now. Will jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"'although despite BASL is mutually intelligible with other dialects of ASL. - remove the "despite"?
Are there examples of same signs that have different meanings in ASL and BASL?

Overall an engaging and fascinating topic - the prose is such that I just fell into reading it without necessarily noting anything to fix. I'll take another look but think this looks on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read through the article! I revised the one sentence in my last edit. Your second comment is more complicated. I haven't come across any sources that explicitly say these two identical signs have different meanings in each dialect, but there is an example of Trip which means 'to fall' in ASL but the same sign done in a different location in BASL means 'imagining things' (while in the idiom 'Stop tripping'). It's the last sentence in the article. Wugapodes (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed that one - interesting topic. Okay then, my personal preference is inclusiveness so reading the article leaves me curious to read more examples on how the languages differ, yet I suspect these are not systemic or essential, so it's a support from me on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note - Has this had a source review? Wugapodes, as this seems to be your first time at FAC, we will also need an audit of sources for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Unless I have missed them somewhere, please request at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested. It is largely offline sources which might make some wary, so I would be willing to provide scans of various pages to anyone willing to take on that audit to make their life easier. Wugapodes (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: It's been a while with no source review. Would it be okay if I posted a request on the talk pages of WikiProjects Deaf and Linguistics to see if anyone would be willing to do the source audit? Wugapodes (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber[edit]

  • most but not all titles seem to be in title case. Recommend fixing at least one (The intersection of African American English and Black American Sign Language} to align with others
  • books (e.g. A Loss for Words: The Story of Deafness in a Family) lack isbns. should be added.
  • One book (The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture) lacks a publisher location.

Spot check by Cas Liber[edit]

Using this version as reference:

  • FN 7 checks out - faithful to text, no copyvio (also, I can see it supporting material in preceding sentences)
  • FN 12 checks out - faithful to text, no copyvio.
  • FN 38 & 39 check out - faithful to text, no copyvio.
  • I read fulltext of Lucas et al 2015 via my university library - supports FN 37, 40 and 41 nicely.

In sum, am happy with sourcing. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the source review and spot check! I think I have addressed all of the formatting issues and included ISBN-13 codes for the books. If there's anything more you think needs to be done, let me know! Wugapodes (talk) 19:44, 19 February 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) 23:04, 13 February 2016 [23].

Hurricane Juan (1985)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a very unusual hurricane just over 30 years ago. It twisted and swirled around the Louisiana coast, causing widespread flooding at the end of a very bad hurricane year. To top it all off, the areas got affected only a month later by another hurricane. This is part of the ongoing focus to get 1985 Atlantic hurricane season to a featured topic. Hope you enjoy reading this article. I'll be happy to address any and all concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • “Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "nyt1028" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).”？--Jarodalien (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --12george1 (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)After reading through this article, I feel that it is great, but I have two issues. Otherwise, I will support.--12george1 (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some cities mentioned with their state, which is not followed by a comma. For example, "just west of Pensacola, Florida late on", "near Burrwood, Louisiana and accelerated", "from the Port Arthur, Texas area."
  • The url for Reference #7, which is titled " The Floods of November, 1985: Then and Now", redirects to the NWS at Blacksburg, Virginia.
  • The 1985 AHS FT slowly marches forward...
  • The "Notes" section is a little weak for my tastes. Currency can be defined once on the first usage, and it's a little weird to define "tropical wave" in-article when that term is linked to a fairly well-developed article. There's lots of other meteo jargon that seems content with a wikilink.
  • OK, I tried a little something with the notes, but you're right, it works just as well with the links. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • , causing widespread flooding for several days. - Does this mean it was actively causing places to flood for several days, or that the floodwaters lingered for several days?
  • I removed the "several days" bit, as I don't actually have the duration of the floods. I mostly meant to tie the erratic motion to several days of rainfall, but I'm afraid the sources didn't explicitly say that either. Now the first sentence is simpler, gets the point across more easily. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The energy from Juan helped spawn an occluded low in the Tennessee Valley, which produced additional rainfall throughout the region. - I'm not sure the provided source says Juan was related to the occluded low, only that the new low extended the flooding rains (same for the "Inland and Mid-Atlantic" section).
  • Added another ref to back it up, which says: During its northern passage, Juan spawned a small secondary low pressure system which moved eastward across North Carolina and passed offshore. This system, together with Juan, produced primarily moderate rainfall in the study area. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 8 doesn't seem to support all of the evacuation stats at the beginning of the "Preparations" section... but I could be missing something.
  • I added page numbers to back up the evacuation stats, which are all in the reference. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • and two beaches were closed in southern Texas - I think you should be a little more specific about the location, since (presumably) lots of beaches were closed to swimming.
  • leaving debris and marsh behind when the storm passed - Not sure what "marsh" means in this context.
  • I added "grass", basically that the streets were littered with wood and glass from houses, and grass from marsh. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The total storm cost in the state was estimated at about $776,000. - A little weird to be "estimated, about" and such a specific number...
  • The ref said "about $151,000", "about $500,000", "over $100,000", and "25,000". The only one that was a pretty exact number was the $25,000. Not sure how to handle the statewide damage total otherwise. Would you prefer seeing something like "...was estimated around $776,000"? I realize that's still pretty exact for "around", but given sources I don't want to round incorrectly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it looks pretty good. I've done some minor copyediting myself. Once the above points are addressed, I'll be happy to offer my support for the article based on prose, presentation, and comprehensiveness... though I'm no citation whiz, so somebody else might want to check the references for consistency, etc. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now, in line with my above comments. Pinging Imzadi1979 to take another look, as requested! – Juliancolton | Talk 20:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Imzadi1979—what is it about hurricane and highways at FAC? Anyways, I have a comment after meandering here from my own nomination:

