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whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

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

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

Nominations[edit]

George Tucker (politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hoppyh (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of America's early educators and writers, whose life included some intriguing paradox, in addition to publication of the first fiction of colonial Virginia life. The subject's completion of the premier comprehensive biography of Thomas Jefferson, his History of the United States, and one of the country's earliest science fictions, also qualifies the article for consideration as a featured article. While Tucker's life could command but a singular in-depth biographer, Robert C. McLean, McLean's book is strengthened by its having resulted from his dissertation—prepared for, reviewed, and approved by a Washington University faculty committee. Publication was made possible by a grant from the Ford Foundation. The work, 230 pages in length, is well sourced by a bibliography which spans 18 pages. Hoppyh (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Lesser Antillean macaw[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a species of macaw that may or may not have existed. At the time of writing, the species is not recognised by the IUCN, though it was until at least 2013. Since then, more evidence to support the bird's existence has been discovered, and the status of the species may be re-evaluated in the future. In any case, this is one of the best documented "hypothetical species", so I think it is a worthy subject. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

William Harper (Rhodesian politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

When looking back on Rhodesian history and the UDI period in particular, it's often assumed that 1965's UDI occurred after circumstances contrived to put the lunatic fringe into government—so it may come as a surprise that Ian Smith was actually the more moderate choice for Prime Minister in 1964. Rhodesia could easily instead have been led by William Harper, a Calcutta-born segregationist who thought Indian independence a folly and wanted to strip black Rhodesians of what little political representation they had. Harper left the Rhodesian Front under something of a cloud in 1968, apparently after being caught having an affair with an MI6 agent, and the rest of his political career essentially amounted to giving indignant quotes to the Rhodesian press every time Smith moved towards any kind of conciliation with the black nationalists. By the time of the Internal Settlement of 1979, Harper was settled in South Africa, where he seems to have lived out the rest of his days in obscurity. He died in 2006.

Harper is most notable for his political career in Rhodesia, but it's also worth mentioning here that as a younger man he was one of "The Few" in the Battle of Britain, and was wounded in action after being shot down in a dogfight in which he was greatly outnumbered. I've done my best to cover his RAF service as well as his life as a politician.

This article just received a successful GA review, and I think it is at least close to FA standard. I hope you enjoy it and I look forward to any comments you may have. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this for GA and found very little that needed changing. With those things resolved, it meets the FA criteria. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind words, the review at GAN and your support here, Coemgenus. —  Cliftonian (talk)  13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I had the opportunity to read this article when it was still being reviewed at GAN, and one of the things which sort of leaped out at me was how detailed the coverage was of Harper's political career, while very little information was offered given the rest of his life from 1979 on. Certainly, he lived to see the end of apartheid and the extent of Zimbabwe's social and economic collapse and it's a little surprising some one this outspoken never offered his opinion publicly on those two issues. Did he farm in South Africa, or like Hilary Squires did he accept another civil service position? Do we have any sources as to what he was doing between 1979 and 2006?

Also, just a minor nitpick about his first cabinet position: the article describes Harper's title as the Minister of "Water Development and Roads". The Southern Rhodesian Roads and Roads Traffic Act of 1936 named the responsible portfolio as "Minister of Roads and Roads Traffic". This was reiterated in the new Roads and Roads Traffic Amendment of 1948. When Winston Field first took office, it was still just "Roads and Roads Traffic". Field probably introduced the responsibility of Irrigation/Water Development to that ministry during his tenure. I believe Harper's final title as head of that ministry would've been "Minister of Irrigation, Roads, and Roads Traffic" per JRT Wood's book So far and no further. --Katangais (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Katangais, thanks for this, I'll have a more detailed look later—just regarding the first point, yes, I really couldn't find anything on what happened to him after 1979. I didn't even get a reliable source for his date of death until quite recently. Either he became much less outspoken in later life or the press just lost interest in him, it would appear. If you find anything definitely add it to the article as I agree this is a place the article falls down somewhat, but I have done the best I could. I'll come back to the title of the first Cabinet position later. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, I've had a look through Wood again and it seems the initial title in 1962 was "Irrigation, Roads, and Roads Traffic" (p. 122) with the portfolios of Transport and Power added in November 1963; the word "irrigation" was at the same time changed to "water development". I've integrated this into the article. Thanks for catching this. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Having done some more research on Harper, it seems likely that he faded into obscurity after his final political defeat, and historians did indeed lose interest in him. One incident the article does not mention, I believe due to lack of adequate literature coverage - and something I'd very much like to see expounded upon - is the fact that in December 1975 Harper apparently released a report known to the Rhodesian press as the "Harper Memorandum" exposing an apparent Special Branch plot to kidnap prominent black lawyer Edson Sithole and his secretary Miriam Mhlanga, who had disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Despite the fact that one would expect this to be covered in one of the myriad of Rhodesian literature which has mushroomed in the past twenty years, I could find only one source for it. Post-1980 Zimbabwean literature on Edson Sithole is ample, but no reference is made to Harper - likely for political reasons. Clearly nobody else considered him important enough to be worth making considerable mention of this either.

I think the Harper Memorandum deserves a spot in the article, especially if you can find any more sources relating to it. The one I used came from an old back issue of Africa Today on Google Books. --Katangais (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. Only one comment, in the "Emigration to Rhodesia" section:

• "retired from the RAF in April 1949, keeping the rank of wing commander,[12] and same year emigrated": "in the same year"?

Aside from that minor point, I agree with Katangais that there could be a little more on the 28-year period he spent in South Africa, but if the sources are not forthcoming on the matter, then there is little we can do about it. An excellent overview of the man, and meets the FA criteria as far as I can see. Cheers –SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bitch Is Back (Veronica Mars)[edit]

Nominator(s): Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 20:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello all FAC participants! This article is about the series finale of Veronica Mars. Revamping episode articles for this television series has been my biggest project since I started editing. This is my first FAC candidacy within this topic, although I have nearly thirty GAs that are on VM episode articles. I believe that it is a very comprehensive article (my longest episode article) that meets all the criteria. Thanks to any willing reviewers in advance! Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 20:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Requiem (Reger)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the Requiem by Max Reger, which I want to see in good shape on 11 May 2016, a century after his early death. Looking closer, the article which began to be about the Hebbel Requiem which he composed in 1915 on a German poem by Friedrich Hebbel, with the soldiers fallen in World War I in mind, is also about his earlier setting of the same poem (1912), and his unfinished attempt to compose a Latin Requiem (1914). The article received a GA review by RHM22 a while ago. Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Brianboulton[edit]

Uncited statements: There are numerous sentences that do not carry citations.

There are two sources which I would like to get advice on how to use them as references, one the Max-Reger-Institut website with detailed information on each piece, and the score. One: should I have the refs for Op. 1, 2, 3 and 4 all in THIS article, to cite that 1-3 are all chamber music, and 4 is songs, #1 by Hebbel? One look (or two to find Hebbel) at Max Reger works#Table of compositions (linked) shows that at a glance. - The other: the score tells us about his tempo markings and division of parts, even if no secondary source does. In a different review, we talked about the music section being comparable to a plot section in a book. --GA

I introduced now the "vocal score" as a reference. ---GA

• In the "Background" section: "He established himself as a pianist and composer, also teaching piano and organ. The first compositions to which he assigned opus numbers were chamber music. He composed in 1891 as his Op. 4 a collection of songs, the first, "Gebet" (Prayer), on a text by Friedrich Hebbel who wrote the poem on which two of Reger's Requiem settings are based."

First sentence bio, second see above. --GA

• "Hebbel's poem": "The Latin title of the poem alludes to Requiem aeternam, rest eternal, the beginning of the Mass for the Dead."

There may be people who simply don't know that much about the meaning of Requiem, both as a word as a liturgy. Do you think a link to Requiem is enough? --GA

• "Hebbel Requiem - Music":

• "The four parts SATB of the chorus are often divided. The key is D minor, as is Mozart's Requiem. The tempo in common time is marked Molto sostenuto, kept with only slight modifications by stringendo and ritardando until the most dramatic section, marked Più mosso (moving more) and later Allegro, returning to the first tempo for the conclusion."

Most is now cited to the score. Do we need references for the Mozart Requiem being in D minor, the Brahms beginning with a pedal point on F, and Das Rheingold on E-flat, next question? ---GA

• "In a pattern strikingly similar to the beginning of A German Requiem, the bass notes are repeated, here on an extremely low D, lower even than the opening of Wagner's Das Rheingold on E flat."
• "In section B, the chorus is divided in 4 to 6 parts, set in more independent motion. The soloist sings similar to the first time, but repeats the second line once more while the chorus sings about the hovering as before."

Score, now cited ---GA

• "In section C, the chorus literally stiffens on a dissonant 5-part chord fortissimo on the word erstarren. In great contrast, a storm is depicted in dense motion of four parts imitating a theme in triplets."

Score, now cited ---GA

• "Reger completes the chorale setting in his way for the chorus, while the solo voice repeats "Seele, vergiß nicht die Toten"."

Score, now cited ---GA

The above stand out because they are at the ends of paragraphs – or in a few cases represent the entire paragraph. There may be other, less obvious uncited sentences. In some cases the problem might be resolved by the resiting of an existing citation, otherwise new citations are required.

A couple of unrelated points:

• In the infobox the statement "Soldiers who fell in the War" is a little vague. At least say "First World War", and link.
• The statement "Reger died in Leipzig after a full day of teaching on 11 May 2016" reads as though it was the teaching that killed him. You may want to rephrase/expand a little.

It's a translation of Reger's writing, which is pictured and therefore not repeated in German. He knew of no numbers for wars". --GA

I tried to reword the death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, and raising good points. Looking forward to a solution to the general Op. and score questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Updated --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This article covers the little-known series of bombardments on Japanese cities conducted by US, British and New Zealand warships during the last weeks of World War II. These attacks sought to provoke the Japanese into committing their reserve aircraft force to battle. While the Japanese didn't take the bait, the bombardments inflicted significant damage on industrial facilities and cities. Two American submarines also conducted much smaller-scale bombardments, with one of them even landing a small group of sailors who booby-trapped a railway line.

I've been working on this article on and off for five years. As there's no single, comprehensive, account of the attacks, I've needed to piece the article together from a surprisingly large number of sources sourced from multiple libraries and websites. While all the attacks are now covered in detail, the level of detail does vary a little bit. The article was a DYK in 2011, and passed a GA review last February. I successfully nominated it for a Military History Wikiproject A-class review earlier this year, and it passed in early March. I have since further copy-edited and expended the article, and am hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Great work. It is satisfying that we now have a comprehensive account of the attacks. I just have one minor comment. The article says that 34 Allied prisoners of war died in the bombardments. Is this figure correct? The article says that 5 were killed in the first attack on Kamaishi and 27 in the second, which adds up to 32. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
• Also, Roskill, Stephen W. (1961), listed in the bibliography does not appear to be among the cited sources. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, and for spotting those errors: I've just fixed both of them. I really should be able to add up! Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Support Comment: It looks good overall, but I do have a few concerns:

• There's redundant wording. Please trim back use of 'also', 'again', 'further', and 'in addition' per eliminating redundancy.
  • Trimmed Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Can the vagueness be resolved? I.e. instances of 'several' and 'small number'. (However, if that is the original wording from the source, I'll understand if not much can be done.)
  • Tweaked a bit, but the sources do not provide exact figures, and in general any figures would be unreliable approximations based on flawed wartime assesments or not useful to readers in this context anyway. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• My understanding is that restrictive clauses beginning with 'which' should use a comma or begin with 'that'.
  • "...against the Allied invasion which was expected...",
  • "...groups of aircraft carriers which formed the...",
  • "...with the aircraft which were being held in reserve...",
  • "...the fleet of ships which carried...",
  • "...18/19 July which destroyed or damaged...",
  • "...disruption to vital services which caused the factory...",
  • "...fire on small groups of ships which were probably fishing..."
  • "...and comprised the ships which had bombarded the city..."
  • "...force of American submarines which had been operating..."
  • "...general-purpose bombs which were used by Allied..."
  • "...the industrial facilities which suffered little damage..."
    • All done, thanks Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• "...urban area and essential services, however": the 'however' should start this sentence.
  • Done, and the sentence tweaked so it reads better. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• "...base at Kushimoto, a landing field near Cape Shionomisaki and a radio station": is a comma needed before the 'and', or is the clause explaining the purpose of the base?
  • I don't believe that a comma is needed before an 'and' at the end of sentences like this. The base is identified as a seaplane base. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • In the interest of getting through this, I added the comma. I think Prae has a point that there's a possible (but not likely) misreading without it. Generally, I don't give comma advice, I get very little love for that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• It would be clearer to use a hyphen when listing the shell sizes in combination with the quantity. Hence: "803 16-in (410 mm) shells". (Some national numbering standards use a space instead of a comma, so it can prove a little confusing.)
  • That's a good idea, and solves a problem with this wording which Dank noted during the A-class review but which we (or at least I) couldn't think of a solution for. Done. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• "...experimental 5-inch rocket launcher...": these units should be presented in a manner consistent with the rest of the article. I.e. "...experimental 5-in (127 mm) rocket launcher...".
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Terms should be linked: calibers (-> caliber); home islands (-> Japanese archipelago).
  • Linked, with second being a bit of a miss on my part: thanks for spotting it. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Consider using {{sfn}} for your references so they are linked to the bibliography entry.
  • While I frequently (though not always) use that format now, it's not a FA requirement. Given that the number of references used isn't huge, I don't think that readers will have problems matching the cites with the books. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Praemonitus. I'll respond tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again - I think that I've now actioned all your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments.

• Thanks for the ping, Nick, and thanks for looking at prose, Praemonitus. Concerning "16-in", hyphens are just a generally vexed issue and we often can't find consensus on usage. On the "which" question: there are many writers (including Nick) who use what's commonly called the "restrictive which" a lot. AHD says this use of which with restrictive clauses is very common, even in edited prose, and it's even more common in BritEng than among Americans. Twenty years ago, I personally didn't find the usage notes of the major dictionaries very helpful, when they existed at all; nowadays, they're plentiful and useful, and often used to settle questions like these. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Caveat: since "which" can be restrictive or nonrestrictive, it's important to keep an eye out for garden paths. That is, if the first few words after "which" don't clarify whether it's meant to be restrictive, then "that" will improve readability. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Praemonitus, I hope that helps. Also ... I just had a look at your comments in FACs and TFARs ... excellent work, carry on. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• And a note on my note: Nick-D is Australian. I'm referring to "BritEng" here only because most of the Australian writers I work with talk about BritEng, and aim for a style that is more or less BritEng. When Australians say "AugEng", I say that too ... I'm not trying to inject a bias in favor of BritEng. - Dank (push to talk) 16:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those comments Dank. I've tried to write the article in American English given its content, but it's a language I'm rather inexpert in at times! ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Heh, me too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

True Detective (season 1)[edit]

Nominator(s): ðάπι (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the first season of HBO's anthology crime drama True Detective, which was created by Nic Pizzolatto and starred Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their pursuit of a serial killer over a seventeen year period. Having achieved GA status last August, further improvements have been made since, and I believe this article meets the FA criteria. This article has previously gone through FAC three times; unfortunately all nominations received minimal attention. Fourth time's the charm? DAP388 (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Phantom Tollbooth[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... a well-beloved children's classic, that adults can happily sneak a look into without being accused of being in their second childhood. The Phantom Tollbooth, through its puns and adventures, has valuable lessons to teach. Would that I had an EZ-Pass for it! The article has had a most thorough peer review. Second nomination offered after discussion with Ian Rose.Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support I had my say in the PR, since when the article has been strengthened further. Meets the FA criteria as far as I am concerned. – SchroCat (talk) 05:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support – another peer reviewer looking in. I concur with SchroCat that it meets all the FA criteria. Lovely to have an article for FA that brings a smile to the lips. After mining disasters and formidable articles on Scouse pigeons, teleosts and whales, not to mention cantankerous playwrights, this FAC is a like a splendid sweet soufflé. A delightful article about an enchanting book. Tim riley talk 08:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind words and for reviewing the article there and here and (of course) for the supports.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Phantomtollbooth.PNG: FUR should be expanded. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've expanded. I think it covers all the bases. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. You should explicitly identify the copyright holder - is it the illustrator, the publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

How can we tell? Jules Feiffer did the illustrations, but what contracts he signed is difficult to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes it will say in the book itself with the other copyright information, or you could fudge the issue by using the wording suggested in {{Non-free_use_rationale_book_cover}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Text added. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This is beautifully written, and I enjoyed reading it. Each sentence and paragraph flows smoothly into the next; nothing jumps out to disturb the reading. If I had to point to an issue, it's an extremely minor one. There was a slight jar at "The Phantom Tollbooth is acknowledged as a classic of children’s literature" toward the end, because that point was already made with "As the book became acclaimed as a modern classic," so I wouldn't repeat it. But otherwise I found nothing to criticize. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I've changed "is" to "remains". Thank you indeed for the review. It was a pleasure to write, and I wish that was true all the time!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Soothingly brilliant, or brilliantly soothing – take your pick. I reviewed this a few weeks ago, found little fault then. I've just read it again and can't see anything that needs changing. Life would be bliss/ If all FACs were as easy as this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Me too. Thank you indeed for you comments then and now.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

God of War (series)[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the God of War video game series, one of the biggest video game franchises of the last decade. It has become a flagship title for the PlayStation brand, and the character Kratos is one of PlayStation's most popular characters. The series consists of seven games (with an eighth in development), having appeared on the PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, and PlayStation Portable, and remastered ports appearing on the PlayStation 3, PlayStation Vita, and PlayStation 4. There was also an installment released for mobile phones. The series expanded into a franchise with the release of a comic series, two novels, a web-based graphic novel, toys, prop replicas, and other merchandise. A film is also in development. I began working on this article in February 2009 when it looked like this and have substantially expanded the article. It became a Good Article in July 2012 and is the main article of the God of War franchise Featured Topic. I believe this article is now ready to become a Featured Article. JDC808 ♫ 16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

New Wave of British Heavy Metal[edit]

Nominator(s): Lewismaster (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The New Wave of British Heavy Metal was an important musical movement of the 1980s, which was pivotal for the development of extreme rock music styles in the following decades. I thought that it deserved an in-depth article and I spent a lot of time reading and researching sources related to the time period, to heavy metal subculture and to the music. The article was recently promoted to GA status and has since received a Guild of Copy Editors' revision. I believe it is now ready for Featured Article status and look forward to other editors' comments and reviews. Lewismaster (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Support – This is one of the best written popular culture articles I have seen at FAC. Intelligent and perceptive, it covers an aspect of our musical heritage that has been somewhat neglected by the mainstream media. The images appear to be suitable – there is one "fair use" album cover but I haven't checked the rationelle. There are problems with the Harvard linking of some reference to the sources. These are numbers 95, 291, 334 and 336. I look forward to reading further reviews. Thank you for engaging in our FA process. It is clear that many hours of effort have been put in here. Graham Beards (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the kind words. I checked and fixed the references you mentioned. Lewismaster (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: I'm struggling with the use of the album cover. I see that the cover's appearance may actually be a significant part of the story (given the response in the US) but, first, the value of the cover should be made clear in the rationale, and, second, the caption should make clear the significance of the cover, rather than just the album. At the moment, the use comes across as somewhat decorative. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I see the problem and changed the rationale and caption to convey the meaning of the cover. During the NWOBHM cover art was directly connected to the contents of the songs, which were about fantasy, science fiction, horror, etc. as described in another part of the article. Unfortunately, the theme of heavy metal iconography and cover art would require a separate article to be explained properly and a caption is not enough. Lewismaster (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ellie (The Last of Us)[edit]

Nominator(s): – Rhain ☔ 07:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Participation Guide
Support
Rhain (nominator)
Comments/No vote yet
None
Oppose
None

Ellie is the deuteragonist and secondary playable character in the 2013 video game The Last of Us, developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. The character of Ellie is significant for the medium, as video games seldom feature such strong female characters. The design of the character was well-documented throughout development, and was very well-received after the game's launch, receiving high praise from critics. I wrote this article during my crazy The Last of Us project last year, and after feedback and changes from other editors, I feel satisfied that it is well-written and meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain ☔ 07:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with Rhain that strong, female characters which are also well-written like Ellie are not often seen in video games. What is also of importance, is of course "the kiss" that Ellie shares with another girl. I think it is games like The Last of Us that show how the medium has grown, what can also be narratively achieved. Concerning the article, I can't imagine there is anything else left to add to it. For a video game character, it's most important to have good and well-sourced information on its design and reception, which is exactly what's there. Full disclosure: while I have edited The Last of Us 122 times and also worked together with nominator Rhain on adding the gameplay image on that article, I have edited the article Ellie (The Last of Us) exactly once. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• I won't be able to give a full review in the foreseeable future but I wanted to add a note on quality. Often FAC is used as an extended peer review or a means for nitpicking to one's personal tastes, but there is also a degree to which FAC vetting is a statement to the encyclopedia's best traits. Ellie (The Last of Us) is the video game WikiProject's single best character article. I've been through the rest (mostly lists) and this article (1) cites reliable, secondary sources that are about the character in specific, (2) has reliable, secondary sources that explain all major facets of the character (design, use, reception), and (3) perhaps most importantly, has no reliance on primary sources for its major points. It was well-written when I reviewed it a year ago at DYK and it has only improved since. This article is the gold standard for the project's character articles, and exemplifies what they should should aspire to be. czar 15:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor Public Library[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been writing articles about Briarcliff Manor, New York, with the ultimate goal of every article reaching the highest status. I wrote most of this over the course of a week and had it reach GA soon after. I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Briarcliff_Library_pre-2007.jpg: the FUR presents this as a logo, which it is not - this needs reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: is it fixed properly now? Thanks--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly better. I would suggest though using {{Non-free fair use in}} instead of the historic-images tag - it's usually applied to images that are themselves of historic significance (eg. File:TrangBang.jpg) rather than just those that depict historic things. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: That makes sense, done. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Freida Pinto[edit]

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(Talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a one-hit wonder. The article has had two peer reviews and as many (unsuccessful) FACs. The issues raised during the previous nomination have been addressed. I believe the article now meets the criteria. Look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(Talk) 19:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't Hold Us Down[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about "Can't Hold Us Down", a song by American recording artists Christina Aguilera and Lil' Kim which discusses feminism. It passed its good article review (nominated by WikiRedactor (talk · contribs)) in June 2013 and was nominated for featured article in March 2014 by me and WikiRedactor. Though thouroughly written and researched and backed up reliable sources, it was not passed at the time as there was a delay in the progress. I am renominating this article as I believe it is ready for FA status. Any comments on the development of the article would be very much appreciated, Simon (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Baleen whale[edit]

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about baleen whales which classified under the parvorder Mysticeti. There are four families (Balaenopteridae, Balaenidae, Cetotheriidae, Eschrichtiidae) that are different from each other by body shape, which in turn is greatly influenced by their feeding behavior. This can be either lunge-feeding or gulp-feeding. Note that deadlinks are most likely caused by using https instead of http (as per this RfC) which apparently does not allow you to go to websites (including .gov sites).   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I fail to why there might be dead links. If you're linking to a website that only provides non-secure connections (HTTP), then don't use a secure (HTTPS) URL to link to it, or yeah, things aren't going to work :) On the other hand, it is good practise to offer secure links whenever they're available, and that is what the above RfC was specifically about: Google [Books/Scholar/etc] and the Internet Archive both offer secure connections to their content, and therefore Wikipedia should securely link to that content, i.e., use a HTTPS URL. Leonhard Fortier  ^(talk) 01:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Even reputable websites like oxforddictionaries.com requires http   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine (though a little surprising), in that case it's perfectly fine to use a HTTP link. It's only case of if there is a secure link available then it's considered good practise to use it :) Leonhard Fortier  ^(talk) 02:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I just checked, https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ works fine, though some of the resources included on that page aren't behind a secure connection (just two images actually), but that's not really relevant to just linking there. Leonhard Fortier  ^(talk) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Long time, no comment, but I'm happy to be back at FAC. As is usual for my work here, I'm focusing on references and reference formatting. All reference numbers are relative to this version of the article:

General

• It's not immediately clear to me what the criteria are for a source to be listed in "Works cited" and subject to Harvard referencing versus merely cited in long-form in the references.
• You are inconsistent about whether to include publication locations for book sources (see #4, #5 without them, but #8 with one). Locations are optional, but must be consistently included if desired (personally, I don't care for them, but it's a matter of editorial discretion).

Yeah, in the GA review I was told to add locations to certain refs. I'm not too sure why, I'll just get rid of them

• There are quite a few sources where middle initials appear prepended to the last names, instead of where they belong. For example, in Fordyce and Marx (#12), the citation should read: "Fordyce, R. Ewan; Marx, Felix G.". This problem is pervasive, in both the references and works cited. I'm not going to try to identify all the problems in this review; a thorough audit is necessary.

In all refs, the middle name is in the last name

• At least one ISBN is not properly hyphenated. All ISBNs should be presented as fully hyphenated ISBN-13s. Use this tool (and bookmark it, you'll love it!).

I already have it bookmarked since you first told me about it in the Whale article review (and it has been very helpful). I'm pretty sure all of the ISBN numbers are ISBN-13 (and I fixed the unhyphenated one)

Specific referencing issues

• There are some inconsistencies with how you cite online dictionaries. Compare the dictionary.com reference (#1) with the Oxford Dictionaries reference (#2). More specifically, I don't think the dictionary.com reference needs the italicized URL. The Oxford source styles itself "Oxford Dictionaries", which our citation should reflect; you may also consider citing Oxford University Press as the publisher there, at your discretion. Finally, the Oxford cite has an incomplete retrieval date.

fixed the Oxford publishing and access date. What should the |work= parameter be for the Dictionary.com ref?

• Citing section titles instead of page numbers (as in reference #3) is not standard practice.

fixed

• Shorter Oxford English [D]ictionary
• Retrieval dates are not required (and, indeed, are discouraged) for print sources, such as Dolin (#5), even when a convenience link to an online version is provided. See also reference #29.

removed retrieval dates from book and journal refs

• I'm not convinced of the need for the long reference quote from Woodward, Winn, and Fish, especially as it serves to essentially reference the material to an older source not otherwise credited here.
• The byline for the Animal Diversity Web source (#7) gives the authors' full first names. The source also gives a publication year of 2002 (although not a more specific date).

So should I add the authors' full names?

• Rosenbaum et al. indicates the source is in a pdf format, but there's no link to the article, so presumably no format field is necessary.

fixed

• Your Harvard referenes citing page numbers use pg.; convention is to use p. for single pages or pp. for page ranges. I'm not certain if this is considered an acceptable alternative within editorial discretion; if so, it isn't an actionable objection. Note that pp is used at least once, in reference #30.

changed pg. to p. and pgs. to pp.

• The correct journal title for the Fordyce and Marx source is Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

fixed

• The Thomas source (#13) definitely does not require a publication location. The website itself should be cited as GrindTV, not GrindTV.com (the latter is the URL, not the website name). I'm not entirely convinced that this is a high-quality, reliable source, but could be convinced otherwise...

replaced with a BBC article

• The Nakamura and Kato source (#15) doesn't need the country of publication. It does have a doi (10.11238/mammalianscience.54.73) that should be included.

removed location and added doi

• The correct journal title for Potvin, Goldbogen, and Shadwice is Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

fixed

• The link to the Royal Society Open Science article (#22) is not working; it appears the journal site does not permit https connections.

fixed

• I'm a big supporter of OCLC numbers for books that lack ISBNs, but they aren't needed for journal articles (especially those that have a doi already), as in #24.

I don't think there is any harm in keeping the OCLC

• Reference #25 has the http/https problem. Also, the correct journal title is Royal Society Open Science.

it seems Royal Society journals aren't compatible with https. I'll fix all of those

• For reference #40, I would spell out World Wide Fund for Nature Global. I don't think the italicized URL is necessary. I'd also cite the org as publisher rather than author. Opinions on this formatting issue may differ.

what should the |author= and |work= parameters be?

• Compare the formatting for reference #41 with the same website, cited differently, in reference #7.

fixed

• The LiveScience article (#44) summarizes a publication in Nature. It might be worth examining the original paper, rather than citing a popular science news aggregator.

replaced

• I don't think there's a benefit to citing the (sub) chapter title in reference #48; the chapters aren't by different authors, and you're already citing the claims to page number.

removed chapter

• I'm not sure what's up with reference #52, but I don't think this is properly cited. I think the given ISBN is for a bound volume of the journal Physiology, and that this reference should be cited as a journal article with a title name and volume/issue/page information.

I don't know what's going on with that either. The ISBN and URL lead to two different things (and I'm certain I copied the correct ISBN). I don't know what to do about this...

• For Bunn (#58), I again don't think the chapter is required here. Also, Transaction Publisher[s].

removed chapter

• Is there a better source for the information cited to reference #59 than Huffington Post? To put it mildly, they're not always a high-quality source for science topics.

That's the only internet source that explicitly talks about that. I could replace it with the youtube video but I don't think that's much of an improvement

• I'm not having much look identifying the parent source for the appendix cited in reference #62, but in any case, this citation is not properly formatted and is missing critical bibliographical information.

the source does not explicitly state the names of the author

• Reference #63 needs a retrieval date.

added today's date (21 March 2016)

• Reference #67 cites the Science website, which should probably be styled that way (despite sciencemag being the URL). However, it might be preferable to reference the original paper instead.

replaced

• The correct journal title for reference #68 is Geological Soceity of America Memoirs. You give this as issue 57, but I believe that's actually 67.

fixed

• Unlike most of the books where chapter titles are cited, in reference #70, they are necessary. Aidley is the editor of the work as a whole, but C. H. Lockyer and S. G. Brown are the authors of the chapter "The migration of whales" (pp 105–138).

fixed

And I'm stopping there, at roughly halfway through the references. The author formatting problems and journal title errors are the most significant issues. I'll confess that I didn't double-check the correct title of every journal cited, and I probably should have, given that journals are incorrectly cited several times. It's still very early in the FAC process for this article, but at least at the moment, I need to regretfully oppose per 2c. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• World population graph should be scaled up

done (but you might want to check if it needs to be bigger)

• Captions generally need editing for grammar - for example, complete sentences should end in periods

done

• File:Baleen_whale_sizes.JPG: what is the source of the data used for this comparison?

I'll ask

• File:Humpback_Whale_underwater_shot.jpg: source link is dead

fixed

• File:Janjucetus_Melb_Museum_email.jpg: please fix the machine-generated source

It says "Nomachine-readable author provided. [User:]Cas Liber assumed", so it does eventually say the copyright details even though the original author is not provided. Should I just change it just "Cas Liber"?

• File:Eubalaena_blow.jpg: source link is dead and should use NOAA tag rather than the general USGov

fixed

• File:Humpback_lunge_feeding.jpg: source links are dead

fixed

• File:Humpbackwhale2.ogg: any chance of a more specific date? Even a year would be better than what we currently have

that was a joke from some vandal, I'll remove it

• File:Eubalaena_glacialis_dead.jpg should use NOAA tag

replaced

• File:Sperm_whale_fluke.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That image is not in the article...

Sorry for not responding, I've add the flu for 2 weeks. Can you wait until Saturday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkleosteus77 (talk • contribs)

Comments from WereSpielChequers[edit]

• Hi, interesting read, I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki...
• Re The unique lungs of baleen whales are built to collapse under the pressure instead of resisting the pressure which would damage the lungs. I'm assuming that this is related to diving? May I suggest it would be better expressed as: the lungs of baleen whales have evolved an ability to collapse while diving. This enables baleen whales to dive to deeper depths.

Well this sentence is in the Anatomy section, and the reformatted version would better suit the Evolution section if any.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Some info on depths they can dive to would be good, see Sperm_whale#Diet as an example.

