Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2016

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2016 [1].

Handel's lost Hamburg operas

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In his youth, George Frideric Handel served a kind of composer's apprenticeship at the Oper am Gänsemarkt in Hamburg, where he wrote several operas of inordinate length. The first of these, Almira, has survived, and is occasionally performed; the music for the other three has disappeared except for a few scraps. This article examines what remains of these lost operas, and thus has something for everybody. Handel buffs can ponder the possibility that more of the missing music might one day come to light, while those who regard Handelian opera less reverentially will hope that these works stay lost forever and that perhaps others of the opus might one day join them. The article has been charmingly and thoroughly peer-reviewed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review - I did an image review at PR. I've just double checked, and all images are okay — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

• "Handel, George Frideric: Halle". Oxford Music Online. Retrieved 25 November 2015. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation
  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "How much of it is yet in being is unknown". To my American ear, this sounds grammatically problematic. Could we use a paraphrase?
  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "After his Hamburg baptism " Literal or figurative? I always read from the bottom up, so it may turn out to be the former, but if the latter please find a synonym.
  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "Handel's Hamburg years provided" the words "apprenticeship..in which" seem to mean "during", which is chronologically a bit vague given that it is something which spanned his entire career.
  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "violinist in the orchestra at the Oper am Gänsemarkt, the city's famous opera house" can we drop the word "orchestra" and use "violinist in the city's famous opera house, the Oper am Gänsemarkt"? Were violinists always in the orchestra?
• "Daphne metamorphosised" and 'Daphne metamorphosed' both used.
  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• "metamorphosised" was my error, now corrected. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Der beglückte Florindo" Determiner, adj., proper noun (no verb) = "The delighted Florindo"? Note that Prometheus Unbound (Aeschylus) is Der gefesselte Prometheus (Aischylos), so "Florindo delighted"? Are we following someone else's translation in the article?

• I'm not altogether clear what you're asking for. The English title forms are from the translation of Hinsch's preface, contained in Burrows et al. It's all we have; none of the other sources in their analyses translate the titles beyond "Florindo" and "Daphne". Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for these comments. I have acted on all of them except your translation point. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support thank you for the article.

Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Support I did a peer review and have glanced over the article again. Excellent work, as always.--Wehwalt

(talk) 08:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another peer reviewer looking in. My few and minor quibbles were dealt with then, and on rereading the article now I find it top notch, fully meeting the FA criteria. Very happy to add my support. Tim riley talk 18:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Yet another peer reviewer re-visiting. My points were dealt with then, and a further read through shows it to be an excellent and interesting piece. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Non-peer reviewer making a first time visit having returned from a break. I read this in Italy and consider it to be a wonderful example of Wikipedia's finest. Cassianto^Talk 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all the above for their comments (PR), helpand support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

• Might be worth mentioning Germany somewhere in the lead. I'd expect most readers to understand that Hamburg is in Germany, but to be safe...
• Worth linking Handel's name again after the lead?
• University of Halle - worth linking (redlinking?)

• I've made a pipe to
  Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, which is the successor body to Handels's University of Halle. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Early 18th century engraving - I believe there are supposed to be hyphens in here (early 18th-century engraving, if I'm not mistaken)
• with supposedly a capacity of 2,000, - Perhaps this is correct in BrE, but I'd find it easier to read "with a reported capacity of 2,000"
• et al. - Several style guides, such as APA and Chicago prefer a non-italicised form; do British style guides proscribe italics? You don't use italics further down, and in some cases (viz. Burrows et al 2011) you don't use a full-stop either.

• I adopted italics in the text at the suggestion of Tim in the peer review, and have now made the format consistent.

• "Nero's play, "The Judgement of Paris", and a spectacular representation of the burning of Rome do not advance the plot, but occupy much of Act III." - Do not advance the plot strikes me as something which should have a reference. "Many digressions" and "spectacular" as well (We're not simply reporting what happens, but offering judgment on the contents; see
  WP:PRIMARY
  : "Any interpretation needs a secondary source").

• I agree with you concerning "spectacular", "do not advance the plot" and "many", and have adjusted accordingly. I think "digressions" unadorned is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth linking the Roman deities (Cupid, etc.)?
• British Library - Link?
• John Mainwaring - worth noting in-text when he was writing? Speaks as to how early these works could have been lost by

An absolutely delightful read. Nothing but nitpicks from me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Review and comments much appreciated. I have dealt with them all, only commenting as required. Thanks, too, for the above source image review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good work. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BlueMoonset

It is indeed an excellent article overall, but the Almira section has some accuracy issues that need to be addressed:

• The assumption from reading the first sentence is that Keiser had completed Almira when he left Hamburg with it for Weissenfels. According to the second chapter of George Frideric Handel: A Life with Friends by Ellen T. Harris, he "left without completing his setting".