Hurricanes and highways belong to great projects :) Seriously though, I think they both benefit from having lots of data from government institutions, and they are very distinctly named. Nor'easters, wars, social media phenomena, songs - they all have their own issues why they are difficult to do. Not saying hurricanes/roads are easy, but both have a very defined scope (some absurdly so!), and so there are a lot of high quality sources covering a vast range of aspects. Wikipedia is also fortunate that we have a bevy of active and enthusiastic editors in both projects. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In footnote 11, the newspaper's name should be credited as "The Blade (Toledo, Ohio)". The name changed back in 1959 or so to that form, although Google likes to use the older name anyway.
  • Very good catch! That's some minor nitpickery there, which I love. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the citations are in good shape, formatting-wise. I skimmed the prose, and if Juliancolton can support with some fixes, so can I. (JC, ping me when you support so that I can update the status of my review.)

One suggestion I have is to use the {{inflation}} template, if possible, to provide modern-day values for the damage costs. With its associated templates, you can automate the inflation calculations and use the US National GDP per capita calculation, which is handy for large values like the ones in this article. I can help out if you like as I use this a lot in highway articles to great effect. Imzadi 1979 → 11:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We used to use inflation figures, but it's not particularly useful for storm articles. By inflation, Juan's $1.5 billion in 1985 dollars is $3.34 billion in 2015 dollars. However, that's still pretty abstract, as Hurricane Isaac (2012) caused $2.2 billion (a similar amount) but caused far less damage. Building codes and populations are constantly changing, so that the inflation of the damage estimate isn't that accurate. It's not like comparing the cost of a movie ticket or raising a family, or even building a road. There is a metric that compares storm damage based on population changes, which is slightly more accurate for comparing newer and older storms (known as wealth normalization), but we don't have that for every storm. I hope that response makes sense, and thanks for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that there was an appropriate explanation regarding them. Hopefully there's some solution in the future to help provide a bit of context.
  • Support based on the results of my source review and the successful prose review above. Imzadi 1979 → 07:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

Good article. A few comments though:

  • Maybe it's just me but I feel on occasion that the loss of lives comes across as not as important as economic damage. The lead ends with the afterthought "and there were 12 deaths." And the Impact section's first paragraph has total financial damage and total injuries but no death toll.
  • Sadly, with such large storms, deaths are relatively common. A nor'easter a few weeks ago killed 40 people, but the focus was more on the widespread disruptions and the flooding. I wanted to balance the effects with the narrative I found in newspapers following the storm, which focused on the hugely disruptive flooding, as well as the unpredictable nature of the storm. In addition, nine of them occurred in the same small area through similar circumstances, so I didn't want to talk about them too much and give undue detail. I hope this doesn't come across as heartless or cruel, just that it's a delicate balance, and if you still feel it needs more emphasis on the human loss, I would be open to adding more on that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see Impact section's opening paragraph mention the death toll. It really strikes me as odd to mention injuries but not death toll.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. I moved some info around so the deaths come first. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm having trouble with the maths. I guess the $1.4 billion damage in the Virginias doesn't count, but this is not actually stated. Even so, the total damage is given as $1.5 billion and there's $1 billion in Louisiana. Where does the remaining $500 million come from, as the highest non-Louisiana damage I can see is $1 million in Florida?
  • With regards to the Virginias, I added "This excludes the effects from the subsequent flooding in the Mid-Atlantic. " Sadly, I never found a great state-by-state damage total, which is a problem with older storms (and even some newer ones). I'm guessing the total was higher in Louisiana, even though I could never confirm a higher damage total for Louisiana. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article should deal with this in some way. Having the totals not add up does not help overall credibility. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, with rounding and lack of exact government reports, it's tough to get exact totals. The $1.5 billion is well-cited, and this source backs up that "most of it related to flooding in southern Louisiana", but most sources I've read that deal specifically with Louisiana only say $1 billion, which is a nice, round number that is very easy to round to. Worse, the source that does give some minor semblance to state-by-state damage breakdown has some very broad categories for damage estimates (so that Juan in Louisiana is listed as $100 million to $1 billion), but that's even preliminary. I'm not sure how to deal with it other than how I've dealt with it so far. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "Then-governor" is a bit odd because it makes me think Edwards still is governor, which doesn't seem to be the case
  • I added "then" for governor Edwards. I wasn't sure how that part would be received, whether it was obvious it was about the governor back in 1985, so I'm happy to add the "then" and make it consistent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried dropping "then" for both and like that better. Other people mentioned are probably also no longer in that job, and we would end up with lots of "then"s. What do you think? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "peak winds of 92 mph (148 km/h) and gusts to 110 mph (176 km/h)" just being a layman here, but what is the difference?
  • I made a mistake, I should've clarified "peak sustained winds". Sustained wind means that the wind value is sustained over one minute, while a gust can last as short as 3 seconds. I added "sustained" to this example. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These 2 statements seem to contradict each other: "Juan also produced 36–49 ft (11–15 m) waves" and "Juan produced waves approaching 70 ft (21 m)."
  • Should it not simply be "a boat named Miss Agnes"?
  • "Because the hurricane looped twice near the coastline, Hurricane Juan" could probably be a bit more elegant with the word hurricane mentioned only once
  • I don't get the "although" in the sentence "Tides peaked at around 3.3 ft (1 m) in the other coastal states, although offshore winds caused below-normal tides"
  • It's a contrast. In some areas, the storm produced really high tides, while in other areas, the circulation caused below normal tides. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "Hurricane Juan was one of the latest storms on record to affect Texas." puzzled me. Firstly that "latest storm on record" seemed superfluous. Secondly because Texas' rainfall was already discussed in detail, it seemed to state the obvious. May I suggest to ditch the sentence and simply state "In Texas, the heavy rainfall from the storm.."?
  • Oh, it means in the calendar year. Texas very rarely gets storms in late October and early November, so I think it's worth including, but perhaps I need to spiffy up the language. I changed it to "Hurricane Juan was one of the latest tropical cyclones in the year to affect Texas." Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is not right here: "In Violet, a man drowned he fell from his boat "
  • And this sentence doesn't flow for me either: "After a year of hurricanes Elena and Gloria and flooding in Puerto Rico, the effects of Juan and the mid-Atlantic flooding caused the American Red Cross ran out of funds while responding to the flood disaster, prompting an emergency fundraising appeal."
  • Changed to - The American Red Cross ran out of funds while responding to the effects of Juan and the mid-Atlantic flooding, following the previous responses to hurricanes Elena and Gloria, as well as flooding in Puerto Rico; this prompted an emergency fundraising appeal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review. I was going to do one, but I'm not keen on this style of referencing. It's just too hard without the actual page numbers given for each sentence. I see that FA article Hurricane Kate (1985) also uses this style of referencing, so I guess it is acceptable. Nevertheless, Ref 2: Robert A. Case (1986): the page number given is 1390, but most of the a b .. n are on other pages, so should the reference not be "1390-1405"? Edwininlondon (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor mistake there. I meant to put the page number for the Juan section, which is 1401-1403. The rest of the document barely talks about Juan. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Ref 15? That's a 33 page article, but no page number given :(
  • Ref 22 pdf link does not seem to work any more Edwininlondon (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review! It has definitely helped, and if any of my comments are cause for concern, I'll gladly address any further issues. Cheers, ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: doesn't look like there was one but it's easy enough to do myself. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Juan 28 oct 1985 2034Z N9.jpg – Public domain work (PD-USGov) by NOAA
File:Juan 1985 track.png – Public domain work by yours truly (originally uploaded by Jdorje) with base map from NASA's Blue Marble
File:Hurricane Juan (1985).JPG – Public domain work (PD-USGov) by NOAA
File:Juan 1985 rainfall.gif – Public domain work (PD-USGov) by NOAA; could use some format cleaning on the commons-end, but source is provided
File:Juan 1985 track enlarged.png – Public domain work by yours truly with base map from NASA's Blue Marble
Tks CB; @Hurricanehink: you have several duplinks so pls review using the checker (ping me if you haven't installed it) as I doubt the article is long enough to warrant them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 13 February 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) 09:17, 5 February 2016 [24].