ϢereSpielChequers 20:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

added to the Internal Anatomy section (on the paragraph about lungs)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not reponding, I've add the flu for 2 weeks. Can you wait until Saturday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkleosteus77 (talk • contribs)

No problem. There is no deadline, respond when you are ready. Hope the flu leaves you soon. ϢereSpielChequers 05:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

This is a big one, we're kind of touching upon the same subjects over at evolution of cetaceans, so I'll return here before long. But I'd like to see Squeamish Ossifrage issues dealt with. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley[edit]

This is a splendid and hugely enjoyable article, but it isn't clear which variety of English it's meant to be in. It is mostly in BrE (metres, centimetres, kilometres, grey, behaviour, litres, recognised, centrepiece, cancelled) but there is the occasional bit of AmE (gray, color, traveling, favored). According to WP:ENGVAR we should stick to whichever was first used in the article, but I'm blest I know how to find out which that was without spending hours combing through old revisions. I don't imagine anyone will object if you take a view on either sticking with BrE and Anglicising the few AmE spellings or else switching to AmE and Americanising the BrE spellings. But we want consistency one way or the other. Tim riley talk 10:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be in American English, I don't see any British English used (except for maybe "neighbouring" but I'm not too sure on that)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I have listed some of the BrE spellings, above. There are more of them than there are AmE variants. Until the spelling is amended to be made consistent throughough I shall have to oppose for now. Tim riley talk 07:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I used CTRL+F to search those specific spellings in the article and I have not found metre, grey (well once but that was for a reference title), behaviour, litre, recognise, centrepiece, or cancelled. Centre was used once but that was for a reference so it should be there. As far as I know, British English is not used in the article.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This is excellent, and I am completely baffled about the earlier differences. I can't account for them at all. Putting the present text through my usual spell-checker I cannot find most of the words that came up when I did the same last week. Heaven knows what that text was, but, I'm very pleased to find, the only spellings that come up for query this time are "moustache", "neighbouring", and "sizeable", which the AmEng spell-checker doesn't like. "Naval" (for "navel") in the main text and "Bumbs" in the alt-text are probably typos. (There are a few pictures that are missing alt-text from their captions, by the bye, and there is a comma splice in the caption "Humpback whale skeleton, notice how the jaw is split into two".) It would be good to clear some of the worst examples of WP:OVERLINK - names of countries such as Norway, United States, Australia etc are not to be linked (MoS), nor are large seas and oceans; I doubt if any of our readers need help with the words "chin", "corset", "genitalia", "mouth", "parasite", "penguin", "promiscuous", "taste buds", "vein" and other everyday terms; and the repeat links to e.g. "killer whale" should be removed: one link apiece from the main body of the text is the maximum (the rule doesn't apply to captions) – 07:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, but I kept promiscuous and corset.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Support – In my opinion the article satisfies the FA criteria for prose, the coverage is comprehensive, the sourcing is wide and appears highly authoritative, and the article is splendidly illustrated. I'm sure any outstanding details of referencing can be attended to satisfactorily, and I congratulate the nominator on a fine and very enjoyable piece of work. – Tim riley talk 17:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Hasan al-Kharrat[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Hasan al-Kharrat, a major rebel commander during the 1925–1927 Great Syrian Revolt against French rule in Syria. He died less than a year into the revolt. A native of Damascus, al-Kharrat chose the city's Ghouta countryside as his area of operations. The rebel push into the city that he led nearly ejected French forces from Damascus and prompted heavy aerial bombardment of the city on the orders of High Commissioner Maurice Sarrail, whose Damascus residence the rebels briefly captured. Prior to the revolt, al-Kharrat served as a night watchman for the orchards of al-Shaghour, a quarter of Damascus, and as its qabaday (a quarter boss whose role in traditional Levantine society is defined in the article). Unfortunately, there's little in the sources (at least the English ones) about his personal life. However, the essence of al-Kharrat's notability lies in his role in the 1925 revolt and as the qabaday of al-Shaghour, two aspects which I believe are more than adequately covered in the article. In 2013 "Hasan al-Kharrat" was listed as a Good article and was featured in the Did you know column of the Main Page. I did not send this article for peer review because I believe it currently meets the FA guidelines in all respects. I hope the reviewers here will concur, and if not, I welcome your suggestions and criticism. Thank you for considering this nomination. Al Ameer (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Very good first impression. Small things; can you break the lead so its not all one paragraph; you link Seattle in the biblo, but not London. Reading through. Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Thanks, I split/expanded the lead. As for London, it's already linked once in the Biblio (for the Philip Khoury source), should it be linked again? --Al Ameer (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Al Ameer, much better (though I wouldn't link either, its the consistency that's most important). but before al-Atrash's return letter reached al-Bakri - *return letter* doesn't read well. Can you rephrase/clarify this pls. Ceoil (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I revised the wording, how is it now? --Al Ameer (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Better yes. Am fixing as I go mostly, sorry for the slow progress. While out of my depth on subject matter, I expect to support on prose; spot checks on refs to follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your work's appreciated. Let me know if you need help with the spot-checks. I'm going to add the link for a full-view of Michael Provence's book (a major source for this article) to the Biblio. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Al Ameer, Ive read this a few times now and to be honest its pretty heavy going. As currently written its a barrage of names, dates, positions and locations, and that makes it hard to figure out. I'm still basically leaning support, but re prose, can you lessen this density. Not sure how actionable this prob vague request is, but its how I read the article. Take my edits as attempts to create more flow and trim where I can. Of course you can revert at will. Ceoil (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I'll do what I can today and tomorrow, and then update you here. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Finished the bulk of my trimming quicker than I thought. How's it look now? --Al Ameer (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Ok, I've finished with my copyedits. In terms of sheer prose size, I've reduced the article by some 3,000 KB. I removed a lot of uncritical/unnecessary detail, including locations, names and incidents/operations that didn't directly involve Kharrat or were not necessary for context. Hopefully, this has lightened the density and made it a smoother, less confusing read. When writing this article, I worried that the obscurity of al-Kharrat to Western readers (and non-Syrians in general for that matter) would necessitate this amount of context, but I don't think my recent copyedit has affected the comprehensiveness in a significant way. In any case, I'm currently working on a draft article to improve coverage for the Great Syrian Revolt. Anything removed from this article will likely be covered in that article or its sub-articles. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it reads quite well, and certainly better than it did before. I think to a Western eye, all names and some placenames starting with "al-" can become tiring, but this is not so different (if Ceoil will forgive the comparison) to more culturally Western articles where names are mostly either van der something or van something else except when they're "the Master of the Legend of St. Ursula" -- not to mention the multitudinous ways in which Mary is commonly referred to. It can be confusing but the sense is still there. Al Ameer has now made good use of notes to relocate some of the lists of placenames out of the main narrative. MPS1992 (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Shaghour_1910.jpg: when and where was this first published?
• File:Fakhri_Kharrat_execution,_1925.jpg: are we certain that the copyright here would have been Syrian and not French?

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For "Shaghour", the source does not indicate where it was published, only that it was a picture of Shaghour, Damascus taken in 1910 (during Ottoman rule). The licensing for this image probably needs to be changed unless it turns out to be an LoC image (couldn't find it in the LoC digital library though). Al Ameer (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

For "Fakhri", I'll come back to you about this in the next couple of days hopefully, because I'm not sure if pictures taken/published in Syria during French Mandatory rule come under French or Syrian copyright. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I posted a query at the Commons Village Pump (See Here) and the response was that we would use Syrian copyright law for pictures taken/published in French Mandatory Syria. This is similar to how we use Israeli copyright law for images taken/published in British Mandatory Palestine. There's a slight possibility that we should use French historical copyright law as opposed to modern French copyright law, but using Syrian copyright law is the more likely way to proceed here. --Al Ameer (talk) 04:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by MPS1992

• "destroyed all French buildings" - please double-check the source to see if "all" is perhaps slightly too strong. It implies a total level of success that may not be entirely justified.

The source says "He rose to prominence in the battles that ensued and led armed bands into Damascus for sabotage attacks on French installations. He disarmed patrols, held their soldiers hostage, and burned down all French buildings in the Shaghur, Souk Saruja and Jazmatiya neighborhoods." I replaced "destroyed" with "set alight". If you're still skeptical about "all", I have no problem removing the word. Also, I split the disarmament and hostage-taking bit from the sentence, because the source doesn't make clear whether disarmament and hostage-taking occurred in those aforementioned neighborhoods or throughout Damascus in general. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No, if the source uses the word then you are entirely right to reflect it. I will go back over this and see if I am happier with your original wording or a variant on it. MPS1992 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I've come up with a variation and added it to the article -- your original was right in that the source is quite strong, all French buildings were burned down. MPS1992 (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• "the French and their sniper units" - this is a misunderstanding of the source. It is the French themselves who are receiving continuous "sniper fire" according to the source -- the source does not say they are using snipers themselves.
• "failed to apprehend them" - this is poor wording. One does not commit a large force backed by tanks, aircraft and artillery in order to apprehend someone. "Apprehend" implies an arrest without a substantial likelihood of death.
• "causing the French to abort the operation" - which source does this come from? Provence does indeed say that the rebels were forewarned of the French advance, but does not say that the operation was aborted as a result, merely that it was a failure (for whatever reason, perhaps the futility of using tanks, artillery, and 1920s-era aircraft to try to corner rebels in densely forested terrain they know well). Be careful to avoid confusion with the earlier 60-gendarme failure, discussed by the source in this context because of the village-burning it was used to justify; that operation was a failure due to the forewarning, this operation's failure was not caused by forewarning (from what the sources say).
• "Thus, French intelligence justified the punitive measures against..." - I don't think this needs to be laid out at this length when the previous sentence has essentially already said the same thing.

Regarding your last four points, I revised the entire passage to more accurately reflect the source. The rebels were doing the sniping (hiding among the trees and sniping at regular army forces with rifles was actually the common mode of rebel/guerrilla combat in Syria, Palestine and Lebanon during the colonial period, as opposed to open or trench warfare). I removed the "failed to apprehend" and "caused" bits, I just wrote that they couldn't lure the rebels out and withdrew. I think I reduced the redundancy (and confusion) regarding the French burning of al-Malihah. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will take a look. I may also have some extra ideas for dealing with Ceoil's comments above. MPS1992 (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have made these edits and these edits. MPS1992 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thanks for your copyedits and clarifications above. I hope my revisions have addressed the issues you've raised. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This is looking great now I think. I have made a few slightly bold edits including adding half a sentence to the lead about his later reputation, you may wish to tweak it around.

A couple of minor extra points;

• The Moubayed source says al-Kharrat "received no high school education". I think this could be added to the existing text, something like: "... Michael Provence maintains that al-Kharrat was likely illiterate;[15] Moubayed indicates that his education did not reach high school level.(ref)"
• It's good that there is now a gloss as to what the Gouta is, which I think is a recent addition. But I wonder if we can go slightly further with this and similar information. We know very little about al-Kharrat, including the details of his death etc., but we do know he was very much not just a man of his time, but a man of his locality -- as far as we know he never went beyond Damascus and the Ghouta, and his successes were in large part due to his local power and reputation in those places and, maybe even more importantly given the forest fighting, local knowledge of those places. So I think if anything can be pulled out of any reliable source (not just a revolt-related source) describing the Gouta or its relationship with Damascus in the first half of the 20th century, that would merit a separate sentence, and equally anything about the al-Shaghour district that can be reliably sourced might also merit a separate sentence. This way it may be possible to bring in extra context and background about the man (thereby helping the reader understand him better perhaps) without adding more names or places and similar details that might confuse the reader as mentioned by Ceoil above. See what you think. (Also incidentally, notice the use in some sources of "the Ghouta", maybe a slightly easier way of referring to it that makes the reader aware it's a piece of territory not a specific settlement.)

This article has come a very long way over the last few weeks. All of my significant concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Thanks for supporting this nomination and for all your help. I agree the importance of al-Kharrat's environment i.e. Shaghour and Ghouta each warrant a sentence describing them, especially since the articles we currently have on these areas are lacking. I'll get to that very soon and update you here when the additions are made. And I restored "the" before all mentions of Ghouta. Also, I'm currently working on a draft article for Ramadan al-Shallash and the Great Syrian Revolt for readers who are interested in finding out more about these two subjects, which are obviously important in relationship to this article. They'll be ready for mainspace in the coming weeks, hopefully no more than a month. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Ficus rubiginosa[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a big fig tree, which can also be a good bonsai. Anyway, I hope readers care more than a fig about it. Promise to fix problems pronto...have at it, cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ficusrubiginosargemap.png: can you swap in a non-proxied version of that source link? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

fixed now with nonproxied version substituted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Support: All of my concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Here's a few observations:

• "...exclusively pollinated the fig wasp species...": perhaps missing a "by"?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The species' range spans...": this has been rendered somewhat ambiguous by the use of "species" in the prior sentence.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The Port Jackson fig was described by French botanist René Louiche Desfontaines...": when?

year added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Who is Dale Dixon?

added who he is, he is a fig expert and was tempted to add, but would need to hunt a source saying that... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Italian botanist Guglielmo Gasparrini, breaking up the genus Ficus in 1844...": improper tense.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• It would be good to be consistent about listing the nationality and profession of the persons mentioned. For example, Frederick Manson Bailey and Friedrich Anton Wilhelm Miquel.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Should the paragraph that begins "In a study published in 2008" be placed at the end of the section to maintain chronological order? Perhaps I'm missing some subtlety?

my thoughts were to present a chronology for taxon as whole, and then last para for various subspecific names, but I can switch if you feel it would flow better the other way...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I won't worry about it. Praemonitus (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Technical term "hemiepiphytic" should be wikilinked.

linked in the preceding section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• "...monoecious — both...": looks like a spaced em-dash. See MOS:EMDASH.

despaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• What are "US Zones 10B and 11"?

linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• One of your references has a warning tag: "Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors=".

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Gasparrini (1844) should list the publisher (Francisci).

publisher and location added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• For consistency, "PLoS Biol" should be written out as "PLoS Biology".

'ogy' added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise it looks good. Praemonitus (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

You see, I can not resist your articles. ;) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I have too many pages on my watchlist...missed this and will attack it pronto.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I am staying away a lot this week as well... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

• Why not link "genus" if you link "species"?

I did worry about excess bluelinks but linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• in warm climates containing around 750 species Surely the climates do not contain 750 species. Better say "in warm climates and containing around 750 species"

tweaked now

• from 4–19.3 cm (1 1⁄2–7 1⁄2 in) long and 1.25–13.2 cm (1⁄2–5 1⁄4 in) wide I think the dash should be replaced by "to"

tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• round yellow fruit ripen and "ripens"? No, I think it should rather be "fruits", due to the "they" following it.

see I think of 'fruit' as a group noun, but no drama I can pluralise it and done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Link pollinated, outcrop

linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• which may in fact comprise four cryptospecies. Why are we interested in the taxonomy of the fig wasp here? It may go into the main text, but is it needed in the lead?

each fig species is symbiotic with one wasp species, so is significant that there are four - also I can't remove segment as incorrect to say there is one.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. No trouble then. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• and at least 2 species "two" as per the MOS.

I kept as number to align with the '14' just before it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No trouble then. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• through to Bega Through what? Or is "through" redundant?

redundant and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy[edit]

• from a type specimen I think "type" could be linked?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• from a type specimen whose locality is documented as "New Holland". Include a citation at the end of this part.

these sentences are all from ref #3. So have added a comment to clarify this (to avoid duplicate footnotes) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• "specific" can be linked to specific name (botany)

That link is a redirect to Botanical name. Have linked a bit further down Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Why are the alternate common names in italics? They are typically kept in double quotes.

See, if you look at how italics are used, about halfway down it talks about words as words, which covers the formatting well here. I'd use quote marks for sentences and italics for words Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I see. No trouble then. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• If genus is linked in lead, it should also be linked here.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• into which direction the group radiated Radiated should be linked to Evolutionary radiation.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Joseph Maiden described variety lucida You have been saying "var." until now. The full word and the link to "variety" should be added at first mention.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• from the nominate form I think we could have a link or explanation here.

linked to appropriate section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Description[edit]

• We need some consistency in how we refer to the plant. "Taxonomy" begins with "The Port Jackson fig", and this with "Ficus rubiginosa". Also, you say F. rubiginosa at places.

Have changed to species name throughout. Rule is full name at first mention then abbreviation thereafter. Some people start new paras unabbreviated as well. In two minds about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Choose your style. :) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 10:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have - abbreviated except at (a) first mention and (b) beginning of a section...having it abbreviated there just looks a little odd to me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• the ovate, obovate or oval-shaped Are all the three terms the same? If the 3rd one is explanatory, then we can say either ovate or obovate.

the first means egg-shaped but flat, the second means egg-shaped but flat with the narrow end of the egg at the stalk end of the leaf, while oval-shaped is elliptical. I will link as these are really wordy to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link or explain petiole, vein, nipple, preponderance

linked first two, "nipple" in this context just means "nipple-shaped thing", a bit like how nipple can be used for end of baby bottle and other objects. Unfortunately nipple focusses only on mammalian nipple so is misealding as a link. "preponderance" is a cumbersome way of saying "more of them". I have simplified that.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fruit ripen throughout the year "Fruits"?

the collective noun "fruit" sounds more natural to me but I am not strongly fussed so changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• its relative the Moreton Bay fig We need a comma here

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• in the wild they are "wild, they"

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• the leaves of the Port Jackson fig Inconsistency in referring to the plant

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat[edit]

• It extends westwards "The range" extends westwards?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Both forms co-occur for most of the range Better mention them by name again. It has been quite a while since Taxonomy.
• of f. glabrescens Not written properly.

rejigged as thus, unless you want me to unabbreviate f. to forma...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks better. No rejig needed. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• in any given population Is "any" not a bit too sure?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link limestone and outcrop

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• in Kanangra-Boyd National Park "the"

hmm, I'd not use "the" here, in the same way I'd say "in Yellowstone National Park"... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny how "the" is used at places and not used elsewhere... everyone has their choices. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• in cracks in stone in cliffs and rock faces in natural environments Such a row of "in"s! Are we missing commas?

I rejigged to break up the 'in's. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• and in brickwork on buildings and elsewhere in the urban environment Citation for this part?

there is a commented-out note at the end of FN 16 noting that it covers the previous 4 sentences Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• well drained Dash?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• They are derived from sandstone, quartzite and basalt Can have links here.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• yearly rainfall of 600–1400 mm Convert.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• F. rubiginosa has naturalised What is meant by "naturalised"?

linked to Introduced species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Ecology[edit]

• I think the bird and fox species should be arranged in the alphabetic order of their common names.

they are arranged by order - pigeons, cuckoos, then passerines... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid I still can't get the logic behind this... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 13:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

They are the taxonomic groupings. I did do the bats though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Many fruit drop onto "fruits"

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link plant cell, pupate, defoliated (Intro)

done first two, "defoliate" leads to Defoliant, which is not a good fit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• and the life cycle is around six weeks Could not fully understand this.

it just means the little critters live for around 6 weeks. changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• galls at night and wander about --> galls at night, wander about

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• As with all figs, the fruit is actually an inverted inflorescence known as a syconium, with tiny flowers arising from the inner surface Would be more useful under Description. Syconium by the way should be linked under Description, its first mention.

moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link diverge, monophyletic, crown, bushfire (Reproduction and life span) and nematodes (Other life in the syconia)

done...though Crown (botany) wasn't exactly what I wanted but ostiole exists.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Duplink: inflorescenced

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• that a F. rubiginosa trees often bore Errors?

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Pleistodontes imperialis traversed Simply "P. imperialis" would do.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Cultivation[edit]

• and also in Hawaii and California, where it is also listed as an invasive species in some areas. Add a citation for this

added - mainly hawaii but does mention california Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Tolerant of acid or alkaline soils Linking possible?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link or explain canopy, aerial layering

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• It is a chimera that is lacking in chlorophyll in the second layer of the leaf meristem Meristem is a duplink. "that is" may be redundant

trimmed and removed duplink Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• generally have more green "are", not "have"

tweaked - I meant larger green patches Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• it is extremely forgiving to work with What does that mean? "Extremely" could be too strong

bonsai with figs is very very easy. they are almost unkillable and I call them living plasticene. So "extremely" is justified to anyone who knows this field.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That should be all. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Casliber. I see no more issues with this beautiful article. So, Support. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927[edit]

Nominator(s): Gligan (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927 which is an important but largely unknown part of European history. I believe that by promoting this and other similar articles to Wikipedia's featured content with help understanding the complex history of the Balkans and hopefully, raising the awareness about the region. Before the nomination, the article was kindly copyedited by Corinne of the Guild of Copy Editors. Regards, Gligan (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with the article. I only have a quick comment/observation at the moment (sorry, not feeling up to a full read through at the moment due to illness). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• there appear to be a lot of reference anchor errors. These refer to when the link for the short citation does not point correctly to a long citation/reference in your Sources or Reference list. I have a script installed which helps highlight these issues, which you might find beneficial. It can be found here. More information can also be found here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I would like to apologise for my lack of basic technical competence but I cannot use scripts, nor can figure out how to fix the problem on my own. May I ask you to fix just one link, so that I can see precisely the way it is done? Then, I will be able to fix all the rest. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I've fixed what I can. The only ones left are those that you don't have specific citations for. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map - done
• File:Byzantine_emperor_Leo_VI_receives_a_Bulgarian_delegation.jpg needs a US PD tag
• File:Car_bed_pusk.jpg: please fix the machine-generated source - done
• File:Byzantine_army_taking_oath_before_the_battle_of_Anchialus.JPG needs a US PD tag
• File:Wars_of_tsar_Simeon_I.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? - I have ask the author of the map to provide the source.
• File:RadzivillChronicleFol21r.jpg needs a US PD tag
• File:Skylitzes_Simeon_sending_envoys_to_the_Fatimids.jpg is tagged as lacking author info - done
• File:Seal_of_Peter_I_of_Bulgaria_with_Irene_Lekapene.jpg should include an explicit statement on the licensing of the coin itself, for completeness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I tried to put a US PD tag following the instructions on the template given in the file "Byzantine_emperor_Leo_VI_receives_a_Bulgarian_delegation.jpg" but there seems to be a problem in the way I am doing it. The template asks for the year of the author's death, which is unknown, and the country of origin, which does not exist. When I try to put 12th century on the slot regarding the author's death, and the Byzantine Empire as a country of origin, the template does not work. May I ask you for assistance to put the tag on one of the images, so that I can follow the example?

Regarding the coin, I don't understand what I need to do. I looked through some uploaded files of Byzantine emperors and I saw no difference in the licensing. I hope you can assist me on that issue as well. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like to once again apologize to AustralianRupert, Nikkimaria and all other editors who raise technical issues that I am not able to address these issues without some help regarding the manner how to fix them. --Gligan (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the list of tags at Template:PD-US - I think these should cover most of the circumstances here. As for the coin: you currently have a tag that tells us the licensing of the photo of the coin - one of those PD tags should cover the copyright status of the coin itself. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Teleost[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk), Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the teleosts. When you think of the word "fish" its probably a member of this group that will come to mind. They have the familiar fish traits, gulping mouths, homocercal tails, ect. This article has been brought to GA status and we feel its ready for FA. LittleJerry (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments – nothing from me about the content of this formidable piece of work, but a few small quibbles about the prose.

• BrEng or AmEng? The text is mostly in BrE ("analysing", "manoeuvrability", "specialised", "characterised", "aestivate", "metres", "fertilised", "practised", "travelling") but I spotted a few outbreaks of AmE: "coloring", "optimize", "specializations" and "behavior". I think it needs to be one or the other throughout, except within quotations.

Done, I hope; and I fixed some AmE diction, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• tassled – a word unknown to the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster alike. If we mean the creature has tassels, the word is "tasselled" in BrE and "tasseled" in AmE.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The adipose fin...is often thought to have evolved once in the lineage and was lost multiple times due to its limited function. However, a 2014 study challenges this idea..." – If this means what I think it means the first sentence needs a bit of fine-tuning: "and was lost" needs to be "and to have been lost" or similar if the next sentence reflects doubt on both the evolution and the loss.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Northern hemisphere" – our WP article on the subject capitalises both words, and so would I.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• "similiarities" I imagine is a typo, but I didn't dare assume.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Nothing there to affect my support, which I look forward to adding. – Tim riley talk 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, hope that's to your satisfaction now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Support – An exceptional piece of work. Try Googling "Teleost" and you'll find nothing else that comes anywhere near the authority and comprehensiveness of this article. Easily meets all the FA criteria, and I'm very glad to add my support. Tim riley talk 21:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

This is a rather gigantic article, so will probably take me a while to review it all... FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

• I think the Importance to humans section could be expanded more. I mean, they are the biggest cash fish out there to say the least   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Added a paragraph on fish products, their preparation and uses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Ok, taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure mentioning the other infraclasses is needed in the lead.

I would support their inclusion, better leave no loose strands. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, not a deal-breaker anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

and few groups of vertebrates have undergone such an extensive radiation. - line is vague. It's really "none" as there are not 26,000 species of anything else with a backbone...(i.e. remove it)

Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

migratory material I would move from diversity to distribution

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf[edit]

Hey, how did I miss such an amazing article? :) This is what I have to say: Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review and the kind words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• In the lead:

• Should Greek not be linked?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• weighing over two tons I wonder if we could have a conversion here...

Done: it's pretty wordy, and the numbers are about the same in all 3 cases! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ninety-six percent of all fish are teleosts I wonder if saying "96%" would make this less wordy...

I think we've been pulled up before for not using words for percentages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Really? But it should differ with the situation... I try to follow WP:MOSNUM on this. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, 96% it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• they have a movable maxilla and premaxilla Not clear what "they" refers to.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Most use external fertilization, I think this should end in a semicolon rather than a comma.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• In Anatomy:

• Explanation for "holostean"?

Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am not sure if the meaning of "ural" is clear.

Said "at the end of the caudal fin" instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• In lower teleosts, What does "lower" mean here? Would be good to link.

Added a note.

• I think "advanced" should be linked, as has been done in the lead.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• In Diversity:

• Link radiation to evolutionary radiation.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Any idea of the lightest teleost?

• You may consider linking (or explaining in some cases) filter-feeder, torpedoes, pectoral fin, dermal, catadromous, ectoparasite

• The adults spawn here then die "and then die"?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Parasites" is mentioned in the first few lines of this section, but is linked a bit later.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• oscillating electric fields we may need a link or two here.

Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Flatfish are demersal fish... This para looks like a sudden deviation from the ecology of teleosts. Better put this just before you begin with the facts on ecology, this looks more like a description of the physical characteristics.

• Camouflage is linked twice.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• In Evolution and phylogeny:

• Greenwood et. al I think you should add who Greenwood is; it would not have been so necessary had the paper itself been cited, but as it is not it would be informative to let us know at least who it is.

Cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• "et. al" is in italics at first mention, but nowhere else afterward.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• It would be good to add who Near is, but optional.

As Near et al is cited, I think we can leave it as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Node values" and "calibrated" may need some explanation or links...

Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• The teleosts are divided into the major clades "Clade" is a duplink here.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• There are 800 species of elopomorphs have thin leaf-shaped larvae known as leptocephalus which are specialised for a marine environment. Is there an error in this line?

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Say either "elopomorphs" or "Elopomorphs"

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ostariophysi, which includes most freshwater fishes, developed some unique adaptations Why not "have developed" in this and the next line? It made me think this group is extinct.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link or explain scute

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• In Physiology:

• and freshwater eels "eels" is a duplink

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• life in the sea but often migrates "migrates" is a duplink

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• "countercurrent gas exchanger" is a duplink

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• The Chondrostei such as sturgeons "Chondrostei" is a duplink

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nearly all daylight fish have colour vision at least as good as a human's It may be better to say "a normal/healthy human's"

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• spatial memory and visual discrimination Links or explanations.

• I think "cold-blooded" should be appropriately linked.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• In Reproduction and lifecycle:

• I think there is some minor inconsistency in the use of AE/BE. See this from the lead that are hardly recognizable as fish , Most use external fertilization, the female lays a batch of eggs, the male fertilizes them and having external fertilisation with both eggs and sperm being released into the water for fertilization. Internal fertilisation occurs in from this section. I think the instances of AE should be eliminated as we use BE in most places in this article.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Similar instances from "Mating tactics": Such coloration can be very conspicuous to predators, Smaller satellite males mimic female behaviour and coloration

Coloration is the British spelling, as in Adaptive Coloration in Animals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fewer then one in a million "than"?

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• The majority (88%) of teleost species "The majority" looks redundant.

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Of the oviparous teleosts (Spawning sites and parental care) "oviparous" is a duplink

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• In Importance to humans:

• Teleost fishes are I think just "teleosts" would do.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Production is expected to increase sharply It would be good to add "According to the FAO,..."

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• A few teleosts are dangerous. Looking at this, it certainly is not an "importance" to humans. Why not rename the section as "Interaction/Relationship with humans"?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• small size, simple environmental needs For example?

The examples, namely medaka and zebrafish, are stated in the sentence above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Duplinks: tuna, carp, salmon, electric eel, zebrafish

Fixed, though given the distance to the other links, some may be appropriate here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Link mutagen.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fish imagery however remained "Fish imagery, however, remained"

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That should be it. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about model, actress and activist Emily Ratajkowski. I would like to take one last shot at getting the article promoted to FA in time to be a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday (on June 7), which is less than 3 months away. I have requested that the current PR be closed. I feel that I have attempted to resolve all issues that were raised in the prior FAC.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• • According to Category:FA-Class fashion articles, no models are at WP:FA status. Please help me raise the quality of this article by giving some advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
• I have contacted the following persons who have been involved in previous discussions:

  WP:GOCE reviewer User:Baffle gab1978

  Talk:Emily Ratajkowski/GA1 reviewer User:Cirt

  Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussants User:Cirt, User:SNUGGUMS, User:Kiyoweap, User:Sigeng

  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussant User:Cirt, User:MaranoFan and User:Karanacs

  Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussant User:Bollyjeff, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Masem, User:Nikkimaria, and User:Elcobbola

  Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussants User:White Arabian Filly--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  The page's most active editors: Tinton5, Baffle gab1978, General Ization, All Hallow's Wraith, Nightscream, Chaheel Riens, American In Brazil, Cliftonian, Thewildone85, SNUGGUMS, Guat6, N0n3up, and Mbinebri--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from GRuban[edit]

• Disclaimer - I uploaded the free images for the article, no other contributions that I can recall. But I am, of course, tempted to promote for the photos alone. :-). Otherwise:

I can support. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• GRuban, let me know if you see anything else that you feel is extraneous.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt[edit]

• Support. My thanks to TonyTheTiger for successfully addressing my above comments about the WP:LEAD, checklinks, and use of quotations. The article has much improved since my prior support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1. Good luck Tony, — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• Images of the 3, there's only one non-free, and that is the cover that is documented to have launched her career. While we generally frown on NFC on living persons, exceptions are made if such images are extensive subjects of discussion, which is the case here, so that non-free should be fine -- though I have added an "upright" to the portrait-oriented image per MOS:IMAGES as well as the fact that that image was the largest on the page, which (inadvertently) draws the eye to the tasteful nude rather than her main "real life" image. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Tony changed Masem's heading from "Comments from Masem" to "Image review by Masem." I don't know whether Masem intended this to be the FAC's image review. If he did, the FACR require that non-free images "satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content" (NFCC).

The NFCC policy says (point 2.8): "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

That has not yet been argued for, and I can't see how this image satifies that requirement. Claiming fair use to allow a photograph of a naked woman to be added to her BLP seems wrong-headed, and the use of it appears sexist and gratuitous. If she wanted free naked images of herself to exist, she could create them. This is why non-free images of BLPs are almost never allowed. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC) (added link SarahSV ^(talk) 19:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC))

SlimVirgin, Please note that I created all of the sections. Masem never put a title on his section. I was trying to keep Cirt's comments together and created a section. As I have said before read the text related to the image. You keep talking about me sticking a naked photo in the article and refusing to discuss the content in the article about how that specific photo changed her life. If you read how the photo changed her life and then want to discuss it, that might make more sense. You seem to have had a fair number of FAs. You should know an image review when you see one. That is an image review, unless I am mistaken.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining about the heading. Whenever I mention the image, the point is missed. It is not about who has discussed it. It is not about that. It is this: I do not see how "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

You are saying that Robin Thicke liked the image and wanted her to appear in his video. Okay. But I don't know why we have to see the image itself in the article to be able to understand that. That is what you have to argue to the satisfaction of independent image reviewers.