• This is what Hicks says: "...the libretto had been prepared for Keiser himself, who had already set it to music; only his enforced move prevented its performance in Hamburg. (He produced a revised version at Weissenfels on 30 July 1704; his original setting was never performed.)" This clearly suggests completion of Almira before Keiser's flight. Perhaps it wasn't finalised ready for production; Dean and Knapp report considerable confusion over Keiser's versions of Almira. This isn't really germane to Handel's lost operas, so I'm inclined to let the point go. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The second paragraph gives a false impression of the plot: someone reading this would assume that Almira's father is actively choosing his daughter's husband. In fact Almira, who is crowned Queen of Castile in the opera's opening scene, having just reached her majority, is faced with a directive left by her several-years-dead father to marry a son of the house of Consalvo, Prince of Segovia, who had been her guardian while she was underage.

• I have tweaked the plot sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The World of Opera citation (28) at the end of the penultimate sentence is incorrectly dated in the reference section: the Boston performance being broadcast is from June 2013, so 2011 is not possible. I don't know whether the broadcast was later in 2013 or in a subsequent year, but I'm sure the information must be available somewhere.

• Well spotted. The web page is not specifically dated – I must have picked up 2011 from the range shown at the bottom. I've removed 2011 from the citation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of additional things:

• in the Keiser and Mattheson section, Keiser's birthdate of 1774 has to be wrong.

• Indeed - 1674. Sorry about that. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• in the Afterwards section, Deidamia's date is given as 1740, but the premiere (according to Deidamia) was in January 1741. Wouldn't the latter year be more appropriate?

• Not really, as I'm referring to composition dates rather than performance dates. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, and for these helpful comments, generally taken up and dealt with. Brianboulton (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are consistently and appropriately cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2016 [2].

Allah jang Palsoe

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kwee Tek Hoay's first published stage drama, a morality play written to be performed at charity operas ("opera derma") and inspired by the style of Ibsen. The bulk of the article was written several years ago, but I never took it to FAC because I'd yet to consult the first edition for possible information. Now that that's done, I've updated the article and brought it here for your consideration. My gratitude to SchroCat and Wehwalt, who gave great input during the peer review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Henrik_Ibsen_by_Gustav_Borgen_NFB-19778_restored.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Replaced with File:Henrik Ibsen, 1898 (4705434787).jpg. Thank you. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I didn't find anything much at the peer review, other than excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All are constantly cited and of encyclopedic quality, except:

The two multiple sources (12 and 26) lack periods at their end which all other cites have.

• Done — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really treat differently Roman numerals couched in capital letters (Kwee 1919) vs. lower case?

• In the original sources, Damono's page numbers are formatted lower case whereas Kwee's are formatted as capital letters. I've standardized, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Jakarta Post story has an accessdate prior to the archiving date.

• That's the date the story was published. That's the only instance of "Cite News" in the article which does not have an author, hence why the format is different. It's automatic with the template. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The intalicisation in the Sutedja-Liem source, regarding the word or term Njai could use clarification. If Njai is a non-English word, then it should be translated, if it is a name, then I don't see why you are setting it off in the translation.

• Switched with Kwee, 1980, which supports the information and does not have such a word in the title (long story short, njai in the context of the title is not readily translatable) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the source review.

Comments from Brianboulton

When I saw the word "opera" in the blurb, I thought "Aha!"... Oh well, I read it anyway. Outside my usual orbit, but nonetheless fascinating and instructive. I have a few issues, mainly minor:

• Apologies. The term "Opera" in the Indies was essentially short hand for "stage play" or "troupe" (viz. Orion Opera, Dhalia Opera; probably worth writing a paper in RL if I can get the sources)

• I'm not sure about "Analysis of the play has also shown a Chinese nationalist identity..." – "national" rather than "nationalist", which seems overtly political. Also, perhaps consider "influence" rather than "identity"

• Went with "Chinese national identity"

• "the published stageplay was a loss". What exactly does this mean?

• Wehwalt brought that up as well at PR. I'd thought that its position right after "commercial success" would make the implication clear, but switched with "sold poorly" now

• By 1930 the play, though deemed a difficult one to stage, was performed by various ethnic Chinese troupes to popular acclaim;" For "was" read "had been". Also, I suggest you replace the semicolon with a full stop, and start a new sentence at "It also inspired..."

• Done — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "editor-in-chief" is a hyphenated term

• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The word "bursary" seems the wrong term here. A bursary is a grant used to finance a course of study; what we have here sounds more like a bribe. Suggest replace "heavily influenced by a monthly bursary of" with "in return for a payment of".

• Switched with "payment"

• "During the following week the family sell their belongings..." What family? If you mean Kioe Gie, he has a wife, but there's been no mention of a family.