Jacob van Ruisdael[edit]

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second attempt for this Dutch 17th century landscape painter. Two months ago I put it up here as my very first FAC. I addressed almost all comments but it was closed before anyone voted Support or Oppose (see archived FAC1). I have since added more references, wikilinked any painting mentioned, and had a native speaker polish the prose (see revisions since first nomination). I welcome your comments and look forward to your votes. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – the visual arts are not my strong suit, but this article seems to me to be comprehensive, well sourced, balanced, in good prose, admirably structured, and of course well illustrated. Two minor comments on prose. First, although the article is written in BrEng, the AmEng "kilometers" has crept it, probably inadvertently. Secondly, the false title is widely accepted in AmEng, but is disapproved of by BrEng style guides, and this rather tabloidese phrasing is repeatedly, and regrettably, used in various places in the article. I don't press the point. – Tim riley talk 14:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for your comments and support. I was unaware of false titles being associated with tabloids, and have now, I believe, corrected them all. And good catch on the inadvertent spelling of "kilometer", fixed as well. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Crisco comments

I believe something should be said to distinguish Salomon from the other two who are minor painters. Salomon was influential and his works are on display in some of the top museums of the world. However, saying all that breaks the flow, so I settled on well-known. Do you maybe have any better ideas?
  • A clarifactory footnote would be nice, perhaps. Otherwise "well-known" appears to come out of nowhere. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I kept them because the brothers spell their name differently.
  • Jacob's earliest biographer, - Not sure this warrants its own paragraph
Merged it.
  • By this time landscape paintings were as popular as history paintings in Dutch households, though at the time of Ruisdael's birth, history paintings appeared far more frequently in Dutch homes. - in Dutch households ... in Dutch homes. I'd nix one or the other
Done.
  • a painter whose works have also been confused with Ruisdael's own - since you don't mention any other painters whose works have been confused with Ruisdael's in this paragraph, I don't think "also" is strictly necessary
Done
  • Ruisdael requested that he be baptised at the Calvinist Reformed Church in Amsterdam, - Just for my own knowledge: was adult baptism common in the Netherlands at the time?
Fairly uncommon. There were 75,000 Anabaptists in 1640 in a country of nearly 2 million.
  • he appeared to live comfortably, - would "he appears to have lived" work better?
Done
Doesn't look like it. I have not come across any source even speculating about it.