It is a non-free, professional image of a living person, an image with monetary value, so your argument would have to be a very strong one. I would like to know whether there are other recent, professional, non-free images of a living person, images with monetary value, that have been allowed in BLPs. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, You are looking at this as a random photo. It is a photographic art at the highest levels. The subject is herself a stunningly beautiful subject and this artistic black-and-white photo is executed in a manner that stood out from the myriad of magazine cover subjects in a way that enticed certain powers to solicit Ratajkowski. In order to understand the artistic splendor, you must see it. If you look at that picture and do not understand the caliber of artistry, I can not help you. Several other people who either saw it or were writing in secondary sources about those who saw it have noted the significance of this single subject. The prose of the article and the WP:CAPTION of the photo spell this out. This is a picture that is worth a thousand words and more. It is rare that a persons career is propelled by a single image. If it is, that image could be a fair use subject that passes NFCC as this one does. You have to review the sourced article content to understand the importance of the photo although the image CAPTION should make it clear enough. After reading the current version of the article, an explanation of how she was selected to be in "Blurred Lines" is relevant and this picture is the explanation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see what you're describing in that image. I see a c. 20-year-old naked woman who has been professionally positioned and lit, and who has had her hair and make-up done by professionals. The image caused her to be picked to be one of several models in an unpleasant video.

But if it's as artistically important as you say, all the more reason for Wikipedia not to assume the right to use it. (And if the artistry is the issue, it would be more appropriate in the photographer's BLP, not the model's.) Can you point to any other professional portrait of a living person, a photograph that still has monetary value, for which we claim fair use in that person's BLP? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I imagine hundreds of images at Category:Fair use magazine covers are professional portrait photographs of living person that still have monetary value. I have done articles that focus on a few of them such as Demi's Birthday Suit and More Demi Moore. However, neither of these changed Moore's career because she was already famous. Thus, neither of these rises to a level of importance to be claimed as Fair use in her biography. I don't know how many images we have that are THE IMAGE that is credited with making a person famous. If we had an image of Demi Moore that is the image that caused her to be famous, it should be in her article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not at all hard line when it comes to claiming fair use. But it seems obvious that the attraction of this image is that she's naked. That's a reason to avoid the image, not a reason to use it. We already have a free image of her, at roughly the same age. There is nothing about the naked image that "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, or where "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Note: "of the article topic." SarahSV ^(talk) 19:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't understand your point. Where in the article do we discuss her nakedness in the photo? The photo does not support any prose regarding nakedness that I see. Please point out where nakedness is relevant. The prose that I am talking about is that the image made her the chosen subject to become famous. If there is any content regarding the nakedness of the photo in the article please remove it (the prose not the photo). However, I do believe that the sole reason why you object to the photo is that she is naked. Can you point me to the policies in WP:NFCC regarding naked photos.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I haven't said anything about nakedness in the article, so I don't follow your point.

Again: the policy says that a non-free image must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" and "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That naked image does not significantly increase my understanding of Emily Ratajkowski. Its omission would not be detrimental to my understanding of Emily Ratajkowski. We have a free image of her, so I already know what she looks like.

If you tell me that Robin Thicke invited her to be one of the models to feature in a video, after he liked a naked photograph of her, I can understand those words. I can look up the photograph in the source you provide, if I feel I need to see it.

You've written an article that is in large measure about the objectification of women. But Wikipedia should not be part of that objectification. We should describe it, not do it. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, this seems to be WP:POV arguing. Neither this article nor the song is about objectification of women. You have expressed that we should ignore the opposing view regarding the opposite side, which is reliably sourced by both a critic and an involved party. There are more sources, but this article is not the place for further sources. However, it is not a place where sources for the other side should be ignored as you suggest. If you would read the sources that you suggest we ignore, you would see that the song has much more content about liberating women than about objectifying them. If you would read the content that I have added to address Ratajkowski's brand of femism, you will see that she believes in a different kind of equality for women. She does not believe sex is either a service a woman provides to man or a thing that a man takes from a woman, but rather a mutually enjoyed experience. She does not believe that men should be able to censor women's expression of their sexuality (in music videos, photographs, art or what have you). You insist all nudity is objectification and that it can not be art or entertainment.
• SlimVirgin, for a long time Jessica Alba had a Playboy cover image. This was deleted at FFD. One difference is that Ratajkowski is proud of that photo as the photo that propelled her career. She is not out there suing anyone about it. Another is that she is prominent in this week's Time promoting her belief that nudity does not equal trashy. Another difference is that in this case, the image is one in which the image made people notice Ratajkowski and select her for other work. We have reliably sourced text confirming this. The prose can not make the reader understand why seeing a specific image jump started Ratajkoowski's career by making people select her. The image is an artistically executed nude black-and-white. We can not teach the reader what was so special about the image without showing it to them. You repeatedly state, that nude imagery=objectification. Ratajkowski's entire point is that nudity can be empowering to the subject. The image is not presented to show nudity. The image is presented to demonstrate the work of art that propelled her career. Read yesterday's Time article showing that Ratajkowski does not believe nudity=trashy. Get with the times. It is 2016.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: That sentence at the start of this remark (first paragraph, starting with SlimVirgin, You) is a personal attack. Please strike or remove it. The rest can stay, you are making a fine argument (except possibly the line where you remind Sarah what year it is, that's not very useful, I somehow suspect she knows what year it is) that doesn't need to be diluted by calling people names. I'd appreciate it if you struck or removed that sentence. I've pointed out so many sentences in Emily Ratajkowski itself that you have removed or rephrased that I feel justified in hoping you will similarly remove or rephrase this one in what is merely this FAC discussion. --GRuban (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I have to point to WP:POV, but I have softened the statement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
      • --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from SlimVirgin[edit]

• I'm sorry, but I have to oppose, for several reasons, mainly WP:FACR 1(a), 1(c), 1(d) and 4 (unnecessary detail) ... [remainder of post moved below]. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Tony has suggested that parts of my oppose aren't actionable. Because my earlier post has been broken up and may not be clear enough, I'm clarifying my oppose for the delegates.

1. FACR 1(a): "well-written: its prose is ... of a professional standard":

   The writing is problematic. One example:

   "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood.[147] ... She has gotten a wide range of responses to her involvement ... Planned Parenthood has presented Ratajkowski as a spokesperson for its birth control support.[150] Ratajkowski, is outspoken on her interest in going beyond speaking out in favor of birth control and using her celebrity to fight against the social implications of speaking out for empowerment of women and sexuality."[151]

   This has become time-consuming and no progress is being made, so I'm going to stop commenting for now. It's worth making clear that my primary objection is to the writing, per 1(a). There are problems throughout with grammar, punctuation, repetition and flow. Even issues that have been pointed out have not been fixed. In addition, there is unnecessary quoting, unnecessary clutter, and a promotional tone, which includes placing the opinions of the subject in Wikipedia's voice.

2. FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources":

   It relies in part on tabloid sources and low-quality gossip sites, which violates WP:BLPSOURCES.

3. FACR 1(d): "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias:

   The article seems promotional rather than a disinterested account of her life and work. For example, the first sentence notes that she made her name after appearing in the "Blurred Lines" video "which became the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries." She was the most prominent model in that video. The lead doesn't mention how controversial the lyrics and video were (especially the semi-nude version). Both were widely regarded as misogynist; the lyrics promoted violence against women. [5][6][7][8] The Guardian called the song "the most controversial of the decade"; the video "generated its own separate yet overlapping controversy." [9]

   To mention the number ones without mentioning the controversy is a violation of WP:LEAD and an example of the article's promotional flavour. If there were just a few examples of this, I would try to fix them, but the same tone runs throughout the whole article.

4. FACR 3: Non-free images must satisfy WP:NFCC:

   The use of the nude image strikes me as gratuitous. I don't see how it "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the article topic." I've lost track of how the "subject of commentary" criterion is applied, but this is a professional image with monetary value, not to mention an example of the kind of image we ought not to add to biographies of women. It's just an essay, but please see Writing about women: avoid presenting women as "objects of heterosexual male appreciation."

5. FACR 4: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail":

   There's a lot of unnecessary detail and quoting. It would benefit from that material and the lower quality sources being removed, then a rewrite to introduce a more disinterested tone. It would be shorter but better.

SarahSV ^(talk) 07:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Amended SarahSV ^(talk) 21:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC) [10]

---

Tony, my first post was split up by your replies, and you're welcome to continue doing that below. But I'd like the above not to have replies added inside it, so I'm moving those here. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

[Re: point 1, lack of progress]:

• SlimVirgin, Your comment that "This has become time-consuming and no progress is being made" is very unusual. the progress made in the 30 hours preceding that comment was tremendous. We continue to disagree on many issues, but your active involvement in the article is the best way to help it get better. I have requested a source review since you are concerned about sources and it seems that we may have come upon an interested copyeditor in Chaheel Riens. We are making progress and I encourage your continued thoughts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

[Re: point 3, neutrality]:

I am not averse to contextualizing this issue. I will not have much time between now and Tuesday to do so. I will definitely look at this on Tuesday, but am welcome to the suggestions of other editors to augment this issue. I am about to get back out on the road for Uber. It is a holiday weekend and people need to get out on the road and home from work, etc. I'm off to hit the roads for most of the weekend.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

When you say "this issue," I assume you mean the mention of the song/video in the first sentence. But that was just one example of the neutrality problems. Another example: in discussing her involvement with Planned Parenthood, you write: "She has gotten a wide range of responses to her involvement, including comments on her bravery." The source is an interview with her, where she is the one who says: "I had a lot of people who were like, ‘Wow that’s so brave of you.'". But this is repeated in Wikipedia's voice (and "gotten" needs to be changed). I think the problem is that, as you said somewhere, you're a big fan of hers, and this shows in the writing all the way through the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

[Re: point 4, non-free image]:

I don't think your contention here is WP:NPOV. We have rehashed this image in all sorts of forums. Have a look at the last FAC. This image is the work of art that propelled her career. Period. There would be no discussion of her being on the main page without this image. Read the text.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(I notice that several people who normally rail against non-free images are strangely absent or compliant when it comes to naked women.)

WP:FACR says of images: "Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content ..."

The latter policy (WP:NFCC) says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

I don't see how using that image in this article fulfills that criterion, and I can't see any agreement, in the previous FACs, that it did. There were objections to the image in both FACs. The objection was left unresolved in the first FAC. In the second FAC, the "critical commentary" issue was addressed, but that's just part of the guideline WP:NON-FREE.

The NFCC requirement – "would significantly increase readers' understanding" – has not been discussed that I can see. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The prior FAC had two different image reviewers (Masem and Elcobbola) come to an agreement that the image satisfies all NFCC requirements as two FAC vets (SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria) looked on. I am not qualified to debate this. However, unless they are wavering, what is the point of reraising this issue?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see where the second FAC reached an agreement about that image. I can see where they discussed whether there had been commentary. But even if they had reached an agreement, this is a new FAC and a new objection. That the image has been questioned or opposed in all three FACs should give you pause.

FACR requires FACs to meet Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (NFCC). NFCC says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." That's the standard that has not been met, in my view, except in the empty sense that a naked image of any BLP subject might increase readers' understanding of them. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The current version of this article has passed an image review above. Neither of us is an image reviewer. You might want to poke the image reviewer above or request a second opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• Writing and citation style: The article needs a copy edit, but it's harder than usual to read in edit mode because there are so many references within sentences. This is sometimes unavoidable when handling sensitive or contentious material, but in this article I can't see a need for it.

Citation style? WP:IC is now the prevailing form of citation. Thus, I have placed citations as close to the fact presented as possible using the usual forms of adjacency that I have used in my dozens of WP:FAs and hundreds of WP:GAs. When a particular contentious fact is part of a sentence this requires a citation within a sentence. There is absolutely no stylistic guide that opposes such a citation style to my knowledge and I have never seen a preference for averting such citations in any of the hundreds thousands of GA, PRs and FA reviews I have been involved in. It is generally considered a strength to have citations adjacent to facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I am open to any copyeditting assistance that may be availed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin Can you comment on whether a sentence like I added here with mid-sentence WP:ICs is the type that you think causes the article to stray from MOS. If so, how would you like to see the sentence changed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Tony, I haven't mentioned the MoS, except that the article violates LEAD by omitting the controversy, and LEAD is part of the MoS. My concern is that the writing needs to be improved throughout. The article has a kind of breathless PR tone to it. (I'm not suggesting that you're formally doing PR for her; I'm talking only about the writing.) But before the writing can be fixed, the low-quality sources should be removed. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Quality of sources: Low-quality sources should be removed, including the Daily Mail. See WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." And FACR 1(c): "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..."

• WP:RS is a difficult issue in regards to subjects of modest notability. If we were dealing with a politician at a G7 conference, we could source content from the most esteemed types of sources. However, models appearing in a Fashion Week runway may garner minimal coverage from even moderately notable sources. Take a sentence like "For Fall/Winter 2016 fashions Ratajkowski again walked New York Fashion week for Marc Jacobs on February 18 and also made her Paris Fashion Week debut for Miu Miu on March 9, 2016." We could source that she appeared in the Paris Fashion Week with several reliable sources such as Elle or In Style. However, if we want to make it clear it was her Paris Fashion Week debut, I am having trouble finding a better source than Daily Mail. I would gladly upgrade sources as you suggest, but in terms of the claimed fact that she "made her Paris Fashion Week debut" I don't see options out there. I might concede that Daily Mail is a somewhat WP:QUESTIONABLE source, but is this fact a "contentious claim" requiring a better source? You need to examine fact/source pairs. For certain less contentious facts, lesser sources may be acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Is the fact that it was her first time at this show really important? I admit, I am not a fashion expert, but our Paris Fashion Week article says it's one of four, so there are at least three similar ones, and plenty of other shows, perhaps of slightly lesser cachet, but still deserving of our articles, six in Category:Fashion events in France alone. As a world-famous model, won't she eventually get to many, if not most, of them? Surely we won't individually note her first time at each? OK, I'll buy perhaps her first time at any runway fashion show might be worth a mention ... but at least according to the Irish Independent - not a gossip paper - that was at the New York Fashion Week, not Paris.[11] So is the fact the Paris appearance was her first there really such a big deal? --GRuban (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• One last thing before I head out for a day of driving. In regard to this, runway modelling and print modelling each has four majors (like golf or tennis) in the same four cities (London, Milan, Paris and New York). These are the Fashion weeks and the Vogue. The case could be made that a FA level article of a world class model presents details about the accomplishments in terms of these majors, IMO. However, we need the opinion of WP:FASHION regs in this regard. I don't know if anyone currently active in this discussion qualifies as knowledgeable about that profession.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think we need the Irish Independent, but since it has a picture from the actual runway, I have added it as a second RS for her debut.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have looked around at other topics that have majors. Roger_Federer#2004:_Imposing_dominance discusses his first Austrailian Open and U.S. Open wins although he had already won a major in 2003. Meanwhile, Tiger Woods and Professional golf career of Tiger Woods do not make such references to later firsts. Marathoning has 6 World Marathon Majors. Wilson Kipsang Kiprotich's article has the following sentence "On 2 November 2014, Kipsang won the New York City Marathon in 2:10:59 in his first appearance", despite earlier Major Marathon wins and appearances. I see your point, but it is not necessarily trivia to mention premiers at later majors.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Those are discussing wins, not appearances. Frankly, if the first appearance for a model at that particular major were a big deal, then presumably a fashion magazine or column would mention it. Instead it's being mentioned by a gossip mag. --GRuban (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Unnecessary detail: It seems to include everything that is known about her. Do we need to know how old her parents were when she was born and that they were not married? Same in the infobox: there's no point in adding that she has brown eyes and hair when we can see that from the photograph.

It is odd to discuss unnecessary detail as a complaint and then to point to standard inclusions in a biography. Note for a model, eye and hair color are important enough information for this persons occupation that that parameters exist for these items of data. For a model/actress, we can not go by the color in a picture because they often have to color their hair for roles and sometimes wear coloring contacts. For the average person, we may not care about their political affiliation, but we would not describe filling in that parameter as unusual for a politician. Similarly, for a model, physical attributes are common biographical summary elements. I don't know if this type of issue has led to Deepika Padukone being a FA without an infobox. If so, I am open to understanding this issue further. In terms of depicting what type of family one is born into, it is not remotely out of line to describe whether a person was an orphan, bastard, adopted, born to unknown parents or what have you. She is of unusual stock being from unmarried American parents living abroad. As a discussant, you are generally suppose to point out actionable issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have shown in this edit that you are aware of which parameters have been deprecated and which have not. Obviously, if the remaining parameters are not deprecated, they must serve the readers in a way that is desirable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Neutrality: She made her name from the Blurred Lines video, but no mention is made of how controversial that was. It's also very contentious to say in WP's voice that she's a feminist. Feminism is a broad church but not this broad; the Blurred Lines video could not be further removed from feminism. If she has said she regards herself as a feminist, we can consider quoting her, but with caution: it almost takes us into fringe territory, in the sense that we'd have trouble finding an opposing view simply because it's unlikely that anyone would have responded.

Please note I have added a quote in which she presents herself as a feminist.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ratajkowski's brand of feminism involves promoting female sexual empowerment and sexuality. I.e., a woman should be free to share her body in art, social activity, publicity, or private activity as she desires without shame. She has experienced the extreme opposite type of bodyshaming that feminists usually fight. Usually, it is the woman who strays from conventional attractiveness (maybe by being fat—possibly due to pregnancy, or life stress) that endures pressure. She has, by virtue of being almost the symbol of conventional attractiveness, been subject to pressure not to excite or arouse. Freely sharing her body in a music video is part and parcel to her brand of feminism. I will attempt to find some quotations to make this brand of feminism more clear to the reader. Feminist seek equal treatment for women. If guys can rap about women trying to get on their magicsticks and talk about their conquests, why can't a woman even express enjoyment of sexual expression. She feels women should be able to talk about sexual activity as freely as men and express their sexuality with no more restriction than men. I would enjoy guidance in taking the article in the direction of clarifying this to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, also note that there is extensive discourse regarding the contorversy surrounding "Blurred Lines". Additionally, there are quite extensive responses to Ratajkowski's brand of feminism. I did not find opposing views even last month when she was prominently in the public view for her brand of feminism. Can you even explain what an opposing view would be. It seems to me that the opposing view is in support of misogeny. Given the widespread response to her expression of her views and my inability to find opposing views, I feel like I am aware I may be missing something. Please help me to balance the article with opponents to her recent feminist manifesto.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The opposing view would be that she personally serves, encourages, abets, enables, and profits from the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women. Not saying whether I agree or disagree with that myself, but Slim's list of sources pretty much say that, though they focus more on Blurred Lines than on Ratajkowski, so ideally we'd find sources that focused on her. --GRuban (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the topic at issue whether "Blurred Lines" promotes the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women or Ratajkowki's life embodies support of the sexual exploitation, objectification, and denigration of women?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Both. Specifically, we should present and summarize what reliable sources say, in proportion to what they say. Sarah gave four that focused on Blurred Lines, which is relevant considering how much of ER's article is directly or indirectly related to BL - it looks like maybe a third of the article. Here are a few more sources on ER specifically [12][13] but I can't guarantee they're the best, you really need to do a few searches on it yourself [14][15]. From my (very quick) searching, I see noticeably more sources supporting her as a sex-positive feminist than those attacking her as not a real feminist, but the other side does exist, so needs to at least be mentioned. Also, again, the criticism of BL is substantially more, and needs to be given. --GRuban (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

O.K., I have the next 3 hours blocked out to try to address this issue a bit. I'm digging in now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Boss and Tonic is not a WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tony has added that the subject claims to be a feminist. If a woman says she's a feminist, I normally accept it (even if I disagree with her view of it), but there has to be a limit. The subject says of this video that it is "not sexist." Factor in the lyrics: "I'm gon' take a / Good girl / I know you want it ... / I'll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two / ... Nothin' like your last guy, he too square for you / He don't smack that ass and pull your hair like that."

Jezebel's response to Robin Thicke's claim that the song is feminist: "Susan B. Anthony. Germaine Greer. bell hooks. Robin Thicke. We thank these brave warriors for all their hard work."

We don't allow BLP subjects to say whatever they want about themselves. If there are sources discussing a contentious and self-aggrandizing claim, include the sources and explain why the claim might be problematic. For example, if an arguably racist person claimed be an anti-racism campaigner, we wouldn't include that claim without comment. If there are no independent sources discussing a contentious claim, it's better to leave it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said before, I am not going to haphazardly jump in and add this text. I have not looked at how it is handled in the article for the song. I hope that there is content there that I can just sort of summarize here.---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• General content and tone: The article pores over every detail of this very young woman's life and body, including her early sexualization (which made me very sad to read in the sources), with no awareness of the broader issues. Wanting to feature it on her birthday seems inappropriate for the same reason. In addition to that, we talk a lot about fixing the way women are represented on Wikipedia, but featuring this article would be a sprint in the wrong direction.

Are you saying that the article is deficient in contextualizing this biography amid broader issues?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV ^(talk) 03:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, please let me know if I have figured out what is necessary to address your concern or please be so kind as to give me further advice.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Tony, my advice is that you take the article off your watchlist for a few weeks, then return to it with fresh eyes. I've been in a situation many times where I've been writing something intensely to the point that every factoid is precious. Not reading the article for a few weeks or months has usually helped (but it is always difficult for writers to see the article the way readers do).

Then remove the lower quality sources and the quotes, and try to rewrite the rest in a more disinterested tone. Add more about the controversy over Blurred Lines, including a mention in the lead. As I said above, if you do that, the article will be shorter, but it will be considerably better. And remove the nude image; it cheapens the page and it really isn't compatible with the policies. Remember that women are among your readers. Write the article so that they won't feel disappointed or excluded. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, are you looking at the current version of the article. I have dissected the controversy into a four-faceted issue in the LEAD. What do you mean when you say mention it in the LEAD? Regarding the image, you are not reading the text about the image and it does not make sense for you to talk about the image if you are ignoring the explication about it in the text. Let me know if you decide to read either the current version of the LEAD or the prose about the image in the text. I presume if you have not read the current version of the LEAD, you have not read all of my changes to the main body regarding the issue that seemed important to you and are giving advice without looking at the article. I also presume you are asking me to remove the article without regard to the image reviewers opinions for reasons that surely have nothing to do with any relevant policy because if you were concerned with the policy regarding the images you would address those who understand them (the image reviewer). I will adhere to the directive of the image reviewers with regard to image policy (as should you) unless you are in fact a reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You've added to the lead: "despite being controversial for many reasons including its nudity, plagiarism, and its themes of both sexual degradation and sexual freedom." Who other than the people involved in it said that its theme was sexual freedom? The lyrics promote violence against women. You've also added: "The song is criticized as being sexist in its degradation of women. However, the purpose of the video was to use exaggeration to humorously approach sexual degradation." However, etc, in Wikipedia's voice. The problem is that you have a strong opinion about this that isn't the view of the mainstream media.

But to repeat: my main FAC objection is the way the article is written and sourced. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have presented both sides, but you are ignoring the other side by overlooking arguments like Jennifer Lai's and discounting Williams'. I have clarified this by adding that it is a matter of perspective. You should not ignore that there are perspectives other than your own.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Question for Tony: I added an invisible question (which you removed) to "She has been an advocate for women's health issues, especially as a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood," asking what other women's health issues she has been involved in. Can you add something to the article or rewrite that sentence? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I might not have time to respond to everything discussed since I was last online, but here I have a few minutes before my morning workout. I have added "safe sex and birth control" to the main body because of a specific PSA. I am not sure if that PSA rises to a reason to include this point in the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know what a PSA is, and I wasn't asking that you add something to the lead. The lead says she is involved in women's health issues other than for Planned Parenthood. So my question is: what other health issues? Safe sex and birth control are Planned Parenthood issues. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• By the way a PSA is a Public Service Announcement.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep in mind that we are not going to find much out about any involvement she may have had with PPA before she was a public person in 2013. We have a 2015 PSA and a statement that she has always been involved with PPA because of its role as a women's health organization. I can't find much about her charitable works prior to 2015. I could change "She has been an advocate for women's health issues, especially as a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood." to "She has been an advocate for women's health issues, especially as a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood." if you are more comfortable with that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Or just "She has been a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood since [year]." SarahSV ^(talk) 02:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• We don't really know the year of association. I just removed the word as I proposed above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, The article has undergone quite an overhaul since we last spoke. Can we discuss your current stance on the article. I think all sourcing issues have been addressed. Many details have been removed. If I have not gotten your support, can I get you off of your oppose at least.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from General Ization[edit]

• While I appreciate the efforts of TonyTheTiger in developing this article and presenting it for FA consideration, I too must oppose. Without repeating all of the criticisms above (with which I agree), the article as currently written is in serious need of trimming, in several sections is overtly promotional in tone, and is excessively linked to the point of creating a sea of blue. The article clearly reflects a great deal of love on the part of its major contributors (my contributions being mostly reverting vandalism) for their subject – perhaps a little too much love for an encyclopaedic article. General Ization ^Talk 03:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

General Ization, Feel free to present examples of extensive promotion. I can not improve the article without feedback. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

General Ization, the article no longer resembles what it did when you responded two weeks ago. Can you comment on your current stance on the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from White Arabian Filly[edit]

• This is my first time having anything to do with FAC. I see two minor issues in the article, both in "Activism and advocacy". "Planned Parenthood" is written in the article as "Planned parenthood"--it's an official name, so needs to be capitalized. Also, a sentence lower down says "response to her involvement included comments on her bravery". That just doesn't make sense as a complete sentence to me. I think it's missing a "that" somewhere. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have converted Planned Parenthood to titlecase in the one instance in which it was not previously presented thusly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I have corrected the typo in the phrase that you pointed out above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Then support the FAC. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Nightscream[edit]

Comment Thanks for contacting me, but I don't really know what the criteria are for FA. I do copyedit lots of articles, and did a few edits yesterday to the article, but don't have time for anything else right now. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Nightscream, the FA criteria are presented at WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

And what's the difference between those criteria and those for Good articles (of which I've written a few)? They read as mostly the same. In any event, I don't have time or interest to comprehensively read the article right now. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If a good article is "good", then a featured article is "really, really good". :-) More seriously, one of the key differences is that you need one reviewer to mark something as a good article, and you need many reviewers to mark something as a featured article. --GRuban (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Figureskatingfan[edit]

Support. This article fits the criteria for FAs. Yes, it has a lot of detail, but I think it should, given the subject. Models are subject to this kind of detail, and much of what's included is connected to her profession and career. The sources aren't the most reliable, but again, these are the kinds of publications that write about models like Ratajkowski, so I think it's appropriate to include them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Usually, you put me through a lot of editorial hoops before supporting an FA and I know it is encouraged for reviewers to make suggested improvements before supporting. Feel free to make suggestions later. I hope a support without editorial guidance carries weight because I was under the impression that such reviews may be discounted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Chaheel Riens[edit]

I'd have to duplicate Nightscream's comments - I'm not much up on Featured/Good articles, but am quite willing to dip toes in and edit to improve articles - and would fully support concentrating on this one for a while to get it up to the required standards. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Chaheel Riens, I am a very experienced editor and in my experience I have found that my strength is researching and gathering content. My featured article successes are usually the result of copyediting assistance from other interested editors. I would appreciate it if you would lend a hand to cleaning up the article. I especially need fresh eyes to consider MOS:TENSE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth[edit]

Oppose - prose issues and the non-free usage of the magazine cover.

• The prose is stilted. Examples, the second paragraph of the lead which has a number of sentences starting "She ..." plus more repetition "She appeared ... This led to her being asked to appear ... Among her other cover appearances ... Ratajkowski appeared ... She made ... She was a spokesperson..." This reads like a resume with too much repetition.
• Third paragraph of the lead, the first sentence has three uses of "roles" in close order and two sentences starting "Her.."
  • I hope 2 roles is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Throughout the rest of the article - there is a severe overuse of the "She/Her to start sentences.
  • Addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of "early life" is just off in tone for an encyclopedia - it reads more like something I'd read in a women's magazine.
• "As of March 30, 2016, two videos in which she appeared for the company—a featured Holiday 2012 video and a local Valentine's 2011 video—are among the five most popular videos on the company's YouTube channel." this is encyclopedic?
  • As with your questions regarding American GQ, I think what we have here is some sort of misunderstanding on the relevance of the topic. Ratajkowski became a breakout star in 2013-14. We are trying to show the things that helped her separate herself from the multitude of models. In 2011, she was unknown. Being in a popular video is part of the process of becoming a star. If we have evidence in the public domain that we can point to that shows how she began to become popular, we need to present it. As with the American GQ content below, this is not a matter of eliminating content, but rather a matter of you communicating to me how to better help the reader understand that this was one of her first popular appearances.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• There are lots of listings of way too many cover appearances, bit appearances in videos, etc. All this trivial detail makes the prose hard to read and makes it stilted and un-engaging.
  • • This is a model. Magazine covers and videos are a large part of their craft. Your assessment of summarizing their craft as trivial is like saying that talking about how a bunch of basketball games are trivial in the biography of a basketball player, a bunch of elections are trivial in the biography of a politician or a bunch of horse races are trivial in an article about a horse. I think your interest level needs to be recalibrated for the subject at issue. Models have their picture taken. We are tasked with summarizing the important instances of them doing their craft based on what appears in RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
      • we are an encyclopedia, we summarize things when there is a lot of detail available. We don't list the stats from every game an NFL player plays, nor do we have to give exhaustive details on every cover appearance. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I had been thinking about these edits, which I just undid. Models' success is based on their most notable work (like any other professions). Since there are no WP:FAs of people who are primarily notable for their modelling, it is hard to look at what counts and how to present it. Model cover appearances is one of the prominent things that they do. I had been tinkering with an alternate presentation at here. I am trying to get feedback at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fashion#Coverographies, but WP:FASHION may be inactive. This is not like mushrooms where everyone knows what makes an FA because we have dozens of them. Unfortunately, I don't edit much outside the Tuesday-Thursday window now and don't have time to trim much other content right now. I will take a look then at trimming much more.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• "On June 24, 2014, Ratajkowski appeared topless on the cover and in a photograph spread in the July 2014 edition of American GQ.[87] She gave men dating advice in the online videos and cover story." This is just an example of the trivial coverage that's way too much detail.
  • Ealdgyth, As I try to improve the article, I need to make sure I am hearing your correctly. Keep in mind that the subject is a model and GQ may be the most important cover that she has appeared on to date. (BTW, I have created a coverography mockup) This is a WP biography and we need to present the turning points of her career. So I think we definitely need to mention her first semi-major cover and possibly most important cover to date. Thus, I am fairly certain wiping out this content is not appropriate. Thus, I need to understand the problem with the current presentation. Do you not want to know the subject of the coverstory or are you objecting to the topless mention. I am guessing you may think that discussing the coverstory is unnecessary. So I have deleted that sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • P.S. I am looking at her coverography to date and guess that Cosmopolitan (Italy and US) and GQ (US and UK) are her most important covers. I am not sure which is most important.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
    • N.B. My understanding of modelling is that France, Italy, United States and United Kingdom covers are the most important. It seems to me that Vogue is the most important magazine cover. Other high level covers seem to include Elle, Glamour, and Marie Claire. The next level seems to include GQ, Vanity Fair, and Cosmopolitan. I am just speculating on all of this and WP:FASHION is semi-inactive. I am going to try to find a Fashion person who will comment on what is puffery and what is not.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• More puffery "Ratajkowski became the new face of Italian retailer Yamamay on August 15, 2014." - the company doesn't even rate an article - why do we describe it as "became the new face" - and what does that really mean in encylopedia terms?
  • Being the face of a company is a common form of publicity. I admit I had been pondering the Yamamay content for a few days. Thanks for prompting me to remove it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
• The fair use of the magazine cover fails any sort of justification for me. I can understand that the cover got her the role in the music video without having to see the magazine cover. In my opinion, it fails our fair use policies.
  • At this point it would be a WP:BLP violation to remove her topless image if the objection is based upon nudity concerns because my act of censoring her article would offend the BLP subject who is currently prominent in the media for speaking out against censoring her nudity. So as to be true to the BLP subject, I will choose to offend other editors rather than the BLP subject. So far two image reviewers have confirmed that the image passes WP:NFCC and its removal would offend the BLP subject. I will not show any support for censoring her nudity by removing the image unless it violates NFCC.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I did NOT say a THING about nudity or the like. I said I believe it fails our fair use policies. Your reply did not address any of that - it replied to something I did not say. Show me where I said anything about it being a topless or nude shot. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Actually, I did address your concern about NFCC. I stated that it has already passed NFCC in an image review by one editor in this FAC after passing an image review by two editors in the prior FAC. That specifically addresses your concern. Please reread my statement which is a statement that it has passed NFCC review and would be a BLP violation if removed. You stated a point that I responded to and gave a second reason for keeping it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
        • I do not think it passes our image policies, however. That is my opinion. The oppose is mainly based off the prose problems (which are throughout the whole article, the points above are just examples) but I do not agree that the image passes our image policies. And the idea that it is a BLP policy to not include it is so far-fetched as to be not worth dealing with. I do not agree with that interpretation either - so consider this my statement of that also. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
          • You and I are both veterans at FAC. However, FAC has a specific policy that there are a limited set of people whose opinions matter regarding NFCC. I am not an image reviewer and (correct me if I am wrong, but) neither are you. Thus, neither of our opinions matter regarding whether an image meets NFCC. So we should probably just deal with the prose. I am not going to have time to dig into this today. I will get back to it by Tuesday.
            • Uh, there is no specific policy at FAC that only a limited number of people's opinions matter re. NFCC. Certainly there are reviewers more experienced in image policy than others, but the FAC criteria never mention specific groups of people. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
              • Can you confirm what the current role of the image reviewer is now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
                • So I'm clear, Tony, since we were talking about policy above, do i take it that when you say "current" you mean re. FAC in general rather than re. this particular nom at this point? In any case, I'd use the term "review" instead of "reviewer", since it's about process and more than one person can comment on images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
                  • Ian Rose, Well if the image review/reviewer process is different in this review than it is in any other FAC make me aware of that too. I have never been involved in a FAC, where the review was not determined by a reviewer. Even SandyGeorgia deferred to reviewers in FAC2 for this subject. I have always been given the feeling that there was no debating with a reviewer and that the reviewer has authority. In fact, I have never been involved in a FAC nomination where any editor felt his voice mattered against that of an image reviewer. I could point back at several past FACs if you like. Thus, I am wondering if the reviewer no longer is in charge of the image reviews and if there is a new or newly understood (to me) policy of a reviewer voice just being e pluribus unim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
                    • Okay, hopefully we can tie this up now. There's been no change to how FAC operates re. image review. Certainly most noms only involve one image reviewer but there's nothing to stop anyone else commenting on images, and an experienced image reviewer's comments can be subject to discussion the same as any experienced reviewers' comments (I've done so myself as a nominator). Ultimately it's up to the FAC coords to judge consensus for promotion of an article, and that involves determining how much weight to give to each reviewers' comments when there's a difference of opinion. As I haven't gone through all comments in this nom, I'm not here (as yet) to weigh things up but only to correct any misconceptions about the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
                      • Ian Rose, so you are saying that there have been previous FAC nominations where an image reviewers opinion was disregarded or overruled?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
                        • Ian Rose, I am still trying to confirm that the rules are not suddenly changing. Can you confirm that there have been previous FAC nominations where an image reviewers opinion was disregarded or overruled?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
                          • Tony, this discussion has gone on long enough -- pls re-read my previous comment "There's been no change to how FAC operates". As for precedents, I don't need to trawl through previous nominations because every FAC, every support or oppose, is judged on its merits. Time to move on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not going to dig deeper - the article is filled with trivial details that aren't encyclopedic and make it seem like a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article. And the prose is so stuffed with details that it is difficult to read and very stilted. It needs a complete rewrite that does NOT take place at FAC.

Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

• What makes Fashion Model Database a reliable source for a BLP?
  • It seems that they have a team of editors. RS is all about having an expert contributors and an editorial process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the types of topics sourced to FMD, the reliability of the source need not be as high as for other types of controversial facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • this is a BLP which requires high quality sources, and it's also at FAC, which also requires more than just reliable sources but high quality ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
      • See GRuban below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• What makes The World's Best Ever Blog a reliable source for a BLP? (Note at the bottom where it says "The World's Best Ever: Design, Fashion, Art, Music, Photography, Lifestyle, Entertainment 2016 | the worlds best ever. all rights reserved. powered by word press." WordPress is a blogging site.
  • Content removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• What makes Coed a reliable source? I could NOT get to their "about us" page because they kept scrolling my browser with more "stories" that read like gossip rags.
  • here is their about page, which substantiates an editorial process.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I can believe they've got an editorial process, I just don't see any sign that process is interested in avoiding gossip in the interest of facts. In that way it's like the Daily Mail. It and the National Enquirer each have an editorial process as such, in the sense that they have editors. --GRuban (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I have eliminated both uses of coed, but one was jointly sourced with Daily Mail. I have replaced this by joint sourcing with The Sun and Models.com.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
        • The Sun is hardly better, also a tabloid. Is that sentence (worked with Tony Kelly?) really so crucial to this biography? Surely she's worked with many photographers, and surely some better sources can be found for at least some of them if you just want to namedrop. Is Tony Kelly somehow the single most important glamour photographer in the world, or in her career? --GRuban (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
          • To my knowledge, she has worked with 5 photographers who have articles on WP. So I guess he is one of the top 5 photographers she has worked with in her career. The Sun is the closest thing we have to the fact that she was the cover for that edition's anniversary. Models.com tells us she shot with Kelly. I will shorten the content further to get rid of The Sun.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• What makes Fashionista a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
  • Harper's Bazaar cites them.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Daily Mail is not a good source for a BLP - why should you use it rather than something more reliable?
  • I am going to need 48 hours to look at all of the uses of Daily Mail. In past FACs, for specific facts, less reliable sources have been accepted when they were the only alternative. I am not sure how many of the current uses are necessary and can not be replaced by other sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I have trimmed Daily Mail use from about 10 to 1 ref. It seems to be the only source describing her role with Tony Duran, who is one of 5 photographers she has worked with who has a WP article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Nope. The Irish Independent article does the same. (In fact, it seems to use almost the same words; if it were a Wikipedia article I would accuse it of plagiarism.)[16] --GRuban (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Swapped. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
• What makes MovieWeb a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
  • here is the about page, which seems satisfactory to me for a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• What makes deadline.com a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
  • See GRuban below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• What makes Paste.com a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
  • See GRuban below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• What makes Uproxx a high quality reliable source for a BLP? I again note that I cannot get to the "about us" section because it keeps scrolling more and more gossipy "news" stories at me.
  • here is the about page, which supports it as a RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• What makes models.com a high quality reliable source for a BLP?
  • See GRuban below.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ealdgyth, Thanks for evaluating the sources. I will respond to these on Monday or Tuesday. This will help me with content considerations in the coming days. Can you confirm whether this is a full source review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with most (and mentioned Coed and Daily Mail myself, before my comment got derailed, cough), but there are exceptions:
    • Deadline.com is a respected film industry website, that has been considered reliable on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard multiple times.[17][18][19]. Here it is being used as a source for USA Today [20][21], Playbill [22], Philadelphia Inquirer, [23], [24], Akron Beacon Journal [25], Fox News [26][27]...
    • Paste.com is not being used. Paste (magazine) is used, and is a 14 year old magazine, originally in print, which has received a number of awards from other reliable sources, which tends to point to it also being one.
    • Models.com seems to be a respected source for modeling, for example a brief search shows TeenVogue,Fashion Times, Sports Illustrated, Harper's Bazaar each devoting an article to various winners of its contests, Bustle calling it a "massive honor" and Orange County Register using it as a source alongside with the Centers for Disease Control. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Fashion model database is again, not the right name. Fashion Model Directory is described in our article about it, and is used by other reliable sources for numerical, statistical, and similarly database-style information on models: Los Angeles Times, Fashion Times, International Business Times, International Business Times, New Statesman, aktuálně.cz, Terra Moda (and other non-English sources). Also, of course, this scientific study. --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Ealdgyth, would you consider the sources again.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Tony - pinging me in multiple places isn't going to improve my ability to get to this any faster. (Nor is it going to make my mood any better when I do find the time). I've seen this - I will get to it when I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Apologies. Most of my free time is now Tues-Thurs. So I was hoping to be able to respond to any concerns you might have fairly promptly. If there are extensive further issues, I won't be able to respond until Tuesday now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Circus Juventas[edit]

Nominator(s): BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 23:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It's Circus Juventas, North America's largest youth circus school located in lovely Saint Paul, Minnesota! The circus itself is now 22 years old and the article has existed for 12 of those years; this has been a long-running project of mine (with previous GA and peer reviews already undertaken, in addition to a previous FA nomination that didn't see too much action). I'm more than happy to address any concerns about the page you have and work to clarify as much as I can. Thanks for taking a look! BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 23:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

Interesting topic. My first impression is that the balance of information is not quite right. There's to the dollar info about funding, but the word animal does not appear. Key info such as what acts are being taught and performed is missing or just touched upon. And is it just after school a few hours or is it an immersive full-on day school? Or both? The lead should make all of this clear. A final example: a bleachers accident is described before anything about performances. Is it possible to add more info about the school aspect (after-school, immersive, a bit about the curriculum)? And with some reordering of info it should be possible to get it to satisfy the FA criteria. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting commentary, Edwininlondon! Thanks! I can tell you right now that Circus Juventas isn't an animal circus so I didn't even think to include the negative in the article body but I certainly will if I can find a source to that effect. I think breaking the last paragraph of the History section off into a Programs section and expanding it with a list of acts performed (and more about the extracurricular atmosphere) will be the best way to deal with your concerns and I'll try to get to this within a few days. I'll see what I can do. Thanks again, BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 20:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Gendarmerie of Haiti[edit]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a collaborationist paramilitary police that existed in Haiti during the U.S. occupation in the early 20th century. It has recently been copyedited by the GoCE, has been promoted to GA status, is a former DYK article, is illustrated with three images, and has been rated as "high importance" by the Haiti WikiProject. LavaBaron (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Haitian_Gendarme.jpg: this was taken in 1920, but the current tag requires that it be published before 1923 - when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

These are now fixed, Nikkimaria. LavaBaron (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: it seems a bit thin on detail, and I can't tell if it is comprehensive. The "History of the Gendarmerie D'haiti" reference was written by "Anonymous". Likewise, there is no author listed for "Military In Haitian History". Are these reliable sources? Can you clarify what is meant by "legation"? Is there any reason why this reference is not used? Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• This just went up on the FAC Urgents list. I'll be happy to do a prose review after an effort has been made to address Praemonitus's comments. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Shahid Kapoor[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Having successfully written the FA-class biographies of 4 leading actresses of Hindi cinema, this is my first attempt to write about an actor. I believe, as with the previous articles, this one meets the FA-criteria. But of course, constructive comments from established editors will only help improve the article, and I expect plenty of those. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Early life

• Do we know the name of the Russian magazine?
• "He subsequently appeared in other television commercials," -examples?
• "He subsequently appeared in other television commercials, and also featured in music videos for several performers, including the band Aryans and the singer Kumar Sanu.[10] Kapoor also" -rep of "also"

♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Early work

• "Writing for The Hindu, the critic Ziya Us Salam did not find him to be "hero material", writing" -rep of "writing"
• You've linked sleeper hit but didn't in the lede. I'd link in lede too.
• "Patcy N of Rediff.com praised his dancing skills but was wary of his imitation of Shah Rukh Khan's acting style: "He does it well in some scenes, overdoes it in others."" -the explanation and quote is a little redundant
• "In a review for the former, Namrata Joshi of Outlook termed Kapoor "colourless" and criticised his pairing with Rimi Sen" -means little if you don't explain what role/s he played and what the films were about

Breakthrough

• "a whodunit " -a bit informal isn't it?
• " Kapoor played one of the seven suspects in the murder of an heiress, and in the Priyadarshan-directed Chup Chup Ke, he played " -rep of "played"
• "He also worked on creating a different physique for the two brothers, a process that took him a year to accomplish." -a bit vague, I gather one buff, the other a skinny weed? Some elaboration on weight loss/gain and the physiques might help.

2013

• "Kapoor suffered an accident during the filming of R... Rajkumar when a chemical spilled on his back and hands leading to burn injuries" - how does one "spill a chemical on back and hands"? Could use a better explanation

Personal life

• "Kapoor practices vegetarianism, and credits the author Brian Hines' book Life is Fair for influencing this lifestyle choice.[95][96] He supports the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals organisation through advertisement campaigns.[97][98]" -this should be in a different paragraph, the last paragraph could use some splitting and a little revamping. There's a mish mash of material in there, unrelated content should be in a new paragraph

Overall it's a solid article, but I think the prose lacks a little flair. I know it's difficult for the contemporary Indian actors though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Dr. Blofeld. All your comments have been addressed. Yeah, with the lack of literature available on contemporary actors, it's an uphill task to write about them. I guess we just have to make do with what is available. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards support anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Blofeld! Let me know if I can improve it some more. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

U.S. Route 16 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 02:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about one of the more historical highways in Michigan, connecting its two largest cities until it was decommissioned as an active designation in the 1960s. In an earlier era, it was a footpath used by Native Americans before European settlement of the Great Lakes State, then it was a wagon trail called the Grand River Road. As is typical now for me, this is one of the best resources on the Internet available today on the history of US 16, and I feel it warrants nomination for FA status. Imzadi 1979 → 02:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that I intend to take a look at this one. I'm leaning support since I reviewed it at the ACR, but there have been some changes since then, so I want to do my due diligence. --Rschen7754 07:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that source 28 isn't a SPS - could you elaborate? Otherwise, I didn't find any issues. --Rschen7754 18:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Rschen7754: I had tracked down Forsyth's source, so I can switch it out with a manuscript published by the East Lansing Public Library in 1933, eliminating that web-based source. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Support issue resolved. --Rschen7754 03:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I supported this article at ACR. I have looked over the changes that have been made since then and feel this article meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 02:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Beautiful article. Well researched and scrupulously documented An important part of highway and Michigan history. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the model WP article LavaBaron (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Support (having stumbled here from my FAC.

• Is Carferry really a term? Seems like that might need a link. You use it three times without explanation (although it's pretty obvious what it is).
• "With the coming of the Interstate Highway System, US 16 was shifted from the older roads to the newer freeways. " - was US 16 shifted because of the expected arrival of the interstate? Or was it because of the development of the interstate?
• You probably can't affect this, but could you put Grand Rapids in the map in the infobox?
• "The freeway was then designated Interstate 96 (I-96) east of Grand Rapids or I-196 west of that city." - why or and not and?
• was an Indian trail. This trail - given the redundancy here, could you merge the sentences? It makes for better flow.
• These two highways ran concurrently out of town to the south through Muskegon Heights to Norton Shores. Here - Is "here" appropriate for a wiki article? No one is actually "here" (unless they're reading the article at that intersection), so shouldn't it be "there"? Very semantic/pedantic, but I feel it's worth asking. Ditto later with "From here east".
• "The freeway intersected the contemporaneous routing of US 131 along the East Beltline and curved south through the eastern edge of Grand Rapids to meet the then-current end of I-96 east of downtown." - it's a bit confusing. I don't think you need to be so careful about the wording here. It's clear that US 16 was decommissioned, but the freeway still exists, right? In that case, I think you can get rid of "contemporaneous" and "then-current".
• "which carried US 16 east all the way to Downtown Detroit" - I think "continuously" would work better than "all the way"
• "Grand River Avenue ends at Cascade Road, but the historic routing carried it through Ada and Plainfield Township along the Grand River." - I don't think you should mention the historic route here. It just confused me as I was trying to follow the description. And you wouldn't need as much info here (which is detailed enough as it is).
• "Near Farmington, I-96 left what is now its current routing and continued to the southeast of the present-day I-96/I-275/I-696/M-5 interchange along the current M-5. Grand River Avenue through here was Business Loop I-96 (BL I-96)." - a little time travel wonkiness
• Is there an article for "Indian trail"? You mention it several times, but you never describe it. Was it an official designation? Was it just a nickname for a series of roads? Does the term "trail" mean something specific here? Like, I know there was the Oregon Trail that was a [[Westward Expansion Trails], as a wagon network, but what is it here?
• "Detroit created 120-foot (37 m) rights-of-way for the principal streets of the city, Grand River Avenue included, in 1805." - weird sentence structure here. I'd put "in 1805" first
• "and drivers charged between four and seven cents a mile (equivalent to $0.82–1.44/mi in 2013[19])" - 2016? Ditto - "with an appropriation of $25,000 (equivalent to $14.7 million in 2013[21])"

All in all it looks very good, just some minor comments here. I'll be happy to support with these fairly minor changes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: sorry for the delay in replying. All of the above copy edits have been applied. Regarding a few of your comments:

• Oddly, "car ferry" itself is a disambiguation page that says the North American usage applies only to train ferries, and points to Roll-on/roll-off for the automotive use case. The ferries on the Great Lakes did start out carrying train cars and branched out to automobiles. Later, they dropped train service.
• @Fredddie: about the map, unless I get around to playing with it myself. (It's an SVG, so it's highly editable.)
• Since US 131 followed a different routing through Grand Rapids at the time, I left in "contemporaneous" in that sentence.
• Sadly, we don't have an article on Indian trails, which were the footpaths used by the natives before Europeans arrived. I applied a few edits to hopefully clarify that.
• The inflation values are given to 2013 for a specific reason. The tolls are adjusted using the Consumer Price Index, which has a dataset up through 2015, but capital appropriations are adjusted using the Nominal Gross Domestic Product per capita index. The NGDPPC values use a data set only current through 2013 because that index takes longer to calculate for each year. (I traditionally remember to update the dataset on April 15, Tax Day, each year.) I set both template calls to adjust to the same year for consistency, and once the NGDPPC data is updated, both update in the article to 2014 values.

Imzadi 1979 → 13:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me amend that last point slightly, the dataset can be updated this year to 2015 NGDPPC values soon. The government released figures on February 26, 2016, and will update them on March 25, 2016. That means the way that I coded the inflation templates, they'll both jump to 2015 when I remember to check the website again. Imzadi 1979 → 13:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick replies, happy to support now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - source and image review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Isidor Isaac Rabi[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the Nobel Prize winning physicist who pioneered nuclear magnetic resonance, which is used in magnetic resonance imaging. What more do you want, mermaids? Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• "the magnetic moment of several lithium isotopes with molecular beams, including LiCl, LiF and dilithium": Did you mean "compounds"? Or are you saying those compounds had different isotopes?

  Compounds. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for that once again. I had no idea that "artefact" was spelt "artifact" in America. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  Sure thing. Yeah, I'm always looking for common spellings when I can find them, but there isn't a lot of wiggle room (yet) with "artifact". - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Portrait_of_Albert_Einstein,_Niels_Bohr,_James_Franck_and_Rabi.jpg: "persistent URL" is dead, and is a more specific licensing tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  Not sure. I have removed this image from the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

Good to see a science bio here. I gave it a quick scan.

• "a solution whose magnetic susceptibility could be varied that was between two magnetic poles." Doesn't flow.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "$1,500 ($20,434 in 2016 dollars)" conversion needs a reference

  It's from {{inflation}} so added {{Inflation-fn|US}} Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Rudolf Peierls and Hans Bethe were also working with Sommerfeld at the time, but the three Americans became especially close" works better if the nationalities of Peierls and Bethe are given as well

  Added that they were German (at the time) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "was born in September" - which year?

  24 September 1929. Added year. I could give the exact date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Rabi had discussions with Groves" - Groves needs a bit of context. Plus first name.

  Added. Odd that we got this far without mentioning him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• 27a: could not find 1937 (a) on that page, or 1959 (b) but did see them both on http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1944/rabi-bio.html
• 29 ok
• 53 ok
• 57 not ok: redirected to home page
• 59 not fully ok: could not find anything about 'Special Lecturer'
• 69 ok
• 70 ok
• 75 ok

A few things in the infobox do not appear in body and remain unsourced:

• Martin L. Perl
• Elliott Cresson Medal (1942)
• Barnard Medal (1960)

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed fn 27 as suggested. Fn 57 suffered from Link rot, so restored from backup via the Wayback machine. Deleted "special lecturer" from fn 59.
• Added information about Martin L. Perl and the Elliott Cresson and Barnard Medals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Great article. Gets my support. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comments taking a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In 1923 he met Helen Newmark, a summer-semester student at Hunter College. They began courting, and in order to be near her when she returned home, Rabi continued his studies at Columbia University, where his supervisor was Albert Wills. - the bolded bit is a bit clumsy as I had to read it a few times to 'get' the grammar - I'd change to, " In 1923 he met and began courting Helen Newmark, a summer-semester student at Hunter College. To be near her when she returned home, Rabi continued his studies at Columbia University, where his supervisor was Albert Wills." - or somesuch.

The crystals then had to be carefully prepared by skillfully cutting them into sections - Two adverbs redundant here - I'd change to, "The crystals then had to be prepared by carefully cutting them into sections"

Might wanna double check and tweak where symmetric top links to....

need to link moment.

Ok, a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose, though I am not familiar with the person or body of work, and physics does my head in :P This will be dependent on a good source review. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

On examining the cavity magnetron, Rabi pronounced that it was a simple design, that worked "just like a whistle". "Okay, Rabi," Edward Condon asked, "how does a whistle work?" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Knight Lore[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 17:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The story of Knight Lore's legacy is one of anecdote after vivid anecdote of what it was like to experience the game for the first time. Retro Gamer described many future developers' first experiences with Knight Lore as "unforgettable", on par with playing Space Harrier (1985), Wolfenstein 3D (1992), and Super Mario 64 (1996) for the first time (if that helps with perspective, as it did for me). Knight Lore is a real curio for those unfamiliar with its impact—its (now old in video game terms) release was more or less confined to the ZX Spectrum console community in the UK—but the game's footprint remains indelible. Knight Lore popularized isomorphic 3D graphics, which eventually made their way abroad, and changed the face of the Speccy, though one could argue that its developer was doing that already. It is sufficient to say that Knight Lore changed many lives, future developers and regular consumers alike. Indeed, the developers later stated that they predicted this and held the game's release back for many months in anticipation of how its release would affect the market—which is itself a wild declaration.

This nomination is part of the Rare WikiProject's Rare Replay series, improving the articles for the 31 titles included in Rare's 2015 retrospective compilation. I rewrote Knight Lore from scratch using the best sources available on the subject, with special emphasis on the retrospective secondary sources. It went through a rigorous good article nomination (@Ritchie333) and peer review (@J Milburn) and I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria. (If you have thoughts on the Pac-Man masking illustration, please first see the bottom of the peer review and note that I would be totally open to a replacement if one were commissioned, though it should be okay as is.) My work on this article is dedicated to Domhnall O'Huigin, whose friendship introduced me to the Speccy during my active years at Quora (predating my time at Wikipedia). I think he would find this series of well-written ZX Spectrum articles to be a worthy memorial as they too attempt to do justice to great, unknown topics without losing their author's mien. czar 17:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I think there is a need for some care in the legacy section of this article. No one can doubt the technical excellence of Knight Lore and the impact it had in cementing the reputation of the Stamper Brothers, but outside of Europe, it had no impact at all. Certainly it led to a brisk local trade in isometric arcade adventures, but it did not popularize isometric gaming anywhere else. Zaxxon, Diablo, Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Crusader: No Remorse, these are the games that popularized the isometric view worldwide, and none of their creators would have ever played Knight Lore. Syndicate, Populous, and X-COM played a role too, and their creators may well have been influenced by Knight Lore and its ilk, but that leaves it with an indirect worldwide influence only. Until just this past decade, the United States and Japan were the two largest video game markets in the world, and it's safe to say Knight Lore did not directly influence either one. Does not make the game any less impressive nor does it detract from the game's regional influence, but the article as it stands does not properly qualify these achievements. Indrian (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Indrian, what parts do you find unproportional? I thought the Legacy was exceptionally metered—I qualified the sources as British whenever it was particularly relevant and I have yet to find a source that qualified its influence as strictly limited to the UK. The sources say that games like Diablo are descendants but they don't claim a direct link the same way modern games don't claim direct links to their predecessors. czar 07:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It's influence is largely limited to Europe because no one outside of Europe played ZX Spectrum games. All the sources discussing its impact are British, so they are biased towards that perspective: they don't qualify their statements because they are speaking to a British audience. Retro Gamer is a fun source with good interviews, but it's not scholarly; it's written for (primarily British) enthusiasts of old games. The lack of coverage in U.S.-centric sources tells the tale of its complete lack of impact anywhere else (not a knock on the game, just the facts of 1980s market conditions).

The legacy section is mostly fine and all well-written; there are only two small problems really. First, the Gillen quote about Elite and Knight Lore should be qualified as coming from a UK market perspective, which is actually how he qualifies himself in the original source ("In terms of the Brit industry in the 1980s"). It's only common sense that he is referring only to British game icons, as no knowledgeable person would put both of those games ahead of Super Mario Bros. as a 1980s icon (just look at how many greatest games of all time lists Mario tops). Second, the statement about how Knight Lore popularized the isometric view has to be qualified as Europe only. It's possible that Knight Lore indirectly influenced late 1990s isometric games in the US since several isometric games from the UK came across the pond in the early 1990s (Diablo, for example, adopted an isometric view due to the influence of British-made X-COM). It did not, however, popularize the isometric viewpoint anywhere but Europe because no one played it outside of Europe. For the same reason, Filmation was not at the center of anything outside Europe. If Europe were the largest market at the time, a qualifier might not be necessary, but the U.S. and Japan were both larger. Implying global popularity for a local phenomenon distorts the accuracy of the article. Indrian (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Indrian, I added some qualifiers to the Legacy section—do you think that does the trick, or do you recommend other sources? I was already using a piece from USgamer (American website) that read, "Knight Lore inspired console action-adventure games such as Solstice, Equinox, and the Landstalker series, but it resonated most with microcomputer fans, and inspired a flood of clones, cementing isometric viewpoint as a computer game staple." (note no British qualifier). Still, I revised the Legacy section to be incontrovertibly conservative on its extra-British influence, if you'll take a look. (I think we'll need sources if we're going to argue with Retro Gamer—a trusted source—that Ultimate and Filmation were not at the center/centre of the isometric graphics style.) It would be great to get a review of the rest of the article too, if you have a chance czar 19:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Czar:I took the liberty of making one other change of my own, and I am now basically satisfied. I am still slightly uncomfortable with the Retro Gamer statement that it popularized isometric graphics (I mean, it unquestionably did, of course, but only in Europe), but with your other changes, the reader can see that the early copycats were all British and that U.S. games did not adopt the approach until much later. That essentially solves my objection, so I think we can call it good. I will endeavor to undertake a full review in the near future, and I have no doubt that I will be able to throw my support behind the article before too long. Indrian (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - Retro Gamer usually have bylines embedded within the subhead, so you may have missed them. Rare Gamer looks like an unprofessional fansite, the line that it's quoting isn't that important to the game, so consider removing it. - hahnchen 09:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hahnchen, I don't recall there being any—I can send scans if you'd like. I removed the Rare Gamer interview. czar 19:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I've got Retro Gamer 73, the author of the article referenced is Stuart Hunt, he's named in the subhead. - hahnchen 19:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hahnchen, nice catch—I didn't make the connection that the unfamiliar name was the writer. Another RG feature had the author in the subhead too. Fixed. Have time for a full review? czar 00:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I've just seen, while reviewing Hetty Reckless, that {{sfn}} supports italics; this means that for consistency's sake and for MOS reasons you should probably italicise the magazine names in the footnotes. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn, I've never done this before, personally, but it looks like it's the right thing to do, so done ✓ czar 19:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

I'm going to have an initial read-through now. I'll list some minor points first:

• The opening sentence "Knight Lore is a 1984 action-adventure game by Ultimate Play the Game known for popularising isometric graphics in video games" - I don't know if I'm prying too deep, but the latter half sounds like a run-on. How about Knight Lore is a 1984 action-adventure game by developed and published by Ultimate Play the Game, who were known for popularising isometric graphics in video games or rework that to something similar. I just go with the norm
• "It was written by company founders Chris and Tim Stamper in their Sabreman series" - the use of "in their" sounds abrupt here. How about It was written by company founders Chris and Tim Stamper and is the third game (or instalment) in the Sabreman series, although it was the first completed.. Also, 'Sabreman' needs to be italicised
• "Each castle room is depicted in monochrome" - link monochrome
• "could overlap other images without visual collision" - would it be right linking attribute clash here?
• "Knight Lore was released third in the Sabreman series despite being the first completed" - I think this sentence needs to be moved to the first paragraph, where I suggested that you rephrase "It was written by company founders Chris and Tim Stamper and is the third game...".
• "Ultimate released Knight Lore shortly after its first two Sabreman titles in November 1984" - needs italics
• "The game was later included in compilations including Rare's 2015 Xbox One retrospective compilation, Rare Replay" - I notice a plural here. Were there any other compilations? Could be worth mentioning They Sold a Million II here
• Make sure that all instances of "Spectrum" have the full name "ZX Spectrum", for consistency. For example there's a "has been included in multiple lists of top Spectrum games" in the lead, without the ZX prefix
• "They praised the game's controls and atmosphere of mystery" - mysterious atmosphere should be fine
• "and criticized its sound" - criticised (if you want to stay consistent)
• "And when the isometric, flick-screen style fell out of fashion" - this sounds informal. I'm not too keen on starting a sentence with an "and"
• "The game's only directions are given through a poem included with the game's cassette tape" - I couldn't find anything about directions in a poem in the given CVG source
• "The player often needs to move bricks to reach objects out of reach" - bricks or stone blocks?
• "the player must return 14 objects in a specific order from throughout the castle to a cauldron room in its centre staffed by the wizard Melkhior" - the cauldron room is in the centre of the castle? Also, a tweak is needed: the castle to a cauldron room in its centre, which is staffed by the wizard Melkhior
• "The game does not support leaderboards" - the Rare Replay version does ;-D

• I used the online transcript for checking. It's referred to as "Hall of Fame", so you could mention that it was cut due to lack of space, which is interesting

• "single-screen rooms ("flip-screen")" - the lead states "flick-screen"
• "Ultimate Play the Game, represented by its co-founding Stamper brothers" - I think it's best to introduce them as Chris and Tim Stamper
• If you want to get comprehensive, a brief background on Ultimate Play The Game would do nicely in the development section. I remember I put in a 'template' in Underwurlde which you can use, like a sentence or two should do it
• "While Knight Lore was released as the third game in the Sabreman series" - italics needed
• "they thought that Knight Lore's advancements—copyrighted as the Filmation engine" - link Filmation
• "would hurt sales of their upcoming Sabre Wulf" - wikilink the game
• "The Stampers used the extra time to prepare another Filmation game (Alien 8) so as to preempt the publishers that would rush to copy the technique" - I don't get this part, Ultimate Play The Game published it? Or is this referring to different publishers? Competitors who wanted to copy their engine?
• "Sabre Wulf released to commercial and critical success in 1984" - which month?
• The development section contains a fair amount of release info, so it seems fitting to rename the section to "Development and release"
• "Ultimate asked Shahid Ahmad, who developed the Knight Lore-inspired Chimera (1985), to write the Commodore 64 port" - I didn't know it was ported for the Commodore 64. This isn't mentioned anywhere else; lead or infobox
• "In 1986, the Famicom Disk System release of Knight Lore bore little resemblance to its namesake" - can this be more specific?
• "and the 2015 Xbox One compilation of 30 Ultimate and Rare titles Rare Replay" - comma needed between "titles" and "Rare"
• "Computer game magazines lauded Knight Lore" - sounds a bit odd. How about The game received positive reviews (or critical acclaim) from critics/reviewers/magazines/publications upon release
• "British magazine Retro Gamer described players' first impressions of Knight Lore" - no need
• "but Retro Gamer said that its gameplay was comparatively dull" - however
• "customizing each port for the processing limitations of its platform" - customising