• Indeed. Oxford Dictionaries definition 1.1 includes this possibility in its definition. Changed to Kioe Gie and his wife, however, as it is a new paragraph. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "...because the widow has the same surname..." The point here is not clear.

• Hence the footnote. Kwee doesn't explicitly say it (expecting his audiences would get the implication) and so it's not stated in the running text, but for the ethnic Chinese of the time marrying a woman with the same surname would be incest. We don't seem to have an article on incest in Chinese culture, sadly. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "comes and warns him" – delete "comes and"
• Who is Lauw Nio, mentioned at the end of the Plot section? Oddly, he's not in the list of characters.

• Fixed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• When/where did Kwee Tek Hoay apologise for the quality of the stage play?
  • Foreword. Added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "After condemning contemporary playwrights who merely wrote down existing stories..." Ironically, this is what Kwee Tek Hoay seems to have done!

• With some adaptations, but yes. Not unusual for him (Marsiti's ghost turns up in Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang, despite Kwee being a self-avowed realist, for instance) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other readings have been more diverse" – unnecessary editorial comment?

• Hmm... I'll have to think of another segue. We spend two paragraph talking about money, then go to Chinese national identities etc. It would be too abrupt (IMHO) without anything to signal transition. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How about "Allah jang Palsoe also contains themes unrelated to money"?

• Yes, that's fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "pipe-link "sinologist"

• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "leaving his comfortable job rather than promote become an apologist for..." – delete either "promote" or "become an apologist for".

• My bad. Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Release" is not the right word for a stage play, so consider changing the heading to, perhaps "Performance and reception". Is there really no knowledge of either the date or location of the premiere, and no way of finding out these details? Hard to believe, but if that is the case, it should be clearly stated in the text.

• Changed to "Performance and reception", but with reservations (as follows) I will double check the sources I have, but I can say right now that none of the sources explicitly say "the date of the premiere is lost to time". I also asked a friend with a focus on Chinese opera in the Indies (which was also popular around this time) if he has any information; sadly, he didn't. I suspect, based on the below quote, that the play was first published as a script, and only staged sometime later, by someone else; none of the sources thus far say that Kwee actually directed any performances, nor do they mention performance aspects. Sources treat Allah jang Palsoe predominantly as printed media (Sidharta terms it a "naskah drama" ("stage script"), for instance, and see Kwee's letter quoted below) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I won't press this point, only to say that the statement "Allah jang Palsoe was well received, though initially criticised for emphasising everyday clothing over interesting costumes" appears to relate to performance rather than to a published text (the "interesting costumes" bit is surely a visual criticism). But if the sources aren't there, we can't invent them. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "tens of times" is not an English idiomatic expression. We say "dozens of times" or "scores of times" or "hundreds of times", but not "tens". If, however, this is the precise wording in the poster, the wording should be enclosed in quotes.

• Indeed. In quotes now (twenty, after all, would be "tens" of times but not "dozens", and without anything more concrete we can't assume the latter is correct) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " Another of Kwee Tek Hoay's works, Korbannja Kong-Ek, was inspired by a viewer, who wrote him a letter asking for a comforting and educational play." This information has no relevance in this article.

• Respectfully disagree. Kwee writes (translated) "When Allah jang Palsoe was published [Ed: not staged, interestingly], I received many letters about that book [Ed: again, treating it as a publication only] .... One of my friends, a well-known Chinese journalist who was in Europe at the time, wrote me as follows: "I've already carefully read Allah jang Palsoe and hope that you will continue to writer stage plays. ... You have much talent for fully and broadly [luas] depicting characters, so it would be a shame if you did not write a spirit-raising play full of healthy ideas and strong morals like Allah jang Palsoe". Kwee goes on to write that this is what he did with Korbannja Kong-Ek. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Having raised this point, I'm happy to defer to your judgement. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy that my concerns have been addressed. This is a worthy (and pleasingly unusual) candidate for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your review and support! The article looks much nicer now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- this, like all your other Indonesian-based articles, is one of much interest. I do have one minor nitpick, however:

• There is a slight inconsistent use of the definite article: "Allah jang Palsoe was the first stage play by journalist Kwee Tek Hoay." Then we say: "According to the historian Nio Joe Lan, Allah jang Palsoe..." -- I'll let you decide which version to use, although I've just noticed you do use the latter thereafter. Cassianto^Talk 09:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Fixed, I believe. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

• "Analysis of the play has also shown a Chinese national identity and depiction of negative traits in women." This doesn't read very well- what has the identity, and what depicts the traits? [A PS from after I've read the rest of the article- I originally understood this as claiming that the play depicted women in a negative way, while, instead, the claim seems to be that a particular character is a woman who is unvirtuous. Obviously, these are different things.]