Will be back later. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ruisdael expert Slive states that the rarity of prints suggests that Ruisdael considered them trial essays, - We mentioned Slive previously; don't think we need "Ruisdael expert" here
Done
  • the Hermitage's most famous Ruisdael, A Wooded Marsh, dated c. 1665, which depicts a primeval scene with broken birches and oaks, and branches reaching for the sky amidst an overgrown pond. - is "most famous" in the source?
The exact words in the source are "About 1665, the famous Swamp, a masterpiece of world landscape painting, ..." None of the other Hermitage paintings described by Kuznetsov there have any such praise. Sokolova, curator of the Hermitage, wrote in her book "one of the most renowned paintings in the Hermitage collection". I think "most famous" is a decent way to describe this concisely, but I am open to suggestions of course.
Hmm... I haven't got any suggestions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the Italianate and foreign landscapes are absent from his oeuvre. Slive attributes the four untraceable references to biblical Ruisdaels to his uncle or cousin. - Two questions: How do "foreign landscapes" not fit in with Ruisdael's work, when he painted the Scandanavian forests? I'm not familiar with this classification. Second, what is the connection between the motifs and the biblical references?
I have changed this paragraph a bit to address this. Scandinavian waterfalls is one of the 13 categories. I had failed to say that Stechow's classification pertains to Dutch landscape painting. I have now spelled them all out, having removed the enumeration in the previous sentence. I've nixed the biblical reference.
  • Unsurprisingly, - according to whom?
I rephrased it to make clear it's Slive's opinion.
  • by general consent, as the pre-eminent landscapist of the Golden Age of Dutch art - comma in the original?
Yes.
  • Most recently, - as soon as another transaction occurs, this will date. I'd nix it
Done
  • Overall, a very nice read. Mostly nitpicks and suggestions. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your helpful comments, Chris. I'm glad you found it a nice read. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Have fixed any issues I saw while re-reading since the first nom. Very well written, high quality sourcing, comprehensive and well structured. Edwin has reacted very positivily to suggestions and am delighted to see the article has advanced so much. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing; can we say in the lead roughly when he made the visit to Germany. This would help delineate his progression. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and edits. I have added the year 1650 to the lead.
A few comments on some of your edits:
  • I noticed you have reduced the lead to 3 paragraphs. I personally like a short first paragraph, with only key info. So one that ends at "wide variety of landscape subjects." Is there any benefit of having 3 over 4?
  • Your edit "His late work, conducted when he lived and worked in Amsterdam, adding city panoramas and seascapes to his regular repertoire. " is better, but this needs a main verb.
Just do it, why ask. Ceoil (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you deliberately take out the waterfalls sentence in the lead or was this a copy paste mistake? With waterfalls featuring so often, and not part of the Dutch landscape, I think it should be mentioned in the lead.
The waterfalls sentence was stuck on to a lead paragraph, apropos of nothing. Put it back if you wish. Ceoil (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is difficulty in attributing of his work," I think "his" might for some readers refer to Hobbema, so "Ruisdael's" would be better. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fine. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Solid piece of work, on someone who is actually rather difficult to pin down. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Johnbod. Thanks for all your guidance and comments during FAC1. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My issues were all addressed in the prior FAC which closed before I had the chance to formally support. ‑ Iridescent 00:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the helpful comments back then and your support. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- did I miss image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If someone did those, then I missed them too :) During FAC1 Squeamish Ossifrage kindly checked formatting of references, very throughly, but I have added quite a few sources since, and I don't think Squeamish Ossifrage did full on source review, so both are needed. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - all in order ...a few centuries out of copyright ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review (this version used for reviewing purposes)
  • FN 30 - used twice and material faithful to source.
  • FN 96 - used 4 times and material faithful to source
  • FN 95 - usedonce and material faithful to source
  • FN 72 - usedonce and material faithful to source

i.e. spot check all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 1 February 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) 09:26, 5 February 2016 [25].

History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–85)[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most successful period in the history of Liverpool Football Club. From 1959 to 1985, Liverpool were the most successful football club in England, as they won numerous competitions domestically and internationally. The article is in good shape and I feel it is not far off the standard required to be featured. As always, all comments and feedback are welcomed. Cheers NapHit (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments taking a look now. Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
with much-needed width - what does this mean?
It's regarding the team's need for players in the wide areas of the pitch i.e. on the right and left hand side of midfield. I'll try and change this up, so it's easier to understand. NapHit (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better, thanks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
who had been the club's left back for a number of seasons - vague - may as well put the exact number in
added the number of seasons. NapHit (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I don't see any prose-clangers remaining though I do feel the prose could do with a little tweaking somehow. I will re-read and see if I can find something specific that is actionable.

Any further comments @Casliber:? NapHit (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of Liverpool isn't good. I am waiting on Dweller's appraisal to be concluded, specifically whether he feels the peacock wording and the historical context have been adequately addressed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Dweller was concerned about the lead and after I read it a few times I feel it is a bit too listy, I have tried to tighten it up thus to make it more engaging as it is very hard to list a whole bunch of trophies and make it sound engaging. I'll see what Dweller thinks and have another read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about WP:PEACOCK wording throughout, borderline POV comments that come across as editorialising. I'm loathe to go through and list them all at FAC. I'd rather the nominator took on board this comment, did a scan themselves and then come back to me. This is a serious enough issue for me to go strong oppose, but it's definitely fixable. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment @Dweller:, I have taken this onboard and gone through the article and tried to remove the instances that I have found. I'd appreciate if you could have another look over, I may have left one or two in their still. NapHit (talk) 11:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful strong oppose On the basis of looking at just one paragraph in depth. This article is inadequately referenced for an FA. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out Dweller, I return to England for Christmas in the next few days, so I will have access to my books and I will be able to go through the article and tidy it up and add references. NapHit (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've had a quick look over the article and added references where necessary @Dweller:. Hopefully, the article is better referenced now. NapHit (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definite improvement. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lack of historical context, which has a knock-on. At the start of this period, Liverpool had won just one trophy in the preceding 30 odd years. I think that's worth mentioning, as well as the glories that preceded that. However, to note a "lean spell" in the middle of this period is anachronistic. In the context of the period 1924- the anomaly was the wins, not the "lean spell". It only seems like a lean spell with our modern day perspective that rolls up the whole magnificent history of the club into one. --Dweller (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, especially regarding lean spell, I've changed that section to stability now and I'll added a bit about before Shankly arrived @Dweller:, though I'm not sure if it's enough. NapHit (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I don't doubt this is comprehensive on first glance, just think prose could be tightened in certain areas. Just some suggestions, only went as far as 'rebuilding':