That's all for now. I haven't gone through the sources yet, but when I do I'll post back some more comments. I feel that the gameplay section could be expanded somewhat, as it doesn't mention what type of enemies there are, what functions the items serve etc. I'll do some more checking when I get the time. I'm sorry if I went too deep, I'll offer whatever I can as this is a subject I have an interest in. JAGUAR  22:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar, nice, thanks! I think I've addressed everything, if you'll take a look. To my best recollection, I don't remember the sources calling special attention to the type of enemies, but if you find parts you think need mention, we can discuss. I didn't italicize "Sabreman series" because I see it the series as about the character Sabreman (unitalicized as a name) and not the series of games by the italicized title Sabreman. I don't like the "despite being the first completed" construction in the first paragraph because I think it warrants more explanation (and thus fits better in the dev ¶). This lede already had a lot of (I think worthy) stuff trimmed out, so the non-independently notable second compilation didn't make the cut. Flip- and flick-screen are the same—I liked it the way it was, but unified it anyway. The CVG poem is in the bottom left of the page: "... your clue comes in the form of a poem printed on the cassette inlay ..." Spectrum and ZX Spectrum are used interchangeably in the sources, so I think it's fine to use the former when I've already established the latter once in the section. I wasn't sure on what authority Crash knew the leaderboard was cut for a lack of space so I thought it was best to exclude that detail. I also thought it was fine for the Stampers to not have names—I prefer not to give the extra detail when it isn't something the reader needs to remember. For the lede, it's fine (to give accurate credit) but the dev paragraph doesn't refer to them as individuals. No month listed for Sabre Wulf—let me know if you find it, but I remember the sources being imprecise. "Development" sufficiently covered the ¶, I think. "Release" is self-contained within the "Development" process. There is quite literally no coverage of the Famicom port, so nothing I can add that wouldn't be original research. It was mentioned in a single Retro Gamer caption with a screenshot—it just visually looked little like Knight Lore. I took most of the suggestions but the ones I didn't I thought were fine as is. I set up Retro Gamer as a "British magazine" to qualify the comments by Indrian above. czar 16:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Google Scholar is throwing up some extra snippets.[28][29][30]

The full search is here, but I'm not sure if that BritSoft book would have anything. The article is comprehensive enough as it is. Thanks for clarifying the above, I'll start doing a source check. JAGUAR  23:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I had seen 1001 and some of the others but I didn't think they added anything that wasn't already covered better elsewhere. Appreciate the searching czar 00:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar, is there anything else that you think needs to be addressed? David did a source check so should be okay in that regard czar 15:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that everything has been addressed, so I'll lend my support. JAGUAR  18:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

Some openers:

• File:Sprite rendering by binary image mask.png—do we have any indication that the graphics of Pacman presented are actually from a copyright-free version of the game? No information is presented on such matters.
• Refs look good; I am unable to access many of the sources, but from a spot-check of current refs 3, 18, 24, and 26 I saw no issues.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, the image was discussed at the bottom of File:Sprite rendering by binary image mask.png. I had contacted the author earlier but hadn't heard back. Seems that no one feels strongly about it. I'd prefer a fresh image, but my req went unanswered in the illustration lab. Would you want to take a go? (Also I'd be happy to provide any scans you need for verification.) czar 16:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you could chuck me a few I'd appreciate it, just so I can do a more thorough look. And I'll see about fulfilling the image request. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs—sent the Retro Gamer articles. The rest are linked and openly accessible. Let me know what you think? czar 20:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Took a look through and cross-ref'd to the sources and didn't see any referencing issues on a second spot-check, so I'm satisfied there are unlikely to be problems in that retrospect. I'll see about starting on making a replacement image for the sprite masking tonight. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs, how's it looking? czar 15:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp[edit]

Reception:

• "Crash called it the Spectrum's best game and said it was unlikely to be improved." Does this mean they thought it was likely to be surpassed in quality (by other games)? If so, I would not use "improved" in this way.
• "but nevertheless named Knight Lore the Amstrad's among of the best three games on the console": I think some extra words must have been left in during an edit. Moisejp (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy:

• "Ultimate's last two isometric games were poorly executed, but consumer interest in the genre endured." Consider rewriting to make the opinion sound more objective (e.g., "were widely considered to be poorly executed" or "were described as poorly executed by XXX source). Moisejp (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Sandy White of the pre-Knight Lore isometric game Ant Attack was impressed at Ultimate's in-game "balance" and gutsy design decisions." So White was a developer of Ant Attack? I'm not sure that "Sandy White OF Ant Attack" is the clearest way to express this.
• Here you have a nice list of titles that uses a clean parallel structure (i.e., dates in parentheses after each title): "Retro Gamer wrote that Knight Lore's influence persisted 30 years later through titles such as Populous (1989), Syndicate (1993), UFO: Enemy Unknown (1994), and Civilization II (1996)." It would be great to similarly use a parallel structure for this list: "Apart from Fairlight, Sweevo's World and Get Dexter, there was Jon Ritman's Knight Lore-inspired Batman (1986), 1987's Head over Heels, The Last Ninja, La Abadia del Crimen, the 1990 Cadaver and console games Solstice[17] and Landstalker (1992)." Moisejp (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Moisejp, rephrased. Appreciate the review! czar 05:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to finish off this review in the next few days if possible. More comments:

• I'm a native speaker of English and consider myself reasonably learned, but I found the overall difficulty level of the vocabulary in this article to be quite high. Some of the following words or terms I more or less understand but still think they could possibly be difficult for some people, and other words I only understand somewhat or less: seminal (used twice), harbinger, taciturn, crepuscular, nascent, sea change. I can tell from your writing that you are a very intelligent person, and I'm sure these are all everyday terms for you. But people reading the article may be of different education levels, and others won't necessarily be native speakers of English. I'm not asking you to "dumb down" the content, but I think if some of these terms were replaced with easier turns of phrases, it would increase the overall accessibility of the article. Moisejp (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Development:

• "Ultimate did not circulate screenshots of the game in its press materials or cover art." I imagine this was a marketing ploy of some kind, but does the source give information about the specific reason?
• "The Amstrad version upgraded the monochromatic colouring to a two-colour setup[6] while the MSX release was released through Jaleco." Is there any way to avoid "release" - "released" in such close proximity? Does "was distributed by Jaleco" work? Or "put out by Jaleco". Or "the MSX software/game was released"? Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• "In 1986, the Famicom Disk System Knight Lore release by Jaleco[16] bore little resemblance to its namesake." If the information is available, it could be interesting to know some of the ways the Famicom version was different. (By the way, as a whole, "bore little resemblance to its namesake" could also be a difficult-ish turn of phrase for some readers. I'm not saying I'm necessarily requesting you to change this one, I'm just saying combined with the other difficult phrases, it contributes to the overall relative difficulty of the article.) Moisejp (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception:

• (Minor comment) "Peter Sweasey of Home Computing Weekly was left speechless and predicted that Knight Lore would change the market." "Left speechless" is quite strong, and is a bit colloquial. The reader may wonder whether Carroll is quoting Sweasey, who said, "I was left speechless", or whether that was Carroll's possibly subjective interpretation, or possibly the Wikipedia article's author's interpretation. Probably the former scenario, I imagine, but you clarify this by saying something like "Martyn Carroll of Retro Gamer magazine quotes Home Computing Weekly's Peter Sweasey as having been left 'speechless'..." (or without the quotation marks if Carroll is paraphrasing Sweasey)—or something like that. Moisejp (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Legacy:

• "While Ultimate's last two isometric games were of lesser quality, consumer interest in the genre endured." Was that Carroll's opinion that they were of lesser quality? It could be worthwhile to clarify who says this. Moisejp (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that is all of my comments. Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Moisejp, thanks so much! I think I got it all, if you'll take a look. I went to see about those rough vocab sections (particularly "crepuscular") and... thought it might be best the way it is. I don't want this to be tough reading, but I also would think that the vocab isn't too much of a stretch past New York Times-level for the WP:FACR's "brilliant prose" quota. Open to other opinions on this, though: @Indrian, Hahnchen, J Milburn, Jaguar, and David Fuchs. There's no straightforward explanation for why the company was cryptic, though I think there are guesses, but either way I imagine that would be likely out of the scope of this article. The Sweasey quote is, "words fail me when trying to describe it", so I thought "speechless" would be an apt paraphrase. Re: lesser quality—it is a statement of fact rather than opinion. czar 01:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Czar, I don't really understand how you can say "lesser quality" is a fact rather than opinion. Couldn't there conceivably be some people out there who liked Ultimate's last two games best of all? Moisejp (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Insofar as all quality assessments are subjective, Ultimate did not spend the time/resources/polish on the last two games—the source isn't saying that they're better/worse from a reviewer's point of view. I would rephrase to be as explicit as I just was, but it isn't said like that in the source. czar 19:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Moisejp, thanks again for the review. Are there any outstanding points that keep you from supporting the nomination? czar 15:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm very close to supporting, just noting a few other little things in my re-read-through just now.
Reception:

• In the second paragraph, for the Crash review, you refer to "They... their reviewer... they". It struck me as odd, because on one hand this treats it as a collective review, but on the other it is attributed to a single reviewer.
• In the same paragraph, possibly consider reorganizing the points so that the two mentions of its particular difficulty (Crash's and Your Spectrum's) are together?
• In the fourth paragraph, if you switched the first and second sentences, possibly this would help the flow slightly in that it would be referring to Signor - Gillen - Gillen, instead of Gillen - Signor - Gillen? (I'm not totally sure either way—feel free to ignore this if you don't think so.)
• Do the first two sentences of the fourth paragraph belong in the first paragraph of the Legacy section? It's not clear to me what the distinction is between the praise in the "retrospective reviews" and the praise in the first paragraph of the Legacy section.
  

Legacy:

• Wiki-link Atari? For consistency with the other video game systems wiki-linked earlier in the article.
• "The developer of The Great Escape, another isometric game, considered Knight Lore... " Just confirming, the developer's name is not given in the source? Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Since David Fuchs has already done a check of the sources, these are all of my comments. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The Good Terrorist[edit]

Nominator(s): —Bruce1ee^talk 11:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is this article's second FAC, the first having only received an image review (thanks Nikkimaria).

This article is about Nobel Prize in Literature-winner Doris Lessing's 1985 political novel concerning a naïve woman who moves in with a group of radicals in London, and is drawn into their terrorist activities. Currently a GA, it has been peer reviewed and improved on since then. I believe it should be featured as it meets the FA criteria, but I'm open to any comments/suggestions. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Tbhotch

• "by Nobel Prize in Literature-winner Doris Lessing" -> "by Doris Lessing". Adding awards to qualify people is not OK.
  • Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Lessing was inspired to write the book" -> "Lessing was inspired to write The Good Terrorist".
  • Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "by the 1983 Harrods bombing in London by the IRA" -> Needs a re-write. Also "IRA" -> "Irish Republican Army (IRA)"
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Several commentators have labelled The Good Terrorist a satire" -> "Several commentators have labelled The Good Terrorist as a satire"
  • Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Several commentators", "One critic", "Some critics", *"Some reviewers", etc. -> ^[who?]
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "The Good Terrorist divided critics." -> Too short. Also, ^{[by whom?]}
  • Combined and reworded sentences. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• "and described the characters as too "trivial or..." -> when you don't quote the "too" to describe something, you are the one that's adding a point of view.
  • Removed POV "too" and reworded, in lead and the Reception section. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not going to continue with it (for now). I suggest copy-editing it first, and once it has been CEd you can contact me. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments. I've attended to your suggestions above – I'll give the rest of the article another look over tomorrow. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tbhotch: I've done a little more copyediting, so when you get a chance, I'd appreciate another look at it. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Ok, I'll continue these days. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary

• "The Good Terrorist is written in the third person from the point of view of Alice" -> shouldn't it be "The Good Terrorist is written in third person from the point of view of Alice" or "The Good Terrorist is written in the third person point of view of Alice"?
  • Fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• The paragraph "The abandoned house..." is too short.
  • I tacked the 1st sentence of the next paragraph onto the end of this one – it also deals with Alice and the house. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "she can't" -> " she cannot
  • Fixed – don't know how I missed that one. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Background

• "By 1964 Lessing" -> By 1964, Lessing
  • Fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "[T]he media reported..." -> who said the quote.
  • Fixed (it was Lessing). —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "She said she also knew who Alice's "boyfriend", Jasper, would be" -> Reword it
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Genre

• The Good Terrorist has been labelled a "political novel" -> by... whom
  • Expanded a bit. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• "William H. Pritchard took a harder line and questioned Alison Lurie's decision" -> Why don't you expand further Lurie's decision. Also, "harder line" sounds like a POV.
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• The Secret Agent -> The Secret Agent (1907)
  • Added year. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "alluding to Carroll's Alice" -> Link Alice
  • Linked. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Virginia Scott called..." paragraph is too short.
  • Expanded. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Themes

• "The American novelist Judith Freeman" is too short.
  • Expanded. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Critical analysis

• "Several critics have called the novel's title an oxymoron." -> "Several critics have called The Good Terrorist's title an oxymoron."
  • Done. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Honours and awards

• Too short, I suggest a merge with reception.
  • Merged with Reception section. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Following Lessing's death in 2013," is also short.
  • Merged with previous section. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Publication history

• I don't know if the table is required
  • Removed. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

General

• "Harrods department store, the 1983 bombing of which inspired Lessing to write The Good Terrorist" needs a better caption
  • Reworded. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've started working through them, but I'll continue tomorrow. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Almost done – I'll finish it later. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I've dealt with all your comments/suggestions, so, once again, when you get a chance, I'd appreciate another look at it. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry, pinging me is unavailable. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the Support, and for all your help and suggestions. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Nights into Dreams...[edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Nights into Dreams... was at the time widely considered as one of the greatest video games of all time, as well as the de facto best Sega Saturn game (and judging from its not so competitve library, critics are inclined to agree). I worked very hard throughout November and December to bring this to GA, and I managed to achieve that before the new year. I believe that this complies per the FA criteria, and I think that it's ready to face a FAC. I made use of some print sources in this article since it is a 1996 game, so there are a few harvrefs in there. Online sources were quite hard to find, but I think it's comprehensive enough. JAGUAR  23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The development section is not comprehensive, so the article is not quite FA material yet. This article at Shmuplations should help rectify the situation. Indrian (talk) 07:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll start implementing that today. I wondered why it didn't appear in this VG:RS search engine, as I would have definitely used it. JAGUAR  14:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Hahnchen[edit]

• Oppose - Also unconvinced by its comprehensiveness. Not all comments below are oppose worthy.
  • No Japanese reception. This is important, Japan was by far the largest market for the Saturn.
  • There's a fairly extensive "Making Of..." article in Retro Gamer, which you can email me for, while it covers similar ground to the references already used, but there may be something you missed.
  • The Hobby Consolas reference is a copyvio. Hobby Consolas itself is a valid source, if you need to link it to a version, see if you can find it at the Internet Archive.
    • I found the actual scan and replaced the url in the ref with it. Trouble is that it's in Spanish. If future reviewers want to do checking then I'll give out the copyvio English link. JAGUAR  16:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Same for Mean Machines.
    • Done. I'll make a harvref out of this later. JAGUAR  16:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Incomplete sales data - merely one mention in a table of questionable reliability. It's also confusing as to whether Nights was the "top-selling game for the Sega Saturn" worldwide or just Japan. The source strongly suggests the latter but could be misread.

• In Japan; the sentence originally stated it was in Japan at the end, but I've rephrased it to "In Japan, Nights into Dreams was the best-selling game for the Sega Saturn and the 21st highest-selling game during 1996" for clarity. JAGUAR  19:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• • Unreferenced release dates for the original game, and no information on its release, such as the $10M advertising campaign in the US.[31]
  • Coming Soon has no relation to Crave Online, it is not the same as http://comingsoon.net I'm unconvinced it's a reliable source. There are better sources available such as Next Generation and GameFan.
  • "A reviewer of publication...", suggests that someone is reviewing the publication, not the game. The Game Revolution reviewer is Colin Ferris; for Mean Machines, it is Gus and Dan. Edge doesn't do bylines for its reviews, it's a collective, so just state Edge.
    • Fixed. I can't use "Gus and Dan" as I can't find their surnames, so I think it's best to collectively refer that review to its publication for now JAGUAR  16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Consider your quotes. Single word quotes are frequently read as ironic, you don't even need quote marks for single words.
    • Cut down on most JAGUAR  16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
    • hahnchen 11:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comments Hahnchen, I've emailed you and asked for the article, that would be great if I could get that. I've been busy in RL lately, so I should start addressing these in a day or two. I agree with you regarding the Japanese section, but my only concern is that the only Japanese reviews of the game are going to be scans, and I'll have no way of translating them. That is, if I can locate such Japanese reviews. I'm writing up a sandbox draft of the development section from the Shmuplations source at the moment. I'll go over this properly tomorrow. I might be able to sort out the development section when this FAC is still active. JAGUAR  20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hahnchen: I've come back to this review with a fresh mind, what do you think of the development section now? I've expanded it using both the Retro Gamer source you sent me and the Shmuplations interview. I'll take another look at the $10M advertising campaign tomorrow, but for now the minor stuff seem to be addressed. JAGUAR  19:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from EditorE[edit]

• Very weak oppose for now. The article is well-written and interesting to read, but there's some major elements about the game, mainly information and opinions in Japanese reviews and articles, not included in the article that's keeping it from FA status. However, that may be due to the fact that reviews only in Japanese print magazines are hard as hell to find or cite properly, so I'd say give the nominator a few more days to look for sources and improve it so I may or may not reconsider my final opinion. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'll do a serious search tomorrow, but from what I've found since November haven't been promising. Japanese scans from 1996 are indeed hard as hell to find, and impossible to read if you don't understand the language. But I do acknowledge that more Japanese reviews are needed for this, although I'm worried because I don't know where to start, and how to translate if I ever find them. JAGUAR  20:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hate to disappoint, but the only Japanese scans I found were, well, scans which couldn't be translated! Even then, they looked like snippets which couldn't compete with any English sources. JAGUAR  20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain[edit]

As I've come to expect from Jaguar, this is a well-written and interesting article. I've noticed a few things, and I'll try to be as nit-picky as possible:

Gameplay

• I feel as though the Gameplay section should begin with "Nights into Dreams... is split...", instead of "The game is split...". This is a minor thing, but it makes sense to re-introduce the name of the game outside the lead.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• What is an "Ideya"? Some clarification would be nice here.

• I tried to clarify. This is a fantasy, after all. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "awaken" might work better than "wake up" (second paragraph), although I'm apathetic.

• Good catch, added. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• What/Who is "Nights"?

• Elaborated; I guess this is what happens when you put the gameplay section before plot... JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I find it strange that the ranking system ("between A and F") is introduced three paragraphs after "a "C" grade" is mentioned. I personally would have grouped the information together, to avoid any confusion, but this is pretty minor. Only change if you agree; I don't mind otherwise.

• I completely agree. Done some moving. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Since "A-Life" is one paragraph, I recommend removing the header (perhaps {{anchor}} instead?) and merging it with the rest of Gameplay. Just a personal preference, though.

• I initially thought it would have significance for its own section, but I know you're right, so I merged it. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• I see that "Ideya" and "Nights" are clarified in this section. Perhaps it would be better to move Plot above Gameplay, to avoid this confusion.

• I've elaborated both in the gameplay section, so this way of organisation should be fine. I'm not too keen on forcing the reader to read an extensive plot section before gameplay, but that could just be me. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Development

• Might be worth mentioning when Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was released.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Link Takashi Iizuka.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "due to there being no other games to use for reference" is a little awkward. Perhaps something like "due to the lack of games to use as reference" would fit better.

• Thanks, changed! JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to clarify what Christmas Nights is, since it hasn't yet been used outside the lead. Otherwise, the information about the game could be moved to the appropriate section instead.

• Good point, I've mentioned that it was merely an add-on here. I would try to keep the Christmas Nights section intact if possible. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ports

• Christmas Nights still hasn't been properly introduced yet. Perhaps this is just a minor thing, since it seems to be personal preference.

• I've elaborated it as an add-on in development, so I think that should be enough to let the new reader know what it is before they move to the Christmas Nights section. I'm trying to put myself in the position of a new reader, but I if need be I could move the "Ports" section after "Related games". JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Related games

• "due to the their dreams"—"the" seems to be a typo.

• Fixed. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "according to what hour it is" (third paragraph) also feels slightly awkward. Perhaps "according to the hour".

• Thanks, much better! JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Sonic may only go through the stage"—perhaps something like "Sonic may only play through the stage" would work better.

• Rephrased. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "defeat the boss - an inflatable Dr. Robotnik"—the hyphen should either be changed to a colon, a comma, or ndash.

• Agreed, changed to a colon. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's no need to link Takashi Iizuka again, nor restate his role, since this is already established in the Development section.

• My bad. Fixed. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Similarly, Iizuka only needs to be referred to by his surname in the last paragraph.

• Fixed. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Reception

• "while comparing its smooth animation as fluid as water" (third paragraph) is confusing to me. Perhaps this should be a quote, but I think some rewording here would certainly be beneficial.

• It was originally a quote, but I lost the quotation marks when I was advised to do. I've re-added the quotes back, so it makes sense. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Coming Soon" should be changed to "Coming Soon Magazine" to fit with the table (or vice versa).

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I recommend restating that Buchanan is writing for IGN; I got momentarily lost when I was reading it. I'm sure an extra word or two wouldn't hurt.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Same goes for Claude, of Coming Soon Magazine.

• Done. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• There's some inconsistencies here, but overall it's much better than what I've seen in the past.
• Some of the websites seem to have their publishers listed (e.g. "1UP. IGN", and "Gamasutra. UBM Tech"). This is perfectly fine, but then I see other references that don't use it, like IGN (which would be Ziff Davis) and Eurogamer (Gamer Network). Is there a specific reason for this?

• I think that's a bad habit of mine. I've moved IGN to the website parameter and added Ziff Davies as the publisher (I did the same thing for Jumping Flash!). I done the same thing with Eurogamer's refs. If there's anything I missed please let me know... JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Interesting that the websites and publishers haven't been linked. There's nothing wrong with it, but if seeking consistency, Sega should not be linked in refs 32—34, and Future plc should not be linked in the Bibliography.

• Done and fixed all.

This is all I could see right now, and most of them are fairly minor. Once these are fixed, this article will be one step closer to reaching FA. – Rhain ☔ 11:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Rhain! I've tried to address all of your comments, they've been very helpful. Sorry for the delay in getting to this, unfortunately my internet has been down for a few days so this was the earliest chance I could get to doing this. I've still got to find some Japanese reviews, but that's going to be an issue in itself! JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. A few more things:

• Since the third paragraph of the Sequel section is only one paragraph, it might be worth merging with the first paragraph. If you believe otherwise, I'm happy the way it is.

• Do you mean merging the two larger paragraphs into one? Or merging the one sentence third paragraph into the first? JAGUAR  18:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's still some issues with referencing, particularly with consistency. I see that IGN is linked upon every usage, but its publisher (Ziff Davis) is not. The same goes for the other references; for example, Eurogamer could be linked in ref #7, Gamasutra and UBM Tech in ref #8, GamesRadar in ref #10, and so on. There are also a lot of publishers missing, such as Future plc in ref #10 and #16, Ziff Davis is #46, Enterbrain in ref #47. I wouldn't have an issue if all web publishers were removed and only the website names were used, but it needs to be consistent either way.

• Thanks for spotting these. I think I've covered all of them now. JAGUAR  18:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

While I'm here, I might as well do an image review:

• File:NightsIntoDreamsBox.jpg is cover art with good rationale. That's good.
• File:NiGHTs into Dreams, Saturn version, Spring Valley.jpg is a game screenshot with decent rationale; it could definitely be improved. It's a little confusing to actually work out what's going on in the picture, but I suppose that's just 1996 graphics. Also, the image should be re-sized, as it is currently too large.
• File:Sega-Saturn-3D-Controller.jpg is a free image, with a proper rationale and relevant caption.
• File:Christmas Nights gameplay.jpg is a game screenshot with a proper rationale, and a caption that justifies its usage in the article. Personally, I prefer to omit captions such as "An image of..." and just cut to the chase, but that's not a problem here.

That's it for now. The article is looking good. – Rhain ☔ 00:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant the latter; merging the third paragraph into the first cleans up the one-sentence-paragraph issue, and it still flows quite well as it's all discussing a potential sequel. Up to you though. As for the references: they were looking pretty good, but I went through and made some changes to whatever I could find. I'm not sure if this is a prerequisite for FA, but I think it would be a good idea to archive all of the websites (I personally use WebCite, although the Internet Archive is great). There's also a few issues with links that could be fixed; they can be seen here. Nothing major, but they should probably be looked into if this is going to be a featured article. – Rhain ☔ 23:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again Rhain! I'll archive all the sources once I get my router working tomorrow (using tethered data at the moment, and I have to watch my limit otherwise it's going to be a costly bill). I linked all of the publishers and corrected some, such as moving 1UP to the website and adding Ziff Davis as the publisher etc. I hope I didn't miss anything else in that regards. Thanks for the fixes! JAGUAR  20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoria, Outriggr

Widely influential 1430s painting by Rogier van der Weyden, which is heavily indebted to, but maybe surpasses (as was the aim), Jan van Eyck's Madonna of Chancellor Rolin. Had the pleasure of seeing this large and major work at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston in 2014, and it made a significant impact, especially the figures in the midground. Victoria is on an extended break, but has given the go-ahead for this nom in her absence. Ceoil (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I enjoy these articles, when I get a chance to read them. I can't comment on the substance, but I can make suggestions for improving the prose. Thus far I've covered the lead and first two main sections:

Lead

• "fifteenth-century" needs hyphen when in adjectival form
• "significant changes" → "significant differences"
• US spelling "center"?
• "self-portrait" requires a hyphen
• The words "so as" could be replaced by a simple comma
• "to between": you could drop the "to"

Commission

• I suggest a slight tweak in the first sentence, to: "Luke the Evangelist was thought to have been a portraitist, and according to legend widely disseminated in western Europe by the 10th century, painted the first portrait of the Virgin and Child". The shifting of the word "and" in this way makes much better sense.
• "numerous miracles were attributed" – no need for quotes, it's a plain statement
• For clarity I would add "of this work" after "The original..."
• Comma required after "St Luke's skill"
• "where he is buried" – I would name "he" to avoid possible ambiguity
• Had you considered swapping the placings of the two paragraphs? The shorter one leads on more naturally from the section title.

After van Eyck

• (second para) needs to begin "In the Van der Weyden the positioning..." and I would say of the "main figures", since you've just been talking about the subsidiary bridge figures. Also, "compared to" could be simply "from"
• Very small point: you need to consistent about describing centuries, either numerically (e.g. "15th-century") or in prose form ("fifteenth-century"). At present both forms are used.
• Third paragraph needs attention. The grammar is amiss: "Compared to the van Eyck, the approach is warmer and according to Smith, van der Weyden displays his ability, and that..." etc. I am puzzled by the quotation that follows: ""the viewer is invited to compare the drawing, which will be the model for the ultimate picture, with the "flesh and blood" head of the Virgin". As a viewer, I am quite uncertain of what I am being invited to do.

  Have cut this last paragraph. Ceoil (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful - will return when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, very helpful. All addressed now, I think. Ceoil (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Fine. As Johnbod is engaged in a knowledgeable content review, I will wait for him to finish before resuming my nitpicks. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. The article is (slowly) shifting emphasis post Johnbod cmts. Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

As Johnbod hasn't been active here for a while, I'll complete my prose review meantime. Will get to it Friday or Saturday.Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is a further batch of comments, again mainly prose and presentation:

Description - prelude

• You mention several features that I was unable to locate, in particular the ink bottle, the speech scroll, the ox and the table. Could you add a phrase indicating where these are to be found in the painting? Probably it's made clear later on, but a hint at this point might be helpful.

• Mentioned that they are in St Luke's study to his right, (which is dark and difficult to see, unless standing in front of the painting). Victoria (tk) 16:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think things are sufficiently clear as the prose stands. The sentence "Compared to contemporary paintings of this type, the work is unusually free of inscriptions; they appear only in Luke's study to his right, on the book, an ink bottle and a scroll emanating from the ox's mouth" is likely to puzzle readers with no knowledge of the painting. I suggest something like: ""Compared to contemporary paintings of this type, the work is unusually free of inscriptions; they appear only on items in Luke's study, dimly perceived on his right: on a book, on an ink bottle, and on a scroll emanating from the mouth of an ox", perhaps also mentioning here why such an unusual item as an ox would be found in the study (later you say the ox is one of Luke's "attributes", but that's not much help to our dear "general reader". Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, Brian. I took your suggested wording. I've only recently discovered we have articles about saints' attributes, i.e, Saint Catherine's wheel. The ox is now linked. Will that work, or should we mention earlier that it's his attribute? Victoria (tk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Foreground

• Mary appears to sit "under" rather than "before" the canopy
• You first describe Mary's dress as "purplish red-embroidered", but a line later you say it is "composed of a variety of blues overlaid with lead white and deep blue lapis lazuli highlights". I certainly see it as predominantly blue and can't reconcile the "purplish red-embroidered" description. Is it that the colours have become distorted in this image of the painting?
• The phrasing "more so when you consider" is non-neutral and personal, and should either be reworded or tied to a specific source, e.g. "more so, X says, when you consider..."
• "Luke is beardless and relatively youthful", followed quickly by "he is middle-aged with light stubble and greying hair" – hardly attributes of even "relative" youth. Even these days, you wouldn't descibe mid-forties as youthful; I'd be inclined to omit the words "relatively youthful"
• "his usual attributes" suggests something generally known. I think I would say his "specific" attributes. I still find my eyes searching for a sleeping ox.

• See my earlier comments on the ox. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Mary's head was tilted to the right, but ends up upright" – in the main image and in the detail, her head is distinctly tilted to the right.
• The last two sentences of the section don't seem to relate to the foreground. Should they be elsewhere?

• That entire paragraph is about the underdrawing and bits and pieces that either didn't make it to the final cut, as it were, or were changed. I've moved the para to be a standalone piece, but to do so had to lose the subheadings and fiddle with image formatting. I'm not sure which is best: two slightly unconnected sentences, or a paragraph completely devoted to underdrawings and but no subheadings? Victoria (tk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Midground and landscape

• "three arches": I thought that arches were by definition curved; these three openings are flat-topped (the van Eyck panel shows obvious arches)

• Changed to columns. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The figures closely resemble two similar figures in the van Eyck panel" - its more the positionings that are similar; the actual figures are not similar in appearance.

• fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do we need the subsequent anaysis of the figures in the van Eyck panel? The text between "A red headdress..." and "died around 1426" seems unnecessary in this article.

• Yes, I think to it's important to mention that Hubert van Eyck, who died in 1426 after starting the Ghent Altarpiece, is probably memorialized in van Eyck's painting, and van der Weyden used similar figures/positionings. I've restored the 1426 date, but it's ok if Ceoil disagrees and removes, or if you think it's too much detail. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The facts lends the panel a lot of its impact. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "the man in the turban" – why not just "the man"?
• "in comparison opposed to" → "unlike"

Self-portrait

• "Van der Weyden appears to be in his mid-30s, intelligent and handsome, but weather-worn" - if this is describing the St Luke image, it doesn't really tally with the earlier description of Luke as "early 40s...middle-aged with light stubble and greying hair".
• "as the embodiment Luke" → "as the embodiment of Luke"
• "describes the panel in terms of" → "describes the panel as"?

I hope these are helpful. I will get to finish tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk)

Have met most of those very helpful suggestions, with a few o/s. Thank you for looking so closely. Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

These are my final comments. I'm leaning to support, but in view of my subject ignorance I'd like to see Johnbod's finished review first.

Iconography

• "no one" is not hyphenated
• How does "the implication being that she cares for all and no-one will go hungry" tie in with Lukes dual role? As healer, yes; as artist...?
• "shroud of the church"? I'm not familiar with this concept; is it something like the veil of the tabernacle that separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Holy Place?
• "The arms of her throne..." Perhaps say something here about Mary's positioning in relatation to the throne. She appears to be seated on its step. (I see that you do this in the final sentences of the section; perhaps this information should be moved up?)
• The locations of the "figures illusionistically painted as if they were carved into the wood" are by no means clear to the viewer.