  • "Liverpool were in the Second Division when Shankly arrived. He decided to overhaul the team, releasing 24 players...," → "Liverpool were in the Second Division when Shankly arrived. He overhauled the team, releasing 24 players...," to cut to the chase
  • "Two seasons later, the club won its first League championship since 1946–47, and Liverpool thereby qualified for continental club competition for the first time."
  • "Liverpool won the European Cup in the 1976–77 season and retained it the following season campaign," change it up to avoid the repetition of 'season'
  • "The 1963–64 season started poorly...," for Liverpool or the football season in general? That sentence needs a citation.
  • "A 2–1 victory over Everton, there first since 1950...," their?
  • "provided the impetus for Liverpool's move up the table," cut the fluff, how about 'instigated'?
  • Citation to prove "Success led to the average attendance at Anfield increasing to more than 50,000."?
    • The citation at the end of the following references both sentences. I can reference both sentences if you feel this better?
  • Ref 23 page number?
  • Ref 56 was published on theguardian.com, not the newspaper publication. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Lemonade51:, I've left responses where necessary and addressed your comments. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved down to the last section and restructured a few bits (intend to copyedit in the coming days), some more comments:

  • "Following their fifth-place finish in the League, the previous season, Liverpool were eager to regain the League championship," is there a quote from the manager, players or print media to support this? I do think a few direct quotes here and there from Shankly, Paisley, etc and the storied Liverpool players would enrich this article, provided they are short and snappy.
  • "Liverpool retained their League championship in the 1982–83 season, winning the League by 11 points from Watford, despite a run of five defeats and two draws in their last seven games." did Liverpool secure the title before or after this happened? I think if it's the former there's no real point of mentioning it -- winning it by 11 points suggests they were in a league of their own, so every reason to be lax.
  • "At the end of the season, Paisley announced that he would be stepping down as manager; he had won six League championships, three European Cups and League Cups during his reign, the most successful manager in the club's history." reads discombobulated
  • "A 0–0 draw in the first match at Wembley meant that the match was replayed at Maine Road the next week," a footnote to explain why the game was replayed at Maine Road wouldn't go amiss.
    • I can't find anything in any of my books as to the reason for the replay being held at Maine Road. I can hazard a guess, but that's not good enough for wikipedia. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess a wikilink would be sufficient, can't find a reputable explanation. Lemonade51 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The defence of their League championship was all but over in October, when Liverpool were in the relegation zone," the relegation places, zone is a bit journalese.

The prose is sufficient, but I'm finding it rigid in parts. I do have a few Liverpool books on hand, so I'll try to see if more can be done about historical context/check you haven't omitted anything major. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Lemonade51:, they've all been addressed and I have commented above on one. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right I've had a go tightening up the last two sections, feel free to revert if there are any problems. Some more, all concerning 'Transition':

  • "Despite Liverpool taking the lead in extra time after a goalless 90 minutes," noun + -ing form, instead of 'despite' here maybe "Although Liverpool took the lead..."
  • "It was the club's eighth League title, equalling the record held by Arsenal.", ref?
  • "Despite their lack of success in other competitions, Liverpool reached the final of the FA Cup against Newcastle United, winning the match 3–0 to win the cup for the second time," ref?
  • "Shankly continued to turn up at Melwood, the club's training ground, where the players still to refer to him as 'boss'," still referred Lemonade51 (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the further comments @Lemonade51:, they have all been addressed. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more:

  • "The addition of Keegan almost helped Liverpool to the League championship." → "The addition of Keegan almost helped Liverpool regain the League championship."
  • "A return to the European Cup in the 1966–67 season saw Liverpool eliminated in the second round by Dutch side Ajax 7–3 on aggregate", given there is an entry on this particular game, I think you could link it.
  • As well as bringing in the boot room, it shouldn't be overlooked that Shankly introduced the all-red kit, which could be incorporated somewhere. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really want this to pass. You've clearly put in a lot of work and your attitude to comments here is spot on. I've raised an issue on Cas Liber[pool]'s user talk and we'll try to get it dealt with. I'd prefer it if this nom could be held open longer than usual to give time for it to be resolved, as it's so close. --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice words @Dweller:, I appreciate it. It's a pleasure to work with great editors such as yourselves. Looking forward to the further comments. NapHit (talk) 14:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking in @Dweller: and @Casliber:, what do you guys think about the article at the moment? I understand you're busy and have other commitments, but any further comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • References are formatted accordingly and consistently, six links work.
  • The 'Anatomy of Liverpool' book was written by Wilson, with Scott Murray. Is that enough to warrant a co-author credit?
  • I don't have access to the book sources apart from the one mentioned above. I've crosschecked a few random sources (14, 27, 41, 42, 50, 52, 82) and found no signs of close paraphrasing.
  • In the first section, start of quote is unnecessarily capitalised " "YOU got a more wide-ranging discussion in the Boot Room than the boardroom."
  • "Shankly's team was beginning to age, and a number of players had moved on or retired. Gerry Byrne, who had been the club's left back for 12 seasons, retired after making 273 League appearances. Shankly now had the task of replacing the players in his squad. He started the process with the purchase of Hughes and then Ray Clemence the season before, but his signings did not always work out.," this whole section needs citations, Lemonade51 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the additional comments @Lemonade51:, should have addressed them all. Regarding the comment directly above, the last bit is referenced by the sentence immediately after it. Also should Murray be added to all of Wilson's inline citations?NapHit (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness. No real issues with the validity of sources either. It's a more rounded article than when it was nominated, with identifiable context. I still think the prose could be tightened (someone should have another look at t'lead), but the puffery language has been reduced to the point that it's clear and coherent. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mattythewhite. I've gone through the article and have done some copyediting and have reorganised the reference sections.
  • The section headings would benefit from including the year ranges they pertain to.
  • I feel there should be more detail on Bill Shankly re his appointment; was he successful at another club, was he the previous manager's assistant etc?
  • "Players such as Clemence, Larry Lloyd, Alec Lindsay and Steve Heighway, who was signed towards the end of the season": it's unclear to me whether you mean they all signed towards the end of the season, or just Heighway. I'd also order them alphabetically.
  • As someone who's reference-obsessed, I feel every sentence (or claim) should have a citation following it, especially as this is a candidate for FA.
    • Those sentences that are not referenced are generally covered by the reference in the next sentence if that makes sense. For instance, the Shankly signings didn't work out sentence is supported by the reference in the next sentence. NapHit (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I'm not sure that should cut it for FA. By referencing every sentence, any doubt a reader may have over a claim's verifiability is removed. And someone, at some point in the future, could unsourced content inbetween two sentences that are covered by one reference, which could go unchallenged with the incorrect assumption the following reference covers it. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section covering the events of the Heysel Stadium disaster doesn't actually mention the ground or disaster by name, which seems strange.
  • Most of the books in the bibliography are lacking publisher locations.
  • There's very little about finances and ownership. Could this be expanded on, to make the article more comprehensive?
    • Regarding this, I'm back in Barcelona now after being home for Christmas, so I don't have access to my books. I'm not sure how much about the ownership and finances there was in them. There is an online copy of John Williams Reds biography, but that has minimal info as well. I'm not sure how to proceed with this. NapHit (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be that very little happened on finances, but it's still worth exhausting the offline/online resources you can access. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added a bit more info on this, from what I could scrape together. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've got most of these or responded above. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This has been open a long time without achieving consensus to promote but I'm prepared to leave it open a little longer so that Dweller, Casliber and Mattythewhite have a chance to revisit and offer final comments. N.B. We'd also need an image licensing review if it remains open. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, I didn't think it looked too bad, but I can miss prose issues sometimes. I think it has improved (I did some tightening and can see some others have done so too) and offer a cautious support on the proviso that @Dweller: and @Mattythewhite: are satisfied with the prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've neglected/held this up too long. A number of issues were fixed. Please do not wait on me any longer. --Dweller (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, regarding sourcing: check Shankly 1976, p84; Wilson & Murray 2010, p. 93.; Wilson & Wilson Murray, pp. 124–125. None of them are pointing to a citation. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review @Crisco 1492:, I've added the disclaimer to the European Cups image and fixed the references. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 10:56, 30 January 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) 08:19, 5 February 2016 [26].

Triturus[edit]

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I resubmit this article on the crested and marbled newts after having been unable to respond in time during the first FAC review. I've responded to comments from that archive on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance for reconsidering this one and looking forward to your comments! Tylototriton (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article. The problems identified in the previous review seem to have been addressed. I am just a tad concerned about the utter lack of references in the lead. People sometimes say the MoS discourages references in the lead, but I've yet to see the specific policy that says so. It's important to remember that some users may only have enough time to read the introduction, but they may still want to know where a specific claim comes from.--Leptictidium (mt) 07:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two schools on that. I stick with this essay and think that if references can be left out in the lead, they should be, as they only clutter a section which is supposed to be easily readable, and because "the use of references in the lead is a duplication of effort". Every fact in the lead is supported through references later on. Abstracts of scientific papers also usually don't contain references. Tylototriton (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda agree, it's just that I wondered whether there was some specific WP guideline involved. So, with that out of the way, I see no reason for this great article not to get FA status.--Leptictidium (mt) 17:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEAD#Citations (and the two pages it hatnotes here).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I'd leave refs out of lead. Will be along soon to review article. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. They should only be used a) when a fact in the lead is likely to seem controversial or has been challenged; b) there's a direct quotation; c) when (early in article development) something appears in the lead but not the body yet; or d) there's a permissible primary-source claim in the lead that must be attributed (but leads usually should not have those). Maybe some other case I'm forgetting. I think MOS lead only mentions the first two, but NOR is policy when it comes to primary sources (d), and (b) is a matter of V policy, so they apply whether MOS mentions them or not. I don't see a Great Newt Controvery, so unless someone inserts quotes or primary claims, no point in cites in the lead here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I'll copyedit as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) and jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and copyediting! Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two species of marbled newts and six species of crested newts, formerly considered subspecies, are accepted today - "today" redundant.
Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
when did Triton become Triturus? Straightaway or recently?
It became Triturus when Rafinesque described that genus in 1815. It is possible that the name Triton was still used by others, as it was often the case with scientific names in those days when there were no databases on the internet... I don't think I can make this any clearer? Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah my bad/sorry, I misread it, that's fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
most ponds inhabited by the northern crested newt in the UK today are human-made - "today" redundant
Removed "today". Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the common characteristics section, I changed one template so that it gives 20cm=8in rather than 20cm=7.9in. There are two other units there that need imperial units, and you might want to think about the other - do you want it to be in fractions of an inch or decimals? because adding "|frac=4" as a parameter to the convert template will do that.
I added the missing imperial units (except in the morphology table), hope I spotted them all (do millimetres need conversion?). Decided to stick with inch decimals rather than fractions, but as I am not used to imperial units, I don't know which is more common/recommended. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't bother with converting mm as too small, I'd think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Even us metric-stupid people understand mm, even if we have a hard time visualizing a cm measurement. non-metric units are best given in decimal form (unless for something conventionally given in fixed fractional units, like American nuts/bolts), especially in sciencey articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The northern crested newt and the marbled newt are the only species in the genus with a larger range overlap - "large" not "larger" as there is no comparator...?
Replaced "larger" with "considerable" – I meant larger than the very narrow overlaps between other species. Tylototriton (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative supportOtherwise I can see little to complain about. I am not seeing any other clangers prose-wise but will read through again. The external video is sensible...but not sure how it goes with out image/EL policies so will defer to @Nikkimaria: on that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been uploaded by the copyright holder, so there's no WP:LINKVIO concerns, and using external media is appropriate where they are not compatibly licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The comments I made when this article was previously at FAC have been dealt with satisfactorily. I am now supporting it on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