• Reworded so it is, hopefully, more clear to the lay reader. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "In the rear, the loggia faces towards an enclosed garden, another emblem of the Virgin's chastity" Uncited statement

• Removed until its source is found. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The MFA describes it as such here. Victoria I think we are ok with the claim, though I would like to add more context. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agree. I overlooked the online source. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The panel is among the first known..." → "The Van der Weyden panel is among the first known..."
• "A representation of Adam and Eve is carved on the arm-rest of the Virgin's seat". Earlier we read that these figures were "painted as if they were carved".

• Redundant here and removed. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Attribution and dating

• "the Boston panel is an original" – Shouldn't this be the original?
• "earliest pieces of timber" – "oldest"?
• The Hermitage version doesn't get a mention when you are comparing the ages of the four panels.

• No, the source doesn't mention anything about its date. Victoria (tk) 18:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Provenance and conservation

• Tense conflict: "...describe the panel in detail, attributed it to Lucas van Leyden, and suggest..."
• "after their purchase" → "after his purchase" (higginson was the purchaser)
• Second para. I'd delete the words "both" and "remaining" from the first line.

Influence

• "If it was in the Guild of Saint Luke's chapel in Brussels..." Shouldn't this possibility be mentioned in the provenance discussion?

• It's now in the "Commission" section. We usually use this section only for the known provenance. The section does include Durer's diary entry, but he neglected to mention where he saw the painting, so scholars don't know much about its whereabout until the point where documentation exists. Victoria (tk) 19:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The very long sentence beginning "Also influential was..." needs attention. It's too long, too much information for a single sentence, and it goes wrong in the middle: "whose image appears in the same panel hers"
• I think you should clarify that the "Master of the Legend of St. Ursula" is a painter – it's not obvious to non-art historians. Something like "The unidentified painter known as..."
• "Van der Goes's is the earliest extant autographed copy..." - "copy" is surely not the right term. There is clear influence, but it's a different depiction entirely.
• There may be a bit too much text on the Van der Goes comparison

Overall, good work and highly informative. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: These are mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Brian, I got some of these that were outstanding, and have commented on a few above. Thanks for your review. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I've just been through again - left the odd comment for further consideration, and done a couple of minor copyedits. I'm not sure whether Johnbod is through yet, but I feel sufficiently confident to register my support, assuming that if there were any significant blunders in the text, the experts would have identified them before now. Well done, the team. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support Brian, and for your time in providing an excellent review. The article is much improved. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this careful and thoughtful review has helped immensely. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments (Johnbod)

• I've removed that he was painting an "apparition" in the lead. He was believed to have painted a portrait from the life, as is said later. Obviously, that such a portrait should contain the Christ Child as well is illogical, but I don't think would have bothered people in the Middle Ages much.

  Yes, the point seems to be that he is witnessing her in person, rather an "apparition", which you would seen in a donor portrait. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• "During the Early Renaissance, images of the Virgin and Child were more commonly found in Northern than Italian art..." unrefed & dubious, I'd say. They are extremely common in both.

• Now 'images of Luke painting the Virgin" Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• "faithful reproductions of images of this type..." - but are they faithful? Not by Byzantine standards, for sure. See Cambrai Madonna etc.

• Removed "faithful". Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Iconography section now mentioning Byzantine Icons and clarifying re the specific Madonna type. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• We're using US English, no? Some changes made.

• The lead seems to be British so I've been through and made some changes. Hopefully I've fixed throughout. Victoria (tk) 23:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Van der Weyden switches the color of their costumes; Luke is dressed in red or scarlet, Mary in warm blues. " ie, as usual. Red-clothed Madonnas were something of a personal eccentricity of van Eyck, no?

• Yes and looking through the sources on the van Eyck to maybe expand slightly on this. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• It seems the choice was related to the price of different pigments; ultramarine was favoured by the Italians as it was very expensive there, so worthy of a major saint. For the Northerners carmine was the most rare and costly pigment. Not sure yet on the market forces at work here (accessibility and import costs), or how to weave this in, but it's certainly interesting and I think once fleshed out might be one for the ENA article. Ceoil (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've qualified in a simplistic fashion so as to avoid a treatise about JvE's penchant for dressing the Virgin in red. We could do that if necessary but it will require some reading (probably Pacht) and take a bit of time. This fix might work - can be undone if not. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The earliest growth ring has been dated to around 1410, which gives credence to the estimated execution completion date of c 1435". Seems odd. You date a series of rings by their relative sizes. If the earliest is 1410 only outer sections must be represented, which should perhaps be said. What is the latest? You'd think that more relevant. Or is earliest just a typo?

• Have reworded this but want to revisit the source and expand. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• No, it's not a typo. The source says "earliest" but after reading it about five times I think he means "most recent". Anyway, Ceoil fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The scene is set within an architectural space that may be a castle porch.^[1] The room has a barrel vault ceiling, inlaid tiled flooring, and stained glass windows. The outer wall, or loggia, sits on a bridge over a river or harbour bay." Hmm. The loggia is the room itself, open to the elements on one side. Then there is a short drop to a patch of rather weedy lawn, apparently surrounded by a raised walkway, seen on the far side. By the Virgin's arm you can see this turning a corner, so I don't see how the loggia opens onto a bridge, even though the river seems to lead from directly underneath. If on a harbour it would be an inlet rather than a "bay". Of course the room repeats the van Eyck, and seems very much a private space, with a small study opening off. Are the tiles "inlaid"? They look plain single-colour ones laid in patterns. "Crenellated" (redirects to Battlement) is a more precise term for what the far wall is, and avoids have to guess its exact function more closely.

• Made first pass at clarifying. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• Made a second pass. This is hard. Powell says a castle balcony, Nash (I don't have that source) says loggia - so I've tried to combine the two. To digress slightly: I've seen the painting and never had a sense that the space was at a height on a castle, as the sources describe, but rather that it's an open space with a bit grass/weeds outside, then a bridge overlooking a river. But that's just one viewer's opinion, so I've tried to balance a little. Not finding much about the the patch of grass in the sources, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It is after all a fictive space and, like many of van Eyck's, throws up more puzzles the more you think about it. A comprehensive analysis as though it was a real place is probably inappropriate, so I suppose I'm pushing for more vagueness, or giving the dots but not trying to join them up. Great to see you back! Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Very good point re fictive space - I've tweaked it a bit today, trying vague-ify (so to speak), but would like to take some time coming back up to speed with the sources and might take another pass there. Thanks re being back. A bit slow at the moment. Victoria (tk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

No worry or hurry. I must say I think calling the room, or its edge, a balcony just seems wrong as a matter of architectural terminology. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree re balcony and have now fixed (hopefully) with a little more tweaking. I'd forgotten I bought a very beat up copy of Campbell, but knew I read about the space at some point, months ago. Just had to get my hands on the right source. Victoria (tk) 15:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  These points are most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Johnbod

• Continuing (sorry for the delay) - "Mary is presented as the Theotokos, that is as the "God-bearer", or "the one who gives birth to God", a concept largely borrowed from Eastern Orthodox thought, largely received in northern European art through the veneration of Byzantine Icons." - I'd cut "Theotokos" and the middle bit - the Catholic theology is exactly the same, and goes back well before the schism. It is the iconography or forms of the images that are originally largely taken from Byzantine icons, though there was well over a century of Western development of them by van der Weyden's day, at least in Italy, not to mention the sculptures the Greeks didn't have. I'm not sure the whole sentence adds much. I don't think the "Maria Lactans" was in fact popular with the Byzantines.
• "The panel is among the first known depictions of St Luke in Renaissance art" - better remind people he was not an Apostle, though it still seems odd. Weren't there sets of the Four Evangelists? Are we sure we don't mean "St Luke painting"? or "Northern Renaissance"?
• "Art historians gradually revised their dating from 1450 to the currently accepted 1435–40" (agrees with lead & infobox) and "The panel is usually thought to have been completed around 1435". Better synchronise. Then "Held argues for a date between 1440 and 1443", but that was in 1955, which should be added.

• Took a stab at this. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The MFA undertook a third restoration in 1943, when some yellowing of the glaze was repaired, and there may have been some concern over the reversibility of some of the conversation decisions taken by Ruhemann, however this restoration was not well documentated and there are doubts as to its motive and validility." All a bit cryptic; which "restoration was not well documentated"?
• More touches edited. I haven't looked at the earlier sections again yet. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, have these; mostly by trimming down the claims. Ceoil (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Hi Johnbod, I think we have all of these. I've tried going through the edit history to follow events since the FAC started, but it might be easier if you can point out what's missing. If you're around today, I have a bit of time to give to it - otherwise probably won't get back until later in the week or even next Sunday. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 15:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Last run through:
• "Van der Weyden closely follows van Eyck's c. 1435 Madonna of Chancellor Rolin, though there are significant differences. The landscape is less detailed and contains fewer human figures. While van Eyck's landscape is left open, van der Weyden's is enclosed,[9] and is set at a considerably higher distance and altitude." A bit odd. Both are really pretty similar, leading to a horizon of distant mountains. But vdW's mid-distance is closed in by walls, certainly. It is JvE who shows the higher viewpoint, surely, and vdW who shows more figures? The phrasing suggests the opposite.

• Campbell's point seems to be that JvE's is airier at the top, which I can see, whereas RvdW's is narrower. I've trimmed out the "higher distance and altitude" because I don't have that Borchert essay and can't get access to it on the web. Victoria (tk) 15:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Luke hovers before her; he is either rising from a kneeling position or about to genuflect." Is this covered by the next ref? He does rather give this impression, but since his silverpoint is poised and he is studying his subject closely, I suspect that less-than-perfect drawing has more to do with this impression, and he is meant to be at rest. "Luke hovers before her" is I think a good deal too strong; surely gravity is not supposed to have been suspended? I'd at least soften to "gives the impression of" or something.

• It is an odd position, but I've added "appear" and tweaked. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "His thoughts on the value and role of the artist or craftsman within a wider social sphere must have been largely self-initiated," - seems dubious to me. He lived in one of the largest concentrations of artists in the world, but died before such "thoughts" began to be recorded in print, or even ms.. For all we know there was lively and sophisticated debate in the guild etc, which indeed the surviving paintings suggest, as does the next para in the article. I find myself often doubting Ms Apostolos-Cappadona's points.

• They are difficult to parse. I've rewritten but welcome your input there. I get a little lost when trying to write about the female mystics, and suspect what happened there was to try to avoid. I think those points are important, but needed to lean on direct quotes a little more than I'd like. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "By placing her underneath a canopy the artist probably implies the shroud of the church, the physical separation of the celebrant from the congregation, and the manner in which a church altar was often bordered by a screen." (ref to Apostolos-Cappadona again). Yes, perhaps, but this was also extremely common, if not standard, in depictions where she is seated and more simply relates to her role as Queen of Heaven etc etc. The Duke of Burgundy, when formally seated, normally has a cloth of honour, so naturally the Queen of Heaven too.

• Rewritten. She's comparing the enclosed space to a church. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The animal may represent one of the apocalyptic beasts from the Book of Revelation" - on the ox. We've already made the obvious point that it is Luke's attribute (a "good" ox). It seems odd now to throw in the surely rather wacky thought that it might be one of the (rather bad) Revelations beasts.

• Ox is gone from here. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "The idea of St Luke painting the Virgin originates from a 3rd-century Marian icon." Really? No such object survives, sadly. Isn't this initially a purely literary tradition, with sharply "back-dated" relics coming later.

• Took it away. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Though Mary is placed by a throne and under a damask canopy, indicating her role as Queen of Heaven, she does not sit on the bench but rather on its step, an indication of her humility.[24][52]" - it was brocade earlier, can it be both that and damask? This bit should be integrated with earlier passages I think.

• Yep, agreed. Done. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• It seems you might in fact be able to brocade damask, as a 2nd process. But I'm not sure - weaving defeats me entirely. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• "In the early 1930s, based on x-radiographs, art historians Alan Burroughs attributed .." one or many?

• Boston. Clarified. Victoria (tk) 17:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I meant "historians", but I decided it was just him. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, good decision :) Victoria (tk) 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ok, that's it. I've made some changes directly - please let me know if you disagree. All earlier points now settled. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, these all look very good. Thanks a bunch. Victoria (tk) 18:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think I got them all. Thanks! I'll try to take another run through this evening to be sure I haven't made too many mistakes. Victoria (tk) 17:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support All points dealt with. Good job both! Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and for your time in reviewing. Very good review - I enjoyed it. Victoria (tk) 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• PS; sorry, one comment I think was lost to edit conflicts "The immediate midground contains a garden with plants set in vertically aligned tiers.[9] Art historian Jeffrey Chipps Smith notes how the transition between the grounds establishes a "complex spatial space in which [van der Weyden] achieved an almost seamless movement from the elaborate architecture of the main room to the garden and parapet of the middle ground to the urban and rural landscape behind".[23]". I'm dubious about the first sentence, especially looking at the slightly varying treatments in the other versions. I've said already it looks like a weedy lawn to me - this is even more so in the St Petersberg version, where the background "plants" are clearly clumps of longish grass. The larger weeds seem randomly distributed, but I agree the Boston grass seems in the centre to be clumped in rows running to or from the viewer. "Tiers" must be wrong, on a flat surface, implying mini-terraces on a slope - rows is what plants are put in on the flat. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• It didn't get lost, I simply forgot. Campbell mentions "vertical tiers", but I have to agree with you. I don't really see them. I've tweaked a bit there and removed that phrase. Victoria (tk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that sorts it. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Master_of_the_Legend_of_St._Ursula_Virgin_and_Child.jpg is tagged as lacking a description
• File:Hugo_van_der_Goes_-_São_Lucas_retratando_a_Virgem.jpg: source link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks, both corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks Nikkimaria. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Provisional support pending Johnbod's more knowledgeable comments. I read this through on a smartphone and maybe found one segment of text I'd change...aaand now I can't find it nor remember it. I can't see any prose clangers and it seems pretty comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Cas. Maybe I'll ping you when happy. And yeah smart phones can be a pain. Ceoil (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Cas. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments (MPS1992) This is very well written. Here are some of my thoughts.

• "or the Brussels' painters' guild". Are we very attached to the first of these two possessive apostrophes? It is grammatically correct, of course, but I wonder if it might still be grammatically correct without it, and also slightly less distracting.

• "Until the Early Renaissance painters aspired to exactly follow his idealised model." Consider a comma after "Renaissance". There is also a split infinitive here, but it is possible that I am unfamiliar with the style aimed at, and whether the main authors consider such rules worth breaking on occasion.

• "Until the Early Renaissance painters aspired to exactly follow his idealised model. Thus their depictions were relatively static. During the Early Renaissance," - I will remove the duplicate wikilink, but could there also be a way to avoid repeating "Early Renaissance" so closely?

• "This historical link to the Holy Family explains the frequency" - the subject is now three sentences further back; perhaps this could be made easier to read.

• "In the Van der Weyden the positioning of the main figures is reversed from the van Eyck; the Virgin appears to the right" - this appears not to be the case in the lead image. Is this correct?

• "here she is depicted as a Maria Lactans" - I know what this means from learning Latin at school, but perhaps a gloss within commas could be added to ease the reading of those who are new to both Latin and fine art?

• "This is one of the standard depictions of her, different from with the Hodegetria (Our Lady of the Way, or She who points the way) Virgin type most usually..." - could "with" be removed?

• "execution completion date" - is this an artistic term? If not, removing "execution" would improve it.

• "Mary sits under a brocade canopy which is painted in layers of beige and now appears as mostly dark green, though it was probably painted with predominant browns." This is a little messy. First we say we know what colours were used, then we say what they now appear as, then we say what similar colours were probably used. If based on one source, this could be shortened some way I think.

• "His eyes are attentively fixed on her,[22] and seems near hypnotised" - do we need "he" added here?

• "perhaps explained by the fact that her breast is bared" - does Hall mention this interpretation?

• "with the same delicacy than an angel might..." - I am aware that this is a quotation, but could there be a typo "than" for "that"?

• This is fixed now, but does Hall definitely say "a angel" not "an angel"? MPS1992 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hall describes Luke's hands as floating "up before him... " - where does this quotation from Hall end?

• "He is painted with more naturalism than she" - there is no mention of the female subject of the painting in this paragraph, which makes this read awkwardly.

More soon. MPS1992 (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

More comments (MPS1992)

• "their backs turned against the viewer" - could this be better as "their backs turned to the viewer" or "their backs turned towards the viewer" or something similar?

• "both to his friend and the viewer" - I can see the sense in including this, but I think the prose would flow better by excluding it entirely

• "Thus his thoughts on the value and role of the artist or craftsman within a wider social sphere was largely self-initiated" - perhaps there is a mismatch between the subject and verb here

• I literally don't understand grammar. Subject and verb? Can you fix please. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have replaced "was largely self initiated" with "were largely self initiated" - plural verb (were) to agree with plural subject (his thoughts). MPS1992 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• "literally Our Lady of Milk" - is this really a literal translation?

• "The Virgin occupies an earthly, as opposed to sacred, space but remains aloof." - consider recasting this as "The Virgin occupies an earthly space as opposed to a sacred one, but remains aloof."

• "one-another" - the hyphen seems wrong to me, but I'm not sure. Similarly "arm-rest"

• "Though Mary is placed by a throne and under a damask canopy, indicating her role as Queen of Heaven. She does not sit on the bench but rather on its step, an indication of her humility." - I think should perhaps all be one sentence, with a comma? Otherwise the first sentence lacks a verb.

More soon. MPS1992 (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Even more comments (MPS1992)

• "The panel in Bruges is in the best condition and of exceptional quality, but dates from c. 1491–1510.[30] [paragraph break] The panel is usually thought to have been completed around 1435." The similarity in subjects here may lead to confusion - I assume they're not referring to the same things?

• "It was donated to the Museum of Fine Arts in 1893 by Henry Lee Higginson after their purchase at a New York auction in 1889" - to what does "their" refer?

That's it for my comments. I have made these edits, most of which are very minor. MPS1992 (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I have struck a large number of items fixed by Ceoil, just so I know where I am up to. MPS1992 (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks MPS1992, reading though and they are very helpful. Will let you know when done, and many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Note, all done except for the thing about the split infinitive, which I don't see. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The split infinitive seems to have been removed somewhere along the way. All my concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and your support. Victoria (tk) 16:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and many edits. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - has there been a source review? --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Maxinquaye[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 1995 debut album by English trip hop artist Tricky. When it was released, it was a critical success and deemed a key recording of the trip hop genre. It has since been ranked frequently by critics as one of the greatest albums of all time. Dan56 (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil[edit]

Comment had been reading through during the week, article is very good, and the following are minor

"Assisted by co-producer Mark Saunders, Tricky recorded the album"; should that be co-produced and engineered by

No, he was technically credited as producer/co-producer. Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

'Assisted' implies more than production. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"frequently found himself serving as a DJ and programmer"... and assisting is kind of a broad term. By co-producing, he was assisting in the recording process. Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"The United Kingdom's demographic of progressive, young music buyers for the record to perform well" - bit obvious, marketing speak

How so? Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"The record charted for 35 weeks and peaked at number 3 on the British charts" - should be a single statement; maybe "The record spent 35 weeks on the British charts, peaking at number 3".

Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I'll be supporting this shortly. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

"Tricky would have received airplay in the US on alternative or college rock radio" - "would have"; despite what? I know what you are getting at, tempted to rephrase as "should have". Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I added "if the label focused their efforts to promote him there". Is that what you meant? Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think its more what the sources meant. Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose from me anyhow, and to say am very please to see the candidacy. All major points covered. Ceoil (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Support from Sparklism[edit]

Nice article. Fine record, too - another one I must dig out for another spin sometime soon... Anyway, I've had a quick look:

• There's a fairly dormant but still open RfC on the talk page. I've commented there giving my view that the RfC should be closed, but I think that while it remains open it highlights a potential risk to article stability

Idk why that's even open still. I've revised some of the lead anyway, so the issue is stale/moot, and those editors haven't been active there in weeks. Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's a duplicate link in the 'Release & reception' section (Rolling Stone) that should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• In both the lead and the article body, the label is referred to as both '4th & B'way' and '4th & Broadway' - we should just choose one, for consistency. Technically, since this was a 'British' album, the correct label name is the full "Fourth & Broadway", though I'd be happy with any variant so long as it is consistent throughout

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Tricky and Topley-Bird would form a musical and romantic partnership over subsequent years, starting with their first recording together" - this was the start of their musical partnership, but we don't know if it was the start of their romantic one

Lol. I reworded it. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• In the 'Music and themes' section, the word "frequently" appears twice in close proximity - it might be better to use something else for one of these

Replaced with "often". Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd wikilink the first use of "sample" in the article body (it's already linked in the lead)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• You might want to describe who Ragga is to aid the reader's understanding (and perhaps Alison Goldfrapp for that matter, though she is wikilinked)

There was no information on Ragga I could find, but I did introduce them as "vocalists" if that helps. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's better. I notice the track listing has an actual name for Ragga - any idea where this came from? — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Discogs lol. I put it there as a reminder, to look up stuff on her, but couldn't find anything. I've removed it. Dan56 (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Additionally, almost all of Topley-Bird's vocals on the album were recorded in a single take" - I don't think 'Additionally' is needed here, and perhaps this sentence could be combined with the subsequent one to improve the flow

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Tricky also remade his 1994 contribution for Massive Attack," - this doesn't quite work for me, as it wasn't his only contribution. It was also a contribution to Protection really, so you might want to mention that

I wrote it as "one of his contributions for Massive Attack". Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I wonder if we should link glitch or even glitch (but not glitch)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "her suicide, along with his father's abandonment" sort of makes it sound like it was the father that was abandoned, which I don't think is what you're getting at

"his father abandoning him"? Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep. — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a suitable wikilink for Babylon?

Perhaps Rastafari#Zion vs. Babylon, although Rastafari is already linked in the article. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Hell Is Around the Corner" is mistitled in the 'Music and themes' section (three times)

Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• 'channeling' might be 'channelling' in British English, but don't quote me

No, youre right ([32]) Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Hell E.P. is a collaboration with Gravediggaz, so this ought to be mentioned

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Some people I've met were confused because he's black, and it's not easy to break through those barriers there." I'm not sure this adds much to the sentence that it appends

I added "because of his race", which is what the source was getting at. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's much better. — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blues Lines is a mistitle

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• You could link to either Black British or Black British music

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Tricky himself disliked the term and later said, "I was supposed to have invented trip hop, and I will fucking deny having anything to do with it"" - I'm not sure this adds much to the article, since we're talking about the album and not the genre

The album and the genre are often discussed together, along with Tricky's dislike for the term, so I thought something should be said representing that portion of the coverage on this album. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Should we mention that it was the 1995 Mercury Prize?

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "35 weeks on the British charts" - was this the UK Albums Chart?

Yes. I revised it. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "peaking at number 3" - I was always taught to write out single digit numbers in full (i.e. three)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I notice that Tricky himself isn't wikilinked in the 'Personnel' section - is this deliberate?

Yes, to avoid overlinking (infobox + lead + track listing), but I can link it. Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think the 'see also' section adds much to the article
• There's no mention of touring in the article (except a much later performance) - is there no coverage available?

"After it was released in the US on April 18, Tricky toured the country as a supporting act for fellow English recording artist PJ Harvey." Dan56 (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, of course. One imagines that he toured the UK too (and I certainly remember seeing him play at Rock City, but I've got a feeling that was in '96), so it would be good to see if any info can be found on that. It's not a deal-breaker for me, though. — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• There are no audio clips either. These would be good to illustrate the music that you've written about in such beautiful detail

Thank you! But I'd rather give the space to the image and the quotebox. I've lost interest in adding clips anymore to articles. They're not practical (limited length, not always supported on every browser), and readers could and would rather youtube the entire album or parts since it's easier. @Sparklism: Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Fair enough :) — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There's a bit to go at, but nothing major I don't think. I might add more after a second read. Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 15:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm supporting this on prose. I haven't reviewed the sources. Good work Dan56! — sparklism ^hey! 08:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

• Having read through, I found I just lapsed into reading without thinking too much about corrections (a Good Thing) - so a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Only minor point being below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I changed this, which came across odd to my ears.Otherwise ok.

Huguenot-Walloon half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about... a somewhat controversial commemorative coin, in its time. Though it would probably be so today, I suppose. Also notable for the appearance of one of Congress's most spectacularly named members, Wells Goodykoontz. He should have kept at it, imagine Senator Goodykoontz, Governor Goodykoontz, dare I say President Goodykoontz? But I digress.Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Support: A very interesting and nicely written piece. Minor quibbles/preferences that you are free to ignore:

• In the lead, 'a portion was returned to the Mint' can we say how many
• The Huguenots were French Protestants, and there was often conflict with the Catholic majority. - who were often in conflict...
• with an amendment adding the bank - ...as designators
• Neither had any direct involvement with the voyage of the Nieuw Nederlandt, having been killed forty years or longer before it took place. Could this sentence do with out "it took place".
• were not killed for their religion and were anti-Catholic, "the United States...": ..religion, were..., and that "the United States..."
• with the words, HUGUENOT – WALLOON – TERCENTENARY – FOUNDING OF NEW NETHERLAND with the years 1624 and 1924 - 'with' twice, maybe and the years
• Sourcing is impeccable. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I've taken care of those.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Interesting article. Just a few comments:

• the lead could benefit from an explanation of the Walloon connection, rather than just mention Belgium.
• I found the Background section a bit light. Lots of key info of how the background connects to the coin only trickles through in later sections.

It does ... but that's the fault of the sources. I'm wedding the standard books on the subject of commemoratives with congressional sources that I do not know if the authors examined and probably not. Thus, there are disconnects and no one comments on them. For example, Peter Minuit is mentioned by Stoudt as the subject of the design. Obviously that didn't happen. Whether that was due to some problem with the design, or whether it was "Protestant propaganda", who knows? I'm picking and choosing facts to help the reader because no one has drawn connections or commented.

• The first paragraph of Legislation is not about Legislation. I wonder if this fits better in its own section. The article is a little light on Huguenots in the 1920s, so more background on the forming of the commission would be good. An alternative to its own section is the background section.

I've added it. I'm not sure how much it would be useful to add on 1920s Huguenots, as this was a broader celebration by the Churches of Christ in America.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The Huguenot-Walloon New Netherland Commission was established under the auspices " when?
• "by Pennsylvania Congressman Fred Gernerd" needs explanation of why him here, rather than 2 sentences later
• "by Pennsylvania's David A. Reed" why him?

I'm going by the congressional documents, which are bare of such details. Likely because he was from Pennsylvania.

• "Swiatek and Breen noted" a description of who they are would be good. numismatists?
• "The Huguenot-Walloon commission" is this another commission or is it The Huguenot-Walloon New Netherland Commission?

Yes, but that's something of a mouthful.

• Q. David Bowers needs a description

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I think I've either done or responded to all here.

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 05:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Support – My only complaint is that if one blinks one misses another top-notch FAC from Wehwalt. I nearly missed this one, and am happy to add my support now. Tim riley talk 17:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, but given you are the first comment in 16 days, the blink must have frozen into sleep.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• For some reason, the image in the Production section has a visible file name in the caption
• File:NNC-1924-50C-Huguenot-Walloon_Tercentenary_half_dollar_(reverse,_uniface_die_trial).jpg needs a licensing tag for the die itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the licensing, Nikkimaria. I don't see a caption. Can you advise?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Screenshot. Not sure what's causing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Godot13 did that coding (and I must thank him for providing the images, that particular one inspired me to do this article). Can you see what's going on?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the coding and don't see anything wrong with it. I took a screen shot and it doesn't show the extra text. Is the text still showing up for you Nikkimaria?--Godot13 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I looked at the code too but couldn't see what the problem was. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've requested help at the Village Pump which hopefully was the right place. Thank you, Nikki, for your review, as always. We'll see what the technical folk think.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, as we haven't been able to fix it, I've switched to the original image, showing both sides of the die trial. I may crop the image and upload it as derivative but there's no hurry. I think this addresses all image concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

Thank you for another article of high value ;)

• In the lead, you may want to mention the destination of the ship, for those who don't know what the name implies.
• In the caption for Stoudt, consider to repeat his part in the story. Yes, it was said before, but for us idiots who look at boxes and pics ;)

That's it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Source review -- Ceoil signed off on reliability, nothing leapt out re. formatting except perhaps:

• "House hearings" citation might be quicker to match up to the references as "House of Representatives Committee".
• Not sure that US Govt Printing Service needs linking when no other pubs are linked (or is it the only one with an article).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Gudovac massacre[edit]

Nominator(s): 23 editor (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

This article covers the first massacre committed by the Ustaše, the fascist movement that ruled Croatia during World War II. I'm hoping to have it on the front page in time for the 75th anniversary on 28 April 2016. 23 editor (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the partition map and the proclamation
• File:Official_Proclamation_of_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia.jpg: what is the copyright status of this work in its country of origin? Same with File:Gudovac_massacre.jpg
• File:Mladen_Lorković.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: File:Official_Proclamation_of_the_Independent_State_of_Croatia.jpg: It was published in April 1941. PD-Croatia says "a photograph or a work of applied art published before January 1, 1974" is in the public domain. The United State Holocaust Memorial Museum explicitly states it is PD.

• Same goes with File:Gudovac_massacre.jpg. It was published in 1941–42 (displayed at a Belgrade exhibit in 1942, according to Karaula). The USHMM says it's in the public domain .

• Added tag to File:Mladen_Lorković.jpg. 23 editor (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment, leaning toward Support. There are several terminology issues:

• "A monument called Gudovac: Before the Firing Squad". The name of the demolished monument in original is Gudovčan: Pred streljanje (see for example this document). The first word means man from Gudovac, and the third means execution with firearms. The monument featured a man with bound hands (its photos before and after the demolition, sl. 26 and sl. 27).
• "The Gudovac distric". In the cited source, the administrative division centred on Gudovac is termed as općina, which I think is usually translated as "municipality". District would be a larger territorial unit, consisting of several municipalities. The Gudovac municipality was actually a part of the Bjelovar district.
• "Veliki and Mali Korenovac". In the cited source, these two villages are named as Veliko Korenovo and Malo Korenovo (i.e., the names are in neuter gender).

Beside that:

• "Serb officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers". Maybe it would suffice to state "Serb officers and soldiers" to avoid repeating?
• "The disarming and arresting of captured VKJ personnel". Is there a need for "captured" in this phrase?
• "The detainees were transported to the Danica camp". Where was that camp? (It was near Koprivnica, but this should be stated here.)
• "and the field was razed". I find "field" confusing here. I'd say it was a memorial complex (see above-linked photo sl. 26), or whatever term would be applicable here. Vladimir (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

All done , Vlad. Goldstein translates the monument's name as Gudovac—Before the Firing Squad. I had no idea what it's Serbo-Croatian name was until you mentioned it. Perhaps the correct translation would be "The Man From Gudovac: Before the Firing Squad". Alas, I can't find any source to back that up. 23 editor (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Support, the issues I've raised have been addressed. If the monument's name is represented like that in English translation of Goldstein's work, then we can leave it to that (though I think a closer translation would be Man from Gudovac: Before Execution). This comprehensive yet succinct and well written article should appear on the Main Page. Vladimir (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If only we could find a PD image of the monument, but of course, this is no impediment for the promotion of the article to the FA status, which it surely deserves. Vladimir (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, sorry, I only took a quick look as I'm feeling under the weather right now. I have a couple of minor observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• in the infobox: "184 – 196" should be unspaced;
• in the Sources section: inconsistent presentation, compare "(2 ed)" with "(2nd ed.)"
• for the works that are chapters in a larger book, I think it would be best to provide a page range in the full citation (in the Sources section). e.g. the Cox and Levy chapters
• same as above for the journal articles: they should probably have page ranges (for the full article) in the full citation
• the duplicate link checker tool indicates "Slavko Kvaternik" is overlinked.

All done , AustralianRupert. Feel free to post further comments when you're feeling up to it. 23 editor (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- tks all for the reviews so far, as this hasn't been through MilHist ACR, I'd be interested in seeing Peacemaker67's comments when/if he has a chance, as another editor well-versed in the subject area. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I am pretty busy with RW stuff for the next two weeks, so won't get to it, I'm afraid. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see more commentary as well before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, it's too bad we haven't gotten more reviews. Ian pinged Peacemaker67 a few weeks ago since he's Wikipedia's go-to guy for all things Balkan but I guess he's busy. Would appreciate a good copy-edit, though. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Some BrEng dictionaries are fine with "marginalize" and "emphasize"; some prefer -ise. ("centralize" seems to be fine.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

2007 Coca-Cola 600[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 2007 Coca-Cola 600, the twelfth stock car race of the 2007 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series and the 48th iteration of the event. The 400-lap race was won by Casey Mears which proved to be one of the biggest upsets in NASCAR's history. Mears won the race when other drivers made pit stops for fuel during the event's closing stages. This article passed as GA in January and had a copy-edit from the GOCE in February. All comments are welcome. Z105space (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support I looked through the article and everything seems neat and readable. Images and sources are all fine. Any issues were addressed in the GA Review. Looking at other NASCAR Featured Articles, this one definitely meets FA criteria. Will211 (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support I've looked through this again and am satisfied this meets the FA criteria. I'm not an expert on the matter but it seems that the sources are all in order. JAGUAR  19:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Made a few minor prose changes but article seems complete besides that. The only suggestion I have is to list the top twelve drivers in the championship points standings after the race (as that's what we've done in the other FAs) for consistency reasons, but I'll leave that up to your judgement. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose on some writing and general MoS issues:

• After having been through the lead, I'm concerned about overuse of jargon and racing slang. For example:

• "pitted for fuel" vs "made a pit stop for fuel" (may be unclear that "pitted" is slang for "made a pit stop")
• "crashed out" (I know what this means but it's slang)

• I'm wondering what your interpretation of WP:NUMNOTES is when you go through a paragraph talking about lap numbers. The MoS guidelines talks about comparible numbers in the same sentence, but how about in the same paragraph? Should we be writing "Lap eleven" and "Lap 185" in the same paragraph?
• Same when you get into comparing points in the second para of Background
• Other MoS violations noticed such as periods in image captions that aren't complete sentences (see MOS:CAPTIONS)
• Awkward: "After the race, Jeff Gordon maintained his Drivers' Championship lead" He had it throughout the race, correct? So he didn't maintain it only after the race.
• Rewrite so it doesn't use a parenthetical: "The race is the longest (in terms of distance)"
• "considered ... as one of the sport's most important races" In this context, "considered ... to be" is more accurate.
• "he was evaluated at the Carolinas HealthCare System Infield Care Center" Hmm.. can we just say "at the infield medical center" without that whole branding spiel?
• In the first para of Practice and qualification, does the general reader need to know who was fastest and even what their times were? It seems a bit of undue detail. I'd suggest keeping the first sentence of that para and then jumping into the content of the second para. At the minimum, please omit the irrelevant practice lap times.
• If you must keep it, "went to a back-up car" is slang.
• "After the qualifier, Newman said there was pressure to achieve Penske's Racing South's first victory at Charlotte Motor Speedway" Maybe "said he felt pressure"? The way you've written it implies that others were applying pressure on him, but you don't specify who.
• Better: "weather conditions were partly cloudy with an air temperature of 87 °F (31 °C)"
• "Coke Rewards Fan Winners commanded the drivers to start their engines" Who are they? Generalize to something like "Sponsored contest award winners"
• "Mears was caught speeding upon leaving pit road" sounds a bit casual... "observed speeding" maybe?
• Why are we hyphenating "career-win"? Also, the archive link isn't working on that fn (34 as of this writing).

I don't think it's far off, but it really needs a once-over to check for issues like those mentioned above, and for MoS compliance. --Laser brain (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I had a look and I believe that have dealt with all the points raised above. Is there anything else that needs looking at? Z105space (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Z105space: Thanks for your quick action on these! I'll run through it again today and also do a source review. I'll let you know if I spy anything else. --Laser brain (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Striking my opposition, source review pending. --Laser brain (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Source and image review:

• Omit the publisher for works where the publisher name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example fn 12 and 16)
• Fn 34, MSN is the publisher of Fox Sports?
• File:Cokecola.png - Fair use rationale is acceptable
• File:Lowesmotorspeedway.jpg - Verified PD
• File:RyanNewmanAugust2007.jpg - Verified cc by 2.0
• File:TSM350 - Kurt Busch 2 - 2015 - Stierch.jpg - Verified cc by 4.0
• File:BrianVickersAugust2006 (cropped).jpg - Verified cc by 2.0
• File:CaseyMears 3.JPG - Verified cc by 3.0
• File:National Guard Bureau.jpg - This is incorrectly licensed on Commons. It should be PD.

Otherwise, looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: MSN is no longer the publisher of Fox Sports. Otherwise everything else has been dealt with. Z105space (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Courtney Love[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about singer/songwriter Courtney Love, and covers her life comprehensively. I have researched and edited this article over several years, and got it to GA status prior. I am seeking FA status because I feel it has developed significantly over the past year and qualifies. –Drown Soda (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional Support: My concerns from the last FAC have been addressed, so thank you for that. There is a "Citation needed" tag in the "2012−present" section, but otherwise it looks to be in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Praemonitus: I addressed the citation needed; anything else needed? Drown Soda (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. You have my support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank you much Praemonitus—it's been a long time coming with this article. I'm not entirely familiar with how the FA process works from here, as I've never really gotten a nomination to this point—does the article require multiple approvals, and if so, how does that happen from here? Is it arbitrary? I'd like to do all I can to get this promoted/featured. –Drown Soda (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Coord note -- We do need to see more commentary and clear declarations of support for promotion, as well as image licensing and source reviews. I have to admit I'm a little surprised there's been so little take-up here, as my own quick scan of the article didn't indicate obvious structural or referencing issues, for instance. Normally we'd have archived a nomination that'd been open this long without much commentary but I'm always reluctant to do that when an article's already had a few tries. You might try leaving neutrally worded messages seeking reviews at relevant wikiproject talk pages. Also, getting out and reviewing others' articles can over the long term get you better known in the community and perhaps more likely to attract interest for your nominations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, for starters I'd suggest notifying the WP:WOMENART, WP:WPMU, WP:ALM, and WP:PRM projects. Praemonitus (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised that it's been in limbo this long as well, especially given how high-traffic an article it is. I am still new to the whole FA nomination process; how can I go about notifying these projects (such as WP:WOMENART and whatnot? I've visited the pages, but how can I go about notifying potential reviewers? I don't believe I have the credentials to participate in FA reviews. Like I said though, I'm not totally familiar with this--there are still many facets of the process that I am completely unacquainted with. I've gone to painstaking lengths to get the article to where it is today (especially with doing a complete overhaul on citations and bibliography, integrating SFN references, etc.) and have worked on it over a course of years now. Getting it to GA status was a victory, but I feel like it has been developed enough to warrant FA status at this point. Drown Soda (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

As Ian suggested above, just post a neutrally-worded message to the talk page of the wikiprojects. Active members will likely have it on their watch list, so they will see it. You may or may not get a reply. As for reviewing other articles, any editor can do it. I don't have any established credentials here, for example; just the weight of whatever small insight I can credibly provide. Reviewing other articles, as well as reading other reviews, is a useful means for learning what you need to do to get your own article through the FAC process. Praemonitus (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comments - taking a look now - and will jot notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I still feel unsure of using the word "moniker" in the article - comes across as a little colloquial to my ears.

''...was an employee at the UC San Francisco Hospital - this could be anything from ambulance driver to orderly to neurosurgeon - I'd say "was employed as an 'x' at the UC San Francisco Hospital" or was a "was a 'x' at the UC San Francisco Hospital"

"convinced" the members to let her join as a singer. - why is convinced in quote marks?

''t was remarked in an October 1991 Spin review of Hole's first album that Love's layering of harsh and abrasive riffs... - clumsy, why not just state who said it and convert to active?

There are several duplicate links in the article that should be delinked.

Other than that, looks ok from prose and comprehensiveness perspective. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I addressed these for the most part, though I cannot come up with a way to fix your second point about her mother's occupation–there is no elaboration in her autobiography other than that she 'worked in a children's hospital,' so I'm not sure how to go about clarifying that. She was not a doctor or nurse, as she worked there directly after graduating high school. It was presumably clerical work, but there is no documentation of that specific work she did. Thank you for the pointers. Drown Soda (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's fine - we can only go with what sources say, so it's a tentative support from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

• "the adolescent." (search throughout for ." and ,"): See WP:LQ. The period/full stop goes on the outside regardless of how the source wrote it when you're quoting a short phrase. For longer quoted text, the punctuation goes inside the quote marks only when the punctuation occurs there in the original.
• "subsequently" (search throughout): Doesn't work for me, because it seems to mean whatever the writer wants it to mean, at least on Wikipedia: soon, later, consequently, etc. Usually, it can be deleted without harm to the meaning.
• In 1981–1987: Early projects and elsewhere: Use "she" instead of "Love" if "she" wouldn't be ambiguous, except after paragraph breaks, or similar breaks in the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Literary Hall[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the former home of the Romney Literary Society, which is also represented with a featured article on Wikipedia. This article is the most comprehensive history of the this notable structure. This article also underwent a peer review. Please feel free to share your comments, guidance, and suggestions here; I will address them as quickly as possible. Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, thank you for taking the time to complete this image review! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: the article seems fine and I didn't notice any significant issues that would cause it to fail the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Praemonitus, thank you for your thoughtful review and support! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 2:52, 22 February 2016‎ (UTC)
  • Dank, thank you tremendously for your review and edits, of which I am in full concurrence. -- West Virginian (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It is asserted several times that the design contains Greek Revival elements, but it doesn't seem to say what these are supoposed to be. Even given the loose stylistic grip of most American writing on the subject it seems most unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Johnbod, I thank you for your comment and I understand your concern. "Greek Revival" is used rather generously in the United States, and the label is usually applied when a building is symmetrical in architectural plans, elevations, and massing. I have some sources that can support this; however, the sources cited here do not explicitly state this and it would be original research for me to include these details otherwise. Because the sources do say "Greek Revival" without being specific as to which details qualify, I would like to keep this Greek Revival designation in the text. Please let me know if you have any suggestions moving forward, as this is a small part of the article as a whole. Thank you again for your comment! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No, even in the US it takes more than that ("Georgian" is applied that way for an earlier period). I certainly don't think it is acceptable (repeated 3 times) at FA to misuse terms like that. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Because architectural historian S. Allen Chambers and West Virginia state architectural historian Michael J. Pauley both contend that Literary Hall exhibits Greek Revival detailing, I would prefer to keep "Greek Revival" in the article's prose. I acknowledge that both historians were not as specific as they should have been, but I don't want to leave their classifications of the building's architecture out of the article. I thank you for your comment and suggestion, but I must respectfully disagree Johnbod. If FAC reviewer consensus deems it necessary to remove the classification I will take it out, as I don't want this one phrase to be a stumbling block for FA status. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Great work as always.

• Sources are current and working.
• Images are clear and show the building in question, not people, etc.
• Text of the article is good, no problems that I can see.
• Lede is also good, no problems there.

• All and all, another great article. Well done, WV! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Neutralhomer, thank you for taking the time to engage in this review, provide feedback, and lend your support. It is greatly appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Spot check

• Ref 1 -- used three times. Don't understand the purpose of its usage the first time. Nowhere do I find the source that says that it was designated on May 29, 1979. Also, maintain consistency with the date's format and get rid of "Staff".
• Ref 10 -- Fine.
• Ref 42 -- used three times. Fine.

Frankie _talk 21:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• FrB.TG, thank you so much for engaging in the spot check source review--it is very appreciated! Regarding the first source, it is formatted with the "NRISref" template. I changed the "dateform" so that the date in this source is consistent with the date formatting throughout the article. I've removed the source from its first and third uses and replaced it with a new citation that cites the date of inclusion on the NRHP. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can improve on. Thank you again for the review! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

7th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The 7th Army was a Yugoslav formation which was responsible for the defence of north-western Yugoslavia along the Italian and Reich borders during the WWII Axis invasion of that country that commenced on 6 April 1941. It was quickly cut off and encircled before surrendering. The article was recently promoted to Military History A-Class, and has subsequently had a Background section added to improve context. I believe it now meets the FA criteria, but any and all feedback will be gratefully received. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• Caption of the first map should explain the meaning of the colours used for the dots
  • Done.
• q: see freedom of panorama explanation. Does this image qualify for FOP under those restrictions? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Nikki, does the fact that the tunnel was built by Austrians and the area was part of Austria-Hungary when it was completed have any impact here? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Under Austro-Hungarian law, would it have been PD for any reason while still part of Austria-Hungary? I suspect it would have been considered too utilitarian for protection at the time, but I don't have a source to confirm this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • According to this reference, the 1895 Austrian act did not protect architecture. Does that address the issue? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes. I don't know whether there's any tag that would address this, so perhaps we can just make a text note to that effect on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
          • Done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dan! Your input on prose is always appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Glad you liked it, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Excellent work as usual. Prose is good. Just two points.

1. The first line of "Mobilisation" talks about Simović's post-coup government. For comprehensiveness and context there should be a sentence or two clarifying when the coup occurred and how it prompted the invasion.
2. The last paragraph of "Fate" should state that Yugoslavia was occupied and dismembered by the Axis. Not too much detail needed, just enough for a casual reader.

Otherwise, a job well done. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks 23, I'll make a start on adding these bits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

All done, 23. Useful context, thanks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Support: excellent work as usual. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• in the lead: "Orders for the general mobilisation of the Royal Yugoslav Army were not issued by the government until 3 April 1941 out of fear..." I wonder if a short clause should be added to this clarifying why mobilization would have been required, e.g. "Despite concerns over a German invasion, orders..." or something similar. I think this, or something similar to it, should be added to the Mobilisation section, with potentially a small clause clarifying why the military coup occurred.
• slightly repetitious: "during the German-led Axis invasion of the Yugoslavia in April 1941, during..." (during and during in the same sentence)
• slightly inconsistent: "LI Corps" v. "LI Infantry Corps"
• missing comma: "detachment commanders, Hauptmann Palten led..." (probably need a comma after "Palten")
• "became the 7th Army area of operations..." --> "became the 7th Army's area of operations"?
• in the Notes "U.S. Army" is probably overlinked; same with "brigadier general"

• All done except the linking in the Notes. I've left them in, because the notes stand-alone, and pop up and are clickable, so if a reader wants to open a new tab and follow the link, they can. These are my edits. Thanks for the review, Rupert. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Peacemaker67, where are we on addressing AustralianRupert's comments? Source review? --Laser brain (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Will get onto them right now. Thanks for the reminder. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Boise National Forest[edit]

Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is my second nomination of this article for FA status. The first was a year ago, and after taking it to GA status, I'm renominating it. I think this article comprehensively covers numerous aspects about this national forest in Idaho. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Imzadi1979[edit]

I'll go ahead and give this a basic source review after meandering here from my own nomination:

• A key hallmark of FA status can be summed up in one word: consistency, and with citations, I'll probably mention that a lot. First example: "United States Geological Survey" but you have "U.S. Forest Service". I don't think either is wrong, but it's odd to have one spelled out fully, but the other is partially abbreviated. Further down, in note 16, the former gets abbreviated down to just "USGS", and it should be spelled out in whatever fashion to match. So in short, you should audit how you're going to spell out agency names and apply a consistent rule across all of the footnotes.
• Back to note 16, you have an access date defined, but no URL, which triggers an error message. (It might be one of the error messages that's hidden by default, but it's there all the same for those of us who have them all enabled.) The access date does not display without a URL defined, and it would be meaningless if it could be displayed anyway.
  • Also, and this is a bit of a personal preference, but maps have authors, which can be the same organization as the publisher. I personally list the USGS in both positions in the template and include the place of publication (Reston, VA) for map citations. It's also my experience that map scales with numbers of 5 digits or more have commas inserted (1:24,000) to ease parsing the number.
• Note 17, etc, shouldn't have the publisher wikilinked after it was in the very first note. You may need to bypass a source-specific template and use {{cite web}} directly to customize the output to avoid an unneeded wikilink.
• In note 45, "New York, NY" the state abbreviation is normally not needed when New York is the place of publication for a book.
• In sequential notes (53–54), you have "Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service" and just "Rocky Mountain Research Station" as the publisher. Especially if you can wikilink the first one, you could use the shorter form alone
• In note 63, etc, "Incident Information System" sounds to me like the name of a website/work, and I'm left wondering whose system that is, i.e. who's the publisher?

• I corrected it to "InciWeb" and added a wikilink. It's an interagency service in the U.S. government.

• For the map in note 79, I'd spell out the series name as you did in note 16.

The sources are all appropriate for the article, so the only quibbles I have are related to the formatting, not their quality or reliability on first blush. Imzadi 1979 → 12:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made all of these corrections. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

This is my first sight of the article – I missed the previous FAC. I've read that review, and it seems that prose quality was the principal reason why it was archived. So I've been looking particularly at the prose. Hmmm. I've got as far as the end of the "Management" section, and found quite a few issues. These are all fixable, but will require some attention, and I'd obviously like to look at the rest. In the meantime, please consider the following:

• Lead: "in addition to" is not appropriate wording, as the facts that follow it are quite separate from the land cover details. I suggest something like "...spruce-fir forests; there are 9,600 miles (15,400 km) of streams and rivers, and 15,400 acres (6,200 ha) of lakes and reservoirs."

• Done.

• Also in lead: by "through the mid-twentieth century" I assume you mean "until the mid-twentieth century". This is important, because in British English, "through" means "during the duration of" rather than "up to", as in "he lived through the war years".

• Done.

• History: Pleistocene should be linked

• Done.

• "The most important known placer deposit of niobium and tantalum in the United States is located in Bear Valley." Needs a citation.

• Done. Though the last three sentences in that paragraph are all covered by the same page of the same source.

• "The President was given the authority..." Clarify you mean the U.S. president.

• Done.

• This seems like unnecessary detail in this article: "The original Payette National Forest had been established on June 3, 1905 as Payette Forest Reserve".

• I think it is necessary since it shows when the forest was first protected. I moved it and reworded that section so it makes more sense.

• Over-use of the word "establiahed" in the latter part of the US Forestry section. Try some synonyms, e.g. "formed", "set up", "founded" etc

• Done.

• I think the rather clumsy formation "and a district ranger who manages the ranger district" could be replaced by "and is managed by a district ranger"

• Done.

• Is it necesssary to name the "top forest official" – and that title sounds a little informal for an encyclopaedia?

• Removed.

• This is very clumsy: "There have been 2,648,273 acres (10,717.18 km2) of Idaho proclaimed to be part of Boise National Forest, however the forest manages only about 2,203,703 acres (891,807 ha)." Apart from the awkward wording and inappropriate comma, why is the first figure given an equivalence in km2 and the second in hectares?

• I reworked this.

• I'm afraid my head started to spin when I tried to follow the details in the second part of the Management section. Is all this detail necessary? If so, is this the best way of presenting it? Perhaps a table – I don't know, but you may lose readers in this morass of detail.

• I'm not sure it would really fit into a table. I do think it is necessary to include the sentences about the two wilderness areas since they are quite large areas, but the rest could perhaps just be removed. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll return later with my comments on the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuing: Sorry for the delay:

Geog and geology

• "which extend even further north and east..." I don't see a need for "even further"

• Done.

• "are referred to as the Trinity Mountains" – is this a formal alternate name or some sort of local usage? Some clarification needed.

• Reworded to eliminate "referred" and indicate it is a subrange. This is an official name supported by the GNIS reference at the end of the sentence.

• "The forest borders parts of seven reservoirs, however the Forest Service does not own or manage any of the dams." Inappropriate comma and dodgy "however". Perhaps revise: "The forest borders parts of seven reservoirs, none of which are owned or managed by the Forest Service". This could merge with the next sentence if you replace "Rather, it..." with "which".

• Done.

• What are "acre feet"? An explanatory note would help.

• Linked

Climate

• Just a comment: bearing in mind Idaho's location in the North-west of the States, I'm a little surprised that its climate is affected by moisture from the Gulf of Mexico, which seems very distant.

• I removed "Gulf of Mexico" because it does seem odd and overly specific but not impossible

• I assume the snowfall figures are annual averages?

• Clarified.

Natural resources

• Can we somehow avoid "ecoregion" occuring three times in the first line of the section?

• I think the third can be removed, but think the first two link to ecoregion and distinguish between the batholith itself and its eponymous ecoregion.

• "the presence of frequent non-lethal fires" − I think "occurence" rather than presence. How about: "the frequent occurence of non-lethal fires"?

• Agreed and changed

• You have "Douglas fir occasionally occur" (plural verb form) but later "Douglas fir dominates" (singular verb form). Consistency needed – the latter is preferable and in more general use.

• Done

• Overuse of "dominates/dominated" – five in quick succession. "Is predominant", or some other variant, would make a change.

• Changed a few

• "Boise National Forest is directed to "control the establishment..." – who does the directing?

• Higher level regional and/or national level Forest Service management, which I revised to

• "Habitat in Boise National Forest supports..." – "Habitat" is not a mass noun, so it should be "Habitats"

• Done

• "including 36 accidental species, or those that are not normally found in the region but have been observed on at least one occasion". A little unclear; I suggest "including 36 "accidental" species – those not normally found in the region but have been observed on at least one occasion".

• Done

• "Deadwood Lookout is now maintained as a cabin that can be rented by the public" – this information is given in more detail in the next section, and doesn't need to appear here.

• Removed

Recreation

• (third line): "as on" surely just "on"?

• Clarified to most difficult sections on these rivers since there's rafting on others as well

This is a meticulously researched article, nicely put together. Most of my points are minor quibbles or merely suggestions. I have also made a few tweaks to the text. I'll be happy to support when the above points are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Support: My concerns have been properly addressed and I'll be happy to see the article promoted, subject to image clearance. I hope other editors will read and review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support as per last time. I actually thought the prose was good then. In any case, comprehensive and an engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The units used are inconsistent - acres and hectares in the lead, acres and sq km in the infobox. For such a large area, I think square miles and km would be more meaningful to readers.

• The Forest Service uses acres, and on other U.S. protected area articles areas of such large protected areas are consistently listed as acres/square km, so I changed everything to that.

• "known populations of Sacajawea's bitterroot". Perhaps "known populations of the flowering plant Sacajawea's bitterroot".

• Done. I didn't mean for it to appear that way as I had mentioned previous resource extraction activities in that paragraph.

• I think the lead should spell out the management objectives. You specify recreation, presumably also forestry and conservation, but does one objective take priority?

• Done

• The link "last [[ice age]]" is not very useful. [[last glacial maximum|last ice age]] would be more helpful.

• Done

• "human habitation up to 10–15,000 years" What does this mean? Any time between now and 15,000 years ago? I would leave out "up to".

• Done

• "A change of climate around 7000 years ago dried up much of the Great Basin, forcing the Shoshone people northward into the mountainous areas of central Idaho.[6]:3" This is unclear. did the Shoshone move into or out of Boise?

• Clarified

• What is the "3" after ref 6 and other similar superscript numbers? Nothing happens when I click on them.

• That is using the {{rp}} template, which indicates the page number of that document that supports that statement. I only use it for the two excessively long documents (references 1 and 6) as a cleaner yet still accurate method of citing those documents rather than having them appear 10+ times in the references.

• I do not see the point of that. It is far more helpful to readers to have the page number in the reference as page=. The article only has 78 references whereas some articles have over 300. However, that is up to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Most of what is now Boise National Forest was sparsely inhabited by Native Americans, however several archaeological sites, including campsites, rock shelters, burial grounds, and pictographs have been found along rivers in the area." I am not sure why "however", which implies a contrast. Maybe replace with "and".

• Done

• "at the now eponymous Grimes Creek" The word "now" is not needed.

• Done

• "forest reserves in the U.S. Department of the Interior" Forest reserves in the department? it does not sound right. Ditto reserves "part of" the Dept of Agriculture. Maybe "came under".

• Changed to "administered by" and "transferred to"

• In "Capacity (MW)" what does MW mean? (Amount of electricity the reservoir produces in megawatts? If so, this should be explained.)

• Seems a little odd to explain this, sort of like needing explain hectares and miles, but I linked to electricity generation (Capacity) and watts (MW)

• Yes it seems obvious now but I was confused by both columns having the same heading, "Capacity" and assumed they were both units of the same thing. You might change the first one to "Volume" and the second to "Generating capacity", with MW in the units row below. Also, you are inconsistent whether acre-feet is hypenenated. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• "Intermountain region." Could this be linked?

• I linked to the section of the U.S. Forest Service article that lists the regions. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax

• I did some cleanup. Check the history for details. For one thing, I changed 300px to upright=1.8 for the map per MOS:IMAGES. If it is too big, ratchet 1.8, or remove the spec altogether, but do not go back to a hardcoded size. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Singora Singora (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• 1. CasLiber has asked me to take a look at this, so I'll go through it bit by bit.
• 2. A while back I wrote Buçaco Forest, an article about a small forest in central Portugal. It's not quite finished, but is structured along similar lines to Boise Forest.

Presentation

• 3. The guy above me has inserted a CLEAR tag above the History header. This is wrong and makes a mess of presentation. Compare the article's appearance with and without this tag to see what I mean.

• I agree.

• 4. Do you need to source content in the infobox?

• The coordinates and areas definitely should have references. The establishment date can probably go without one, but there's no reason why infobox content should have sources.

• 5. Compare your map with the one I coded for Buçaco Forest. Mine is better. Clicking on your map takes me to an empty image. This is of no use whatsoever to your audience / target market. Do what I did: use Photoshop to add a red marker, and size it so that it's slightly smaller than the red dot generated by the infobox template. See also the maps for Yellowstone National Park and Zion National Park.

• I'm not sure I would say much better, but I was trying to create one like you did and couldn't get it quite right. Feel free to try if you want. The maps for those two parks are nice and recent additions (their previous map was the same as the one currently on this page), but I can't make anything like them.

Introduction / Summary

• 6. RE: Boise National Forest is a federally protected area that covers. "that covers" -> "covering".

• Done

• 7. RE: it is managed by the U.S. Forest Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture as four units. The Wiki page for the U.S. Forest Service tells us it's a division of the Department of Agriculture, so do you really need to have this info here? It's wordy and you end up using "U.S." twice in the same sentence. Look at this featured article's second sentence: Shoshone National Forest.

• Removed the USDA part, but can't add anything about a presidential proclamation like in Shoshone as I'm not sure if it's creation was a direct result of a proclamation.

• 8. RE: The Idaho Batholith underlays most of Boise National Forest, forming the forest's Boise, Salmon River, and West mountain ranges, and the forest reaches. "West mountain ranges, and the forest" -> "West mountain ranges; the forest".

• Done

• 9. "Common land cover types include" -> "Common land cover includes".

• Done

• 10. "Boise National Forest contains 75 percent of the known populations of the flowering plant Sacajawea's bitterroot, a species endemic to Idaho" -> "Boise National Forest contains 75 percent of the known populations of Sacajawea's bitterroot, a flowering plant endemic to Idaho".

• Done

• 11. "The Shoshone people occupied what is now Boise National Forest before European settlers arrived in the early 1800s" -> "The Shoshone people occupied the forest before European settlers arrived in the early 1800s".

• Done

• 12. "Recreation opportunities and facilities in Boise National Forest include " -> "Recreation opportunities and facilities include". It's obvious you're talking about the forest.

• Done

• 13. I'll add more feedback later.

Wednesday Singora (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• 14. Let's look at the History section.
• 15. The first sentence is pretty grim: "The first people entered Idaho near the end of the last ice age in the late Pleistocene; there is evidence of human habitation 10–15,000 years ago at Wilson Butte Cave, which was temporarily occupied by people hunting bison on the Snake River Plain". Your source is ref #5.
• 16. For starters, you've repeated the word "people".
• 17. You need a colon instead of a semi-colon as the second clause develops or adds to the first.
• 18. Lastly, the sentence is stylistically and factually incorrect. Saying "the last ice age in the late Pleistocene" is silly. Obviously the last ice age was in the Pleistocene, but you don't even need to mention the Pleistocene since it's an epoch dating back more than 2.5 million years. I see your source for this is actually ref #6: "Near the end of the Ice Age or Pleistocene geological epoch, some 13,000 years ago ...". See how they've used the word "or". Ref #5 tells us: "The first unmistakable evidence of human occupation of Wilson Butte Cave dates from about 10,000 years ago. Ruth Gruhn, the archaeologist who excavated the cave, also uncovered cultural material that she believes shows that people used the cave as early as 15,000 years ago", adding that "Other archaeologists, however, are less convinced that Wilson Butte Cave was occupied before 10,000 BP". Note also that this evidence pertains only to human habitation in the forest - it's not the same as what you're written: "The first people entered Idaho". Finally, your claim that the cave was "temporarily occupied" doesn't reconcile with "The excavation shows that Wilson Butte Cave was largely abandoned by 400 BP, after the bison largely disappeared from the area".
• 19. How about: "Archaeological evidence indicates that human habitation in the forest began towards the end of the last ice age: bone fragments about 10,000 years old have been found in Wilson Butte Cave, a rocky bubble on a bed of ancient lava believed to have been occupied by indigenous people until as recently as the 17th century". You could change "indigenous people" to "bison hunters" or "indigenous bison-hunting people". Ref #6 uses the terms "Plateau people" and "Snake Indians". Remember that only Ruth Gruhn believes occupation dates back 15K years. The consensus is 10K.
• 20. Or: "Evidence indicates that human habitation in the forest began towards the end of the last ice age: bone fragments around 10,000 years old have been found in Wilson Butte Cave, an archaeological site believed to have been occupied until 400 years ago by (indigenous) people formerly known as Snake Indians". Getting in the Snake Indian blurb might be useful since it leads nicely to the Shoshoni.
• 21 Or: "Excavations at Wilson Butte Cave suggest human occupation at Boise Forest began around 10,000 years ago: bone fragments unearthed in the cave indicate it was settled towards the end of the last ice age, before being abandoned about 400 BP.

• I think this sentence has been changed more by other editors than any other part of this article since I originally wrote it. Changing to something like 19. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• For clarification, Wilson Butte Cave isn't in the forest. It is used as an estimate of the earliest habitation for the region as a whole. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thurday Singora (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• 22. Map added. Have I got it right? If not, I've kept the PSD. For some reason the infobox template isn't generating the red marker. Just noticed that markers aren't generated for Yellowstone National Park and Zion National Park, so maybe this template only works with a blank map. I'll do more this evening. Quick update: with Buçaco Forest the on-page marker is generated with percentages rather than geo-coordinates. I'm pretty sure now we can do the same for Boise and, perhaps, Yellowstone and Zion.

Saturday Singora (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• 23. Map marker added to inofox. The marker is generated with X & Y parameters (rather than map_locator fields used by the Bucaco Forest template) and sits neatly on top of the larger red dot added with Photoshop. I see you have another featured article, Sawtooth National Forest, so you could now easily re-jig the map as per Boise.

• Thanks

• 24. Delete "on a bed of ancient lava". It's implied by the blurb re: inflationary caves & Snake River Plain.

• Done. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Note to Admin Singora (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC) I see now this article is at the bottom of the FAC list. Please don't archive it. I promised CasLiber I'll review it, and I will; I won't let the nominator down. I'll try to complete the review over the weekend.