Thanks for your comments. I've integrated some of your suggestions; will think about the others over the next days when I have some more time... Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Linnaeus had already used the name Triton for a genus of sea snails." You could mention when.
Done and original Linnaeus ref added. Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "differences between subspecies were however noted and eventually led to their recognition as true species." Does the source really say "true"? "Full" might be more conventional.
Agree. Replaced with "full" Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tylototriton: Should be "were, however, noted". When "however" is used without a comma, it has a different, though today uncommon, meaning ("in whatever manner", i.e. "were somehow noted" or "were, in whatever way, noted"). Is the "however" even needed here?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the southern marbled newt, adults mainly breed" In? Sounds a bit odd.
Reworded to "Southern marbled newts mainly breed..." Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paedomophic adults, retaining their gills and staying aquatic" Are these able to reproduce or breath air?
They are not able to breathe air but they should be able to reproduce, such as axolotls do, but the source has no info on whether they have actually been observed to do so. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They can breed, and they can breathe air a little, by gulping (not enough to survive out of water for long). This should be sourceable from anything that covers salamander or general amphibian neoteny broader than a focus on axolotls. A decade ago, I'd have something handy for you, but I don't have those materials any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand the structure of the lifecycle sections. What is meant by "phases"? To me, it would mean that there are distinct phases in its life where it is solely aquatic or solely terrestrial as an adult, but that does not seem to be the case? To sum up, it is aquatic as larva, but terrestrial as adult, apart from when it breeds, or how? If so, it is unclear, and I think it might need some restructuring to make more chronological sense.
Well, what characterises these animals is that they are aquatic as well as terrestrial as adults. They have recurrent phases, if you like. What might have caused confusion was the "Lifecycle" title of the section. I've renamed it "Behaviour and Ecology" and made the Reproduction part a separate section. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They secrete the poison tetrodotoxin from their skin," Doesn't seem to be very effective, with so many predators. What animals are deterred by it?
The study cited only showed that the newts secrete the poison, it didn't test its effectiveness. But even if it's very toxic this doesn't mean it gives 100% protection – even the highly toxic Taricha newts have natural enemies! Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly it makes them taste bad; it's not "meant" (to engage in Dawkinsian gene anthropomorphism) to be fatal or seriously injurious. So, there probably aren't any studies about how toxic they are, to what.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might make sense to have the evolution section closer to the Taxonomy and systematics section (or the other way around), as in virtually all other animal articles. I can see why you have placed it near distribution, but it seems rather disjointed now, as if the information stops arbitrarily and starts again by the end of the article.
I moved the phylogeny part to "Evolution". Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I'm here, I have a confession to make: as a kid, I caught some crested newts and brought them home, where they soon died. I now realise it was a criminal act... When did it become prohibited in the EU?
The Berne Convention, where the crested and marbled newts are listed, is quite old but was ratified at different dates by its member countries. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some rather late, I suppose. I was able to obtain some in the US from someone returning from Europe, ca. 2001-ish.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Size and colouration (only mentioned for marbled) could be mentioned in the intro.
I only wanted to mention the distinguishing and namesake features – the crest for crested newts and the colour pattern for marbled newts. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't the colour of the crested newts distinguishing as well, as you say "Crested newts are dark brown, with black spots on the sides"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly less conspicuous than that of the marbled newts. I've added their colour though in the same phrase. Tylototriton (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'd move the entire Taxonomy and systematics next to the rest of the evolution stuff, but my comments have been addressed, looks nice. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM

It's really great to see this article here. I must note that the article strikes me as rather cluttered at some text sizes; try zooming in and out and you may see what I mean. Lots of tables, pictures, call-out boxes and so forth; I wonder if some selective rearranging or, dare I say, trimming could help with this. Generally, I wonder if the prose could be a bit cleaner (taxonomy and description in particular- the text further down the article flows well). A few specific comments:

  • "This crest gave their English name to the crested newts, in which it can be up to 1.5 cm high (in the northern crested newt) and very jagged." This is a bit clumsy; most obviously, "their English name" cannot be "up to 1.5 cm high".
Reworded this part. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you attached to the lack of capital letters in the table? Is there something in the MOS about this?
Did not find anything in the MoS, but everything in the table is in capitals now - does look better. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overall, the newts usually attain an age of seven to nine years" I think not- that may be the "natural" lifespan, but given the number of eggs, surely most individuals die before reaching maturity.
I've rephrased to make it clear that this is the usual age for adults once the larval and juvenile stages passed. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presumably to mimic a prey and lure the female" Can "prey" be used like that? Do you perhaps mean "a prey animal" or something similar?
Changed "prey" to "prey animal". Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"To mimic prey" would be more concise and equally idiomatic (in the positive sense).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "resorb" mean? This strikes me as jargon
I'm not sure how I could say this in more plain language. "Resorb" is also used in the article on metamorphosis, and it has the specific meaning that the tissues are degraded and absorbed - the gills are not simply lost or fall off. Unfortunately, Resorption is a disambiguation page, so a link would not really be helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two possibilities are defining it in this article (dashes, "ie", brackets- something like that) or linking to an appropriate entry on Wiktionary. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to Wiktionary. Tylototriton (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if we have no article on that, that's the solution, but I would challenge the notion that it's jargon, anyway. It's just a word, and its meaning is obvious to any native English speaker, even if their dialect might have it as "reabsorb".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of "Evolutionary history" has two colons; this is to be avoided. (Also, are you committed to keeping the information on evolutionary history with the distribution? I can see the logic of it, but perhaps it fits more neatly with taxonomic information?)
Fixed the two colons. I've now split off Distribution as a separate section but I prefer to have the taxonomy separated from the evolutionary history (which is not only phylogeny). Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "distribution modelling" the same as environmental niche modelling? The lead of our article suggests that it might be- if so, a link would be great.
Yes, it's the same. Wasn't aware that there's an article, I've linked and reworded. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is a redirect in order, or does "distribution model[l]ing have multiple meanings/  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting; I don't think that this is far off. Your citation style strikes me as odd, but I've no doubt that you know what you're doing! Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've removed some pictures not really necessary and rearranged the remaining ones, should be less cluttered now. Also tried to achieve better flow in the taxonomy and description sections but I think that's about as well as I can do as a non-native speaker - I'm thankful for other suggestions! For the citation style, I just think it's more efficient to give the page numbers directly - I don't need separate "References" and "Cited works" sections this way. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly concur with Tylototriton. This fixation in certain camps with making the citations as complicated as possible with multiple sections for them is, well, "user-hateful", both for readers and for other editors. It's only familiar to and appreciated by professionals in certain academic fields (who had it drilled into them as undergraduates and forced on them professionally in those fields); they're not more than a tiny fraction of our target audience. Template:Rp is a WP:NOT#PAPER innovation that saves us from having piles and piles of redundant citations, or having to use two separate sections for sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think your fixes have really improved the article. I wonder if there is perhaps more taxonomic history than you expand upon? There are a dozen synonyms listed in the taxobox which aren't mentioned in the article proper. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is much to expand upon regarding the synonyms, it would simply mean listing them - and since we already have that in the taxobox, I don't think we need to duplicate? Tylototriton (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it would just clutter the prose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support; a very readable, well-sourced article. I know/knew very little about newts, so I can't promise I will have caught any errors/omissions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From delldot ∇.[edit]

Beautifully done. I just have a few very nitpicky comments, because I couldn't find anything else to complain about:

  • Would this sound better reworded? "white stippling on flanks mostly lacking" to "white stippling on flanks mostly absent" or "mostly lacking white stippling on flanks"
"Absent" is good, reworded. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...use structures such as logs..." 'structures' is an odd word. How about "the newts hide in logs..." or "use hiding places such as logs..."
Agree, replaced with "hiding places". Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward wording: "Dispersal to new breeding sites occurs mainly through juveniles..." Maybe "Juveniles are the main reason for dispersal to new breeding sites..."
I'm not quite happy with "juveniles are the reason"; they're not the reason, they're the ones that disperse. Rephrased to "Juveniles often disperse...", hope that sounds better? Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In such a posture, the newts typically roll up and secrete a milky substance" - are we to assume that this substance contains the aforementioned toxin?
That's all the source says unfortunately, see also the comment at Peer Review. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe "A 24 million year old fossil" should be hyphenated thus: "A 24-million-year-old fossil".
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this long sentence should be split: "This concerns especially breeding sites, which are lost through the upscaling and intensification of agriculture, drainage, urban sprawl, artificial flooding regimes (affecting in particular the Danube crested newt), and, mainly in the southern ranges, exploitation of groundwater and decreasing spring rain, possibly caused by global warming."
Agree, sentence split. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, really excellent work. delldot ∇. 23:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Tylototriton just in case you didn't see this. delldot ∇. 23:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, saw your comments, thanks. Not much time atm; I'll try to be back on the weekend... Tylototriton (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, no rush at all, take your time. delldot ∇. 16:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything above is addressed. This is FA material. delldot ∇. 01:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review and spot check - in progress. Using this revision for navigation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting - most refs have et al after three authors, yet FNs 23, 27 and 29 list more. Also some locations are listed with country after city, some aren't. Just choose on or other. Other than that, refs look in order.

Earwig's Copyvio Detector is looking clear

more to come. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still going, Cas? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, knew I'd forgotten something. Will get back to it today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, using this revision to avoid migration of refs in editing....

  • FN 3 - used 5 times - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source.
  • FN 29 - used for a slab of interesting text - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source, though the conclusion they have in their abstract is "~4%" for hybrids rather than as a range. Reading the article I can see "3-7%" is also valid. Can see pros and cons and satisfied that this interpretation is valid.
  • FN 33 - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source.
  • FN 19 - used twice - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source.

Spot check all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References now all have three authors + et al. if there are more than five authors in total. Ref Martel et al. 2014, Science, was the only exception, fixed that. Country removed from location parameter in the refs concerned. Tylototriton (talk) 20:25, 2 February 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/February_2016&oldid=707286178"