If you want to make grammar and other minor edits like some of your comments above while you review, go for it. I'll review any changes you make to be sure you didn't inadvertently change the meaning. If you would rather just leave comments, that's fine too. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR) Shortcuts: WP:FAR WP:FARC This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Bette Davis[edit]

Notified: Rossrs, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Film/American cinema task force, WikiProject Lowell, Massachusetts

Per Talk:Bette Davis#Featured Article?, the article was last reviewed nearly ten years ago and needs more sourcing to remain up to featured article standard. DrKay (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I don't have the needed resources to patch it up, but someone would have to do lots of work to bring this up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

As it stands, right now, it'd fail the Good Article criteria. Miyagawa (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Coonskin (film)[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Animation

I am nominating this featured article for review because is decidedly substandard. It seems to have been pushed through in 2007, with by an editor who is now permanently banned for sockpuppeting. It has changed little since 2008, despite Wikipedia's Featured Article standards improving immensely through that time. Specifically, using the current Featured article criteria, I note that:

• 1b: There is only one paragraph of critical reception, compared to seven paragraphs and four quotes in The Care Bears Movie, which is only a Good Article. This is despite that theoretically there should be much more to write about. The article is very short compared to other film featured articles as well such as The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) and Fritz the Cat (film), other Bakshi works written by that same banned author.
• 1c: There are only 22 sources. Compare this to the 233 citations in The Care Bears Movie, which was prepared for Featured Article status in 2011 but never nominated. Of those sources, six are heavily relied on and cited multiple times. Why is Care Bears 10 times more scholarly and thoughtful? Speaking of that reception paragraph, every single citation is to one source; the original reviews are not cited. There are no citations at all to the cast section.
• 1d: The section on Controversy is not neutral at all: it verges into total approval of Bakshi's views by repeatedly quoting him on how stupid the protesters were, what sellouts they were, how much smarter he is, etc. In one short paragraph alone: "Bakshi asked", "Bakshi stated", "According to Bakshi", "says Bakshi", and "Bakshi states". The subtext of this is that (the articles says) they clearly were wrong and Bakshi was right. This obviously is POV. The black activist perspective is mocked and only gets a buried paragraph to barely speak for itself. The actual reason the activists cared about the movie, e.g. what they took issue with, which should be the whole reason the controversy happened, is never explained, and the impression the article gives is that the boorish thugs of frequent political punching bag Al Sharpton (the only evidence for Sharpton being present is Bakshi's later claims) came from nowhere and nothing on the day of the screening. The author is known to be pro-Bakshi as he had already promoted two of his movies and tried desparately to get the main Ralph Bakshi article promoted to FA nine separate times over two years.

The original Featured Article candidacy, in 2007, barely had any discussion and the few reviewers did not notice these problems then, but they are quite glaring. Over two weeks, there have been no comments on these concerns on the talk page (as already said, the sole active editor is permanently banned). I believe this needs to undergo at least a FAR for these issues to be addressed. --Dagko (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Although I was too young to see the film in 1975, I'm old enough to remember the controversy that surrounded its release. I am amazed that Bakshi is virtually the only source cited in the article's "Controversy" section. Quite aside from its FA status, its potentially BLP-violating allegations about Al Sharpton should require reliable secondary sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Sharpton was 20 years old and obscure at the time - and Bakshi is remembering it in 1995, 2007, and 2008, after he was famous. I concur with Sharpton's involvement or mere presence requiring secondary sources.--Dagko (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Move to FARC. Nobody is working on it, and as it stands now, the BLP issues are still very unresolved, and may have to be removed. --Dagko (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Move to FARC per Dagko. --Laser brain (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Venus[edit]

Notified: Saros136, Fotaun, JorisvS, Ckatz, Kheider, Serendipodous, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy

The article has undergone major change since the latest FAR in 2008 (e.g. [33]). It no longer looks like the same article. There are a few issues that pop out to me - there is an over-use of images and not always in the correct context (one example "Pioneer Venus Multiprobe"). Some sections are very brief and refer to secondary articles without a summary that reads well and fits in well on the Venus page itself. The intro is a little brief and could be better written.Anon 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've placed this review on hold at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination for the moment because I was unable to locate the first phase of the review ("Raise issues at article Talk"). DrKay (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've updated the talk page Anon 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

• Some of the images have no alt= text. And some images have alt text the same as the caption. Being the same is not useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Resolved. Serendi^podous 08:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• ref "Nature of the Magnetic Field in the Neighborhood of Venus" is fairly incomplete, and with a typo, correct details are here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969CosRe...7..675D
  • I improved this a little before noticing the FAR; it now appears consistent with what's available through the bibcode, though, sadly, it appears online records for the journal only go back to 2000. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• it would be good to links some more journals, and publishers in the references - on first occurrences may be.
  • I notice some are now linked, but not most. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Done. Serendi^podous 09:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• dead link for "Venus Close Approaches to Earth as predicted by Solex 11"

• Fixed with archive link. A2soup (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• dead link for " Numbers generated by Solex"

• Fixed. This just served to explain the source for the prior ref, so I combined them and gave an archive link. A2soup (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• the "Compare the Planets" references neither of the facts linked to it.

• Fixed by finding old version of that ref with relevant link (now dead) & providing archive link. A2soup (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• ref "A. Boyle – Venus transit: A last-minute guide – MSNBC" missing information and is a dead link.
• ref "See Venus in Broad Daylight!" no retrieval date (it is still there though)
• ref "The Pentagram of Venus" is a blog, and is missing info, cannot tell if this is reliable or not.

Fixed. The guy has a wiki page, so he's probably reliable. Serendi^podous 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• ref Fegley, B (2003). Venus (Treatise on Geochemistry ed.). has "ed.", no page number or ISBN. added
• ref "title". Retrieved 4 January 2015. is missing detail. added
• ref "РАН: запуск "Венеры-Д" состоится не ранее 2024 года" should have an English translation of the title. (perhaps an English language source is available)
• ref "Atmospheric Flight on Venus" is a dead link for me and missing info
  • Rescued via Archive.org. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 03:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• refs 166-175 look to be web references and miss retrieval dates and other information.
• ref "The Magellan Venus Explorer's Guide" appears thrice, but the first time has no page number, and the second time has even less info. (there is no ISBN on the book so its absence is a non-issue) found page numbers in the book, linked online version, and made consistent.
• This article should link to Venus in fiction possibly with a short sentence on the topic. Look at Observations and explorations of Venus#Impact on literature which belongs more here, than in that article.
  • I've added a prototype. It may need some holes filled. Serendi^podous 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Is it good enough? Please let me know before I spend a day at a library. Serendi^podous 10:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I think the summary is OK. However we should not be using primary references for the first three documents, secondary references that mention the facts would be more appropriate. Whenever the popular culture section develops in other articles, material only referenced to the work it is in gets the chop, and only if others comment on it, is the mention worth having in Wikipedia. I will add these as an issue down below, so that this one can be resolved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Nowhere does Venus tell us that it appears as a white star. The colour is a basic fact that should be mentioned.

• Added this fact (with ref) to first sentence of observation section. A2soup (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• "thick clouds" composition does not match what the sources say. The sources also mention aluminium chloride, ferric chloride, and "sulfates", partially hydrated phosphoric anhydride and octasulfur. sulfur dioxide looks to be an atmospheric gas rather than a cloud droplet material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Sky and Telescope" is used where the correct name appears to be "Sky & Telescope" fixed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Page is in this category: category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls so there may be an error hidden in there somewhere.

It apparently isn't any more. Serendi^podous 10:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Citation needed for "Venus's opaque clouds prevent observing the Sun from the planet's surface"

added. Serendi^podous 10:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=2and http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=229 are two different references that seem to result in the same page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Use of thinspace, is this OK? (in the info box)

removed. Serendi^podous 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• ISBN format dashes or not?

fixed. Serendi^podous 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

More fixes; I wrote an in-browser ISBN tool a while back that can properly hyphenate ISBNs, and I've verified most of the ones currently in the article. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Calculate/show" should this read "Calculate and show"? The page is called Apparent Disk of Solar System Object.

Fixed. Serendi^podous 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• In one place we say Cassini–Huygens and another Cassini.
• Since we use British English, should "center" be replaced by "centre" where it is not a proper noun, or title?
• " Colonization -> Colonisation
• " color -> colour (three times)
• "co-orbitals" sounds a bit jargon-like.

fixed. Serendi^podous 15:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• fixed Dawsow name error.
• " destabilize -> destabilise
• Encyclopædia or Encyclopedia? two different things used for Encyclopædia Britanica. "æ" look right here.
• Britannica online encyclopedia needs capitalisation anyway - and is not the name the site uses also
• fly-by or flyby? (also fly-bys or flybys)
• Hitran or HITRAN?

Above spelling issues resolved. Serendi^podous 10:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The "Lightnings on Venus studied on the basis of Venera 9 and 10 data" reference is actually in Russian. Did anyone actually locate a copy and read it? In any case the journal title ( Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia) and article title would be in Russian, so see if we can get original. Google suggests " Космические Исследования" An English translation is also published with bibcode=1980CosRe..18..325K

• I found and read a translation. It looks like that journal was regularly translated and republished in America as Cosmic Research. I changed to ref to the translation. A2soup (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Should "false colour image" be "false-colour image"? (with hyphen in adjective)

fixed. Serendi^podous 13:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Three primary references used in the "In fiction" section should be secondary sources instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

secondary sources added. Serendi^podous 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• V.A. Krasnopolskii or V. A. Krasnopolsky — likely the same author with two transliterations.

Possibly but I don't see how we'd prove it. Serendi^podous 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Someone changed it anyway. 23:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Serendi^podous

• MESENGER or MESSENGER ?
• midday seems preferable to mid-day
• Should "Planet-C" be "PLANET-C"?

Spelling issues resolved. Serendi^podous 13:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "in false-colour" should not have a hyphen as colour is now the noun, not part of adjective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Serendi^podous 21:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have now run this script: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Venus
  • It has identified some spelling issues that are not in British spelling:
  • Sterilization
  • realization
  • civilization
  • Venera program (should this have "me" on the end?)
• Headings that contain the word Venus - "Venus symbol" and "Pentagram of Venus"

"Pentagram of Venus" is a proper title, and so can't be changed. Serendi^podous 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• 630 nm should have a non-breaking space, and perhaps "nm" should be spelled out as nanometre
• references should not be after a space, eg at "eccentricity = 0.006772" "asc_node = 76.680°" "deep interior than Earth's."

Other issues above resolved. Serendi^podous 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• New dead link :http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/96GL01589.shtml for Venusian k 2 tidal Love number from Magellan and PVO tracking data (info) [agu.org]
• dead link for transit of Venus: http://www.transit-of-venus.org.uk/history.htm (domain appears abandoned)
• weasel word "arguably"

Changed. Serendi^podous 08:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

• The lead is a bit too short for an article of this side. Add a paragraph on space-exploration and/or colonization

added. Serendi^podous 18:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The slow, retrograde rotation is notable and deserves a mention in the lead. Praemonitus (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Added. 09:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Serendi^podous

• The Planned and proposed missions section is basically a list without bullet-points

revised. Serendi^podous 23:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• As per WP:ISBN, change all ISBN numbers to ISBN-13. Use this site to convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13

revised. Serendi^podous 09:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep: I believe this article now meets FA Criteria   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Nergaal[edit]

• Are there any Apohele asteroid-like objects that are considered to be related to Venus? Nergaal (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sir Anon, Graeme Bartlett, and Dunkleosteus77: Have your concerns been addressed here? @Serendipodous: any response to Nergaal's question? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There are Venus-crosser asteroids; is that what he's asking? Serendi^podous 17:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

My main outstanding issue is saying the clouds contain sulfur dioxide, which is not what the sources say. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Which I cannot resolve, because I cannot read the sources. Serendi^podous 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Google should be able to give you a loose translation if the source is in another language. Right-click the page and there should be an option to translate it.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There have got to be other, English sources that discuss Venus's clouds. We shouldn't tear our hair out over this particular source. I'll try to look into this in the coming week. A2soup (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Super Nintendo Entertainment System[edit]

Notified: Anomie, WikiProject Video games

Review section[edit]

This article's status currently states that this article is a featured article; however, there happen to be a lot of errors, most of which are unverifiable claims, tagged by [citation needed] and [unreliable source?] tags. I have not (yet) noticed any dead links, but this article has a lot of problems, so I am hoping that we could delist this article and leave it like that until we manage to complement it once again. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - You notified yourself on the FAR and not the original nominator? Also, you didn't notify the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I must have rushed what I was doing, and, because this is my first time, I told for myself do something which is a not-to-do. I am sorry, and how do I notify the WikiProject of something? Also, am I in trouble for the clutter? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • See Template:FAR-instructions on how to make an FAR. GamerPro64 23:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I already started doing so even after I had left the page. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment – Following references deadlink: 3, 8, 31, 42, 43, 44, 47, 85. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pretty bad, it is. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Links 8, 42 and 43 repaired with archiveurl. Link 3 already has archiveurl. Link 31 is a print reference. Links 44, 47 and 85 load for me, do not appear to be dead. -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I can also confirm that 44,47 and 85 are working fine.--67.68.163.32 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Gamingforfun, looks like this nom missed the step of discussing problems on the talk page first. Thus, I'm going to put this on hold to allow for this to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Relisted: The talk page discussion has concluded that "romhacking.net", which is used in the article as a source, is self-published by the main editor of the article and that it therefore probably does not qualify as a reliable source. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Seems like a baby-with-the-bathwater situation to delist a FA on the basis that a single source is unreliable. Looking at the information it was referencing, I'm not convinced that I needed to know that level of detail about the technical specifications of the SNES. Could we just comment that stuff out until a more reliable source is found, if ever? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree that if the only remaining issue is with a soure covering a relatively minor part of the article it wold make more sense to remove the content than the featured article status.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• I think we've taken the wrong tack here. It's not that the romhacking.net link needs to be replaced but what the hell is going on in the "Technical specifications" section? It is a romp through jargon that is totally unexplained and unhelpful to the general reader. None of our other console FAs have anywhere near that amount of superfluous technical detail—no wonder we're having trouble sourcing it to a mainstream source. The goal of the section should be understanding the hardware in the context of its time, not listing every spec—that's for another (specialist) website and outside our scope. Indeed, the section has only collected more detail since 2007. Trim it back, I say. This is not "brilliant prose" as is. czar 05:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Technical details have been purged entirely along with the unreliable Romhacking reference. This information already exists at Super Nintendo Entertainment System technical specifications anyways, apparently in exact duplicate. There are 3 new citation needed tags that were added when @Czar removed N-Sider. I am looking for replacement sources now. After that, all tags will have been addressed. -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

All unreliable, citation needed and deadlink tags have been repaired/addressed. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep as all issues have been addressed. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment What needs to be done for this to close? The major issues brought up, various tagging (Unreliable, citation needed and deadlink) in the article related to sourcing, have all been addressed. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes. Declarations of "Close" can help the co-ordinators determine that commentators are happy for the review to be archived. There is one remaining link to romhacking (regarding translations); is that being retained? DrKay (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed it. I thought all of the romhacking refs were all tagged and didn't think to search for romhacking directly *silly* -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Close Follow up to my comment above, I believe this can be closed now. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the article as it stands now? Do you have concerns that are yet to be addressed? @Gamingforfun365 and Czar: Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

(Didn't get the ping.) My specific concerns have been addressed but there's still a fair amount of cleanup to be done. I don't have the time for a full review so I'm not opposing on this, but: (1) the lede is a mess—it's not a full summary of the article (and if it is, the article is missing a whole lot of detail), (2) specifically, one half of the lede is about the product's name! It needs to be pared down, footnoted, moved to another section. The lede is for introducing how the console is commonly known, not a catalog of how it is spelled in non-English speaking regions. See the Genesis article for comparison. (3) Many sentences are unsourced—those are simple fixes. (4) The emulation section has too much individual detail and not enough overview about how they were developed and used as a whole, which were most popular and why, etc. (5) The legacy section needs much, much more on how the console and its properties affected later industry prospects, how people continue to be influenced by the console, etc. It's essentially proseline as is ("X said it's the top Y"). That stuff doesn't matter and can be grouped together ("journalists from X, Z said it was among the best consoles")—we care about the broad arc of the console's influence. That many people called it the best is not nearly as important as the specific influence (with nuance) it had on people and the industry. czar 19:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include organization/coverage and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Delist. I had a look through this as I'm pretty knowledgeable about this console, but it needs way more work than meets the eye. Lots of sections need complete rewrites and additional research. --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Fairy tale[edit]

Notified: Goldfritha, AtticusX, User_talk:DavidOaks, WIkiprojects: Novels, Literature, Children's literature

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, the article has descended from Featured article quality. In particular, the comprehensiveness of the articles is much lower than our standard for such a broad scope article: only two academic approaches being highlighted, one of which is almost entirely unreferenced, and verging on OR (or at least appears to be). I am also worried about the contemporary literature section: it only deals with two genres, and doesn't do so with much sophistication. Adaptation of fairy tales is quite heavily explored in academia, especially with the recent surge of television adaption work like Grimm and Once Upon A Time. Moreover, that section in particular, is very poorly written and organized. I really don't like demoting articles, but this appears to be one long overdue... it needs the attention of an expert, who really understands the field (and how it has changed since 2007!), Sadads (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sadads, welcome to FAR. It looks like you've missed the first step of discussing the issue on the talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for highlighting the process. However, there has been no serious discussion on the talk page for years, and the article proper hasn't received any substantial edits other than vandalism reversion. There does not appear to be a community to notify via the talk. I escalated, with the assumption that no-one would see this as just a talk page discussion, Sadads (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comments I think a deal of work is needed, possibly too much for talk page discussion - structurally it is now poorly laid out, with similar material either repeated or far apart - e.g. the Terminology section repeats material from Definition and History of the genre - its material should be split and merged to reduce and consolidate. The Cross-cultural transmission concerns origins so should be moved chronologically up the article. Association with children section is a bit all over the place - Disney material appears in two sections. Modern material should be organized into new representations of old material and new fairy tales. The motifs and the Interpretations sections should be further up the article as they are critical to the plots as it were. Also, I am a little surprised the article passed FAC with so many opposes. And then there is comprehensiveness - e.g. African/Asian material, synthesis into American culture (e.g Uncle Remus stories) - relations to myths etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review phase include referencing, comprehensiveness, and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delist. Quite a few major issues and no progress apparent. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Enceladus[edit]

Notified: Drbogdan, WolfmanSF, JorisvS, Volcanopele, BatteryIncluded, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy

WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been tagged for update in the atmosphere section, which is very short. Readers are directed to a sub-article Atmosphere of Enceladus, but it seems to contain all the same information as the main article, and so appears somewhat pointless. In my opinion, the gallery section does not add much to the article, and a link to the commons category should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

comments from Graeme Bartlett

• I am looking into this. There do not seem to be many more writings on the "atmosphere", and most do not distinguish it from the plumes. I found one thesis modelling the atmosphere, but does a thesis count as a reliable source?
• One topic missing that I see quite a few papers about is the effect of Endeladus on the magnetosphere, but its own and that of Saturn.
• Another is related, the auroral hiss[34].
• referencing improvements required:
  • The Blondel, Philippe reference needs expanding with links.
  • Satellites of the Outer Planets: Worlds in their own right needs an ISBN.
  • "Cracks on Enceladus Open and Close under Saturn's Pull" has author Bill Steigerwald
  • 56 and 67 have a bibcode but no doi (needs a check)
  • Taubner R.S.; Leitner J. J.; et al needs some kind of link and et al should be expanded a bit.
  • "Ocean Within Enceladus May Harbor Hydrothermal Activity" should have publisher which is astrobiology, but this is a NASA press release, so there is probably a better source.
  • "Our Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water" is also a NASA press release
  • "'Jets' on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Actually Be Giant Walls of Vapor and Ice" needs author= Charles Q. Choi date=6 May 2015 publisher=Space.com
  • "A Hot Start on Enceladus" needs date March 14, 2007
  • "Atmosphere on Enceladus" needs standard format on date.
  • "Enceladus Life Finder" needs fixing, internal title is "ENCELADUS LIFE FINDER: THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN A HABITABLE MOON" authors are J.I. Lunine, J.H. Waite, F. Postberg L. Spilker, and K. Clark, this is part of 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll see if I can do something about the references tomorrow. As for theses, I'd say they need some external support (in the vein of other sources citing them) to work in and of itself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  Update, done with a few notes:

  • 56 and 67 does not seem to have a doi that I can find.
  • The NASA press releases are the sources of the images in question; I've found an article on Nature here about the hydrothermal activity in the ocean.

  I'll see about the auroral hiss and the magnetospheric effects later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I have struck the confirmed fixed refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

  Replaced the press releases with that Nature citation too. The atmosphere will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Most images are missing alt= text. Please read WP:ALT before adding text though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• More checking word by word: (using tr "][()\t,.:;\"" " "| tr " " "\n" | sort -u )
  • There is inconsistent date format. Sometimes we have yyyy-mm-dd form, but it is mostly month dd, yyyy. This applies to access dates and publication dates. eg: 2007-04-15 2008-11-27 2011-12-17 2014-04-03 2014-04-04 2014-04-27 2014-12-17 2015-04-09 2015-04-15 2015-05-08 2015-09-17
  • There are a couple of nonprinting characters in the dimensions in the infobox "513.2 × 502.8 × 496.6" (surrounding the first and second ×) (these are halfwidth spaces, not a serious issue)
  • Inconsistent ISBN13, we have 978-1-4020-9216-9 978-1-4244-7350-2 and 9783540376835 (the last form is best)
  • Cassini‍‍ '​‍s has a non printing character before apostrophe (due to use of {{'s}})
  • Caption at internal structure " mantle/yellow and core/red" style should be " mantle (yellow) and core (red)"
  • infobox mean radius uses Earths and Moons - probably should be Earth's and Moon's
  • E-ring should be E-Ring
  • We have "g/cm³" (2 uses) as well as using superscript 3 g/cm³ (1 use, but I thought MOS said this one).
  • Two uses of wrong spelling: kilometres (It was convert template doing it, spelling mistake avoided by using |sp=us
  • Using m/s² in info box instead of superfixed 2
  • Abbreviated journal titles like "Orig Life Evol Biosph" should be expanded fully.
  • "Saturn׳s" has non-standard apostrophe
  • " —called libration— " uses spaces as well as m-dash (should be no space?)
  • I suspect " UV–green–near IR images" uses the wrong kind of dash. It is an adjectival form. (actually it appears to use –) (others use / or ,)

• Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

  I think I got the issues except the inconsistent the dates (MOSUNITS does indicate the superscript standard; probably because it's easier to create that code than to create the superscripted number itself); will need a check on non-printing characters.

  • Striking corrected (notice I added more issues after you started work) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Did some more edits to resolve these issues, except for the dash and nonprinting character edits. I didn't find any "kilometres" in the source; I guess a template is causing these issues. Now, for the atmosphere I've to confess that other than using Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chilean volcano) as templates I've never worked with FAs; is the atmosphere section of Pluto plus the magnetosphere and auroral hiss a good template to follow?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think so, yes. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another inconsistency is the possessive form: Enceladus' versus Enceladus's. I prefer the second, but is that right? Many of the sources use Enceladus' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I personally prefer the first; at least to me it was indicated to be proper grammar. I'll do some other work here in about a week, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You might like to read MOS:POSS and Apostrophe, especially the section Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe, particularly sub-section "Basic rule (singular nouns)". It seems that a lot depends upon how the possessive form is pronounced. Corinne (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Corinne

1) In this sentence in the lead:

• Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging from old, heavily cratered regions to young, tectonically deformed terrains that formed as recently as 100 million years ago, despite its small size.

the phrase "despite its small size", because it comes at the end, sounds like it might apply only to the last clause, so is a little puzzling (if it does apply only to the last clause, I don't understand the connection between small size and relatively recent deformation of terrain). I believe you mean it to apply to the first clause, "Enceladus has a wide range of surface features". If so, I recommend putting the phrase at the beginning of the sentence:

• Despite it small size, Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging...

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:

• Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until the two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

You haven't mentioned Voyager spacecraft before this, so saying "the two Voyager spacecraft" assumes that your readers know what they are. I recommend removing "the". You can, and I guess you do, go into more detail about the two spacecraft later, and who's to say there won't be more in the future?

• Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

3) The last sentence in the lead is:

• Its resonance with Dione excites its orbital eccentricity, which tidal forces damp, resulting in tidal heating of its interior, and offering a possible explanation for the geological activity.

(a) I was confused by the clause, "which tidal forces damp". It is true that "tidal" is an adjective, so "forces" ought to be a noun; however, "damp" is more often an adjective or noun than a verb, so "forces" jumped in as a verb. It took a re-reading to realize that "damp" was the verb to the phrase "tidal forces". To a non-scientist, even one who knows what the verb "to damp" means, the combination of "tidal forces" and "damp" is so unusual that it is hard to comprehend. I'm wondering if another verb could be found other than "damp" to make this more comprehensible for the average reader. Perhaps "suppress", or "counteract"?

(b) Also, for the average reader, the word "tidal" suggests, of course, "tides", which in turn suggests the presence of a large body of water (or other liquid). The previous paragraph mentioned "a subsurface ocean of liquid water", but no connection between the tides and that body of water was made. If the "tidal forces" are related in some way to the subsurface body of water, that connection should be made clear. Since no surface body of water (or liquid) is mentioned here, the reader will look for it later on. In the section "Orbit and rotation", "tidal deformation" is mentioned in the second paragraph, but no body of liquid is mentioned. If these "tidal forces" and "tidal deformation" have nothing to do with a body of liquid, that ought to be made clear, also.

4) The first two sentences in Enceladus#Orbit and rotation are:

• Enceladus is one of the major inner satellites of Saturn. It is the fourteenth satellite when ordered by distance from Saturn, and orbits within the densest part of the E Ring, the outermost of Saturn's rings.

I think the wording of the clause "when ordered by distance from Saturn" could be made a little clearer for the average WP reader. "When ordered" sounds like "ordered from a catalog", "ordered in a restaurant". I think it would be clearer if it were worded something like this:

• It is the fourteenth satellite in order of distance from Saturn, and it orbits..."

5) In the second paragraph in "Orbit and rotation", can you put the conversion so that distances in miles are given?

– Corinne (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2) Without "the", it suggests that there have been more than two Voyager spacecraft, which is untrue. Any possible futute Voyager 3 would be crystal ball.

I don't agree. Saying just "until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby" is just introducing the spacecraft since you haven't mentioned them before this. It does not suggest that there were, or will be, more. It is really not good to use the definite article until you have first introduced or mentioned them. Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

3) a) I think saying it in the passive does the trick. b) Tidal forces also act on a solid body. The effect is only much stronger if they act on a liquid. For example, solid Mimas has been tidally locked to Saturn; in fact, none of the small regular moons of Saturn are known not to be tidally locked.

I have copy-edited the article based on several other points. --JorisvS (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Atmosphere section

DrKay's original concern was with the Atmosphere section, which I just removed. I'm not totally sure about it, so see my rationale on the talk page and let me know if you agree. A2soup (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As we've established, it was not possible to expand the section and I think short sections should be merged into others, which is essentially what has been done here with the material positioned in the Cryovolcanism section. DrKay (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. The prose is poor, using an unnecessarily repetitive and unidiomatic style that is also indicative of structural problems in the article. Because relevant material is deliberately excluded, the subject is not placed in its context rendering the topic non-comprehensive and difficult to follow without following links to other articles. Attempts to address these problems are reverted. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If by "relevant material is deliberately excluded", you mean the atmosphere apart from the plumes, I have to disagree. That's more a case of "relevant material is not yet known". No argument on the other points, though. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I mean for example that the article says Enceladus is "sixth-largest", "one of the major inner" and "fourteenth" moon of Saturn, but we are not told how many moons there are or how many of those are "major inner" ones. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem there is that Saturn has a difficult-to-define number of moons. There are spherical moons, but Moons of Saturn gives 62 moons with confirmed orbits, of which 53 are named. Of course, what's a moon or not is ultimately subjective - the rings are made of zillions of "moons", and how can we define when a chunk is big enough to be a moon? Saying Enceladus is "sixth-largest" with no absolute number specified is actually an elegant solution to this problem. I have addressed the other two concerns you raised by given content for "one of the major inner" and removing "fourteenth". Do you have any other prose concerns? A2soup (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

• Change all ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 (I only see one) using this site as per WP:ISBN

FARC section[edit]

The instability leads me to move here. Concerns about prose, which can be difficult to balance between exactness and accessibility in these articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

What "instability" do you mean? There was one recent not-quite-edit-war (both editors made varied changes that ultimately led to improvement, rather than flat reverts). Also, can you point out specifically what prose concerns you? A2soup (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that they are not edit-warring does not mean there is consensus. Prose is a pretty major issue to try and get right and moving it here means we're not closing this as a "keep", that is all. Further work and continue before editors comment on whether the article should retain or lose FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Lack of consensus is not a stability issue if the article text is stable. But I'm more interested in what specifically the prose issues you see are - I would love to try to address them. A2soup (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: Calling DrKay about these prose issues.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Banff National Park[edit]

Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Geology

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with specifics....no? That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Guys, enough of the sniping here. Jarodalien, can you please specify which of the criteria you feel are not met and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Already add cn tags more than 5 months ago, and mentioned at talk page. Lots of paragraphs have no inline citation at all.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing is my main concern, but shince you mention it, I also hope infomation like "As of the 2005 census, the Town of Banff has a population of 8,352, of which nearly 7,000 are permanent residents", "Climate data for Banff", "with 3,927,557 visitors in 2004/2005", "with 32 wolf deaths along the Trans-Canada Highway between 1987 and 2000, leaving only 31 wolves in the area" along with other data could least update to 2010s. Thank you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added more sources, and could update some of the information like the census numbers. Aude (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Weak close. I have fact checked the entire history section, finding no problems. Consequently, although the geography and geology sections are not fully sourced, I'm inclined to believe that the content of those sections is also verifiable. There don't appear to be any statements in the section that are controversial. Other editors have done some updating of the figures, and I've done a copyedit and review of the images. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I see someone has tagged the geology section for citation needed and clarification with some detailed comments in the edit summaries. So, that section needs looking at. DrKay (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

For the issue related to climate data, it is from 1971–2000 and there is none from 1981–2010 since the weather station closed in 1995 so only 15 years of data from 1981–1995 using the 1981–2010 data. Environment Canada did opened an automatic weather station from 1997 until the present (Banff Cs) though no climatological normals for that station is published so manually calculating the normals from that station would run into WP:OR. It would be impossible to update the data to 2010s for it if the weather station closed in 1995. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that too. I've asked for help at WikiProject Geology for the geology section. Pinging User:MONGO and User:Aude. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

I have moved to FARC mainly because of the Geology section needing cleanup. Comments on prose also invited. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Geology section needs clarification, citation and cleanup per Talk:Banff National Park#Possible FAR. DrKay (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delist Per unsolved problems. --Jarodalien (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Hold delisting for 2 weeks please and I'll attempt to address the issues.--MONGO 11:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Currently working on updating geology section...any further questions would be helpful but I am nearly done.--MONGO 01:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Still working on improvements...another week needed.--MONGO 01:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep MONGO has made a considerable effort to bring this article back to the high standard demanded of a featured article and I consider he has succeeded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• @DrKay: and @Jarodalien:, given there's been some work by MONGO, just wondering if you feel your concerns have been addressed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I added specifics to the talk page so that other readers may help with fixing. The geology section needs major cleanup, imo. Even without a background in geology, editors inspecting the article should question mixed up facts, mountains trend this way then that, mixed up times, difficult geography (in and out and around the park), sensationalist claims about research unsupported, and other problems in a featured article.
• There is no way I can edit it, because it is too difficult to follow, but, also, no one can be an effective editor once ownership of an article is established by calling other editors trolls for raising issues and pointing out problems. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:DC63:FC39:86B3:6D1E (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I can continue to address some of your concerns and from what you posted at the article talk page there do appear to be some issues yet to address.--MONGO 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we move your comments from the article talk page to here?--MONGO 18:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Go ahead. I think it is better on the article's talk page, personally. Also, I have worked with you before on Western forest fire articles, and I think you're a good editor, so you can probably do this, but I think an outline of geological date and place, then moving from there in the writing to finer details would make it easier to write and wind up with something understandable. 2600:380:985F:CE86:C9B7:33E4:EA8:F7CF (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Also, if you do it this way, I am willing to correct errors as I catch them, but it's too jumbled up right now. 166.173.58.255 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Cool, look as long as folks are actively improving these things then I am happy to leave them open for extended periods so take yer time to do it right..cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)