• Nixed altogether, as it appears every wording has been problematic. Re: Particular character: "she finds Houw Nio to be a depiction of how a woman should not act: selfish and addicted to gambling." (i.e. Houw Nio is held by Sidharta to represent all things a woman shouldn't be). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What is stamboel? Is that not a bit technical to be in the lead unexplained?

• Reworked. Less specific, but main point remains the same. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "to leave for a competitor" A competitor of whom? His brother or his current boss? I assumed the latter, but his brother's response suggests the former?

• The latter. Kioe Gie is asking Kioe Lie to remain ethical in his business: someone helps you rise from poverty, it's best to not simply abandon him and take his customers with you because you get a better offer. Reworded.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "a betrayal to ethnic Chinese" to the ethnic Chinese?

• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Passing through Cicuruk, Kioe Lie's car breaks down and, while the chauffeur attempts to fix it, he takes shelter in a nearby home." The "he" is ambiguous; how about "Passing through Cicuruk, the car breaks down and, while the chauffeur attempts to fix it, Kioe Lie takes shelter in a nearby home."

• Sure. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps columns would make the character list look a little neater?

• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "raised in Chinese culture" I defer to you, but this looks grammatically rather odd to me.

• yet "in a Chinese cultural context" (as opposed to, say, Sundanese culture, which was common for
  peranakan
  children raised by their [indigene] mothers) would be a bit too verbose.

• "considering the story to flow well" I'm not super keen on this either; how about "feeling that the story flows well".

• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is stamboel worth a redlink? Either way, we're going to need some context, I think

• Definitely worth a redlink; there are entire books on the subject. Will add a footnote. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote added. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "of such a technique" What do you mean by this? That they're unscripted, that they used fantastic settings or both?

• Clarified. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "He writes that such is life even in the best of times" It's not clear to me what you mean by this

• Reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "do as Tan Kioe Gie, not as Tan Kioe Lie" Is this overly elliptical? How about "act as Tan Kioe Gie does, not as Tan Kioe Lie does"?

• Done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "issues of a Chinese national identity" Issues with a national identity? How about "issues relating to Chinese national identity"?

• Reworked. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Sumardjo writes that, though Allah jang Palsoe was published seven years before the Rustam Effendi's Bebasari (generally considered the first canonic Indonesian stage drama), Kwee Tek Hoay's writing shows all the hallmarks of a literary work" I'm not clear what showing all the hallmarks of a literary work has to do with being published before Bebasari?

• Sumardjo's comment implies that, if the Indonesian canon were determined by the literariness of a work in question (rather than the ethnic origin of the author or register used... there's a long story there) Allah jang Palsoe would quite likely be in the canon. He doesn't come out and say it, however. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mainteater (id)" I'm not too fussed about this, but I know that there has been some recent discussion about the appropriateness of this template in FAs.

• I've been using the template off an on since Departures. The crowd doth protest too much, methinks.

• "heavily edited to last an hour" It's difficult to contextualise this without knowing how long it would normally be.

• No sources say how long a performance would usually be, so reworked (for context: the play proper is north of 80 pages in the 1919 edition, and very dialogue heavy). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you cite "Lontar Foundation 2006, p. 95." to the book as a whole rather than the particular chapter/entry?

• I can cite the chapter as well, if need be, but here I figured that to cite that something was included in a book one must cite the book itself, rather than a chapter in the book. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to miss the translations of chapter titles in a few cases in your references?

• Done. Both were deliberate (albeit inconsistent): the titles were of literary works already mentioned in-text. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a well-researched, well-written and carefully structured article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I've commented above, and will add a footnote on the stamboel soon. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a note. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Josh, what do you think about the edits I've made? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry- I have seen this, and will make some time for another look through soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, sure thing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. This strikes me as a very good article. As one closing thought, perhaps you could be clearer that "Kwee Tek Hoay wrote that he had drawn inspiration from the realist Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen" refers to the later work, rather than the subject of the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, and done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2016 [3].

South Park: The Stick of Truth

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 role playing video game developed by Obsidian Entertainment and based on the long running comedy television show South Park created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The article has been left for a while as I was waiting for any further developments/dlc and the like, but none of that has materialised and now I believe the article to be as complete as can be providing a thorough background to the well-received game that had a somewhat difficult creation cycle. Thanks for reading! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nergaal

• Support I've read through the article and I couldn't really find flaws. In the end having "fiftieth" and similar stuff instead of just 50th seems a bit tedious. I am wondering if it is worth mentioning explicitly that the humor follows that of the show really well, including childish jokes like use of "PP" for mana.
  Nergaal (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  Nergaal:, I added a note on the "peepee" thing, and a different user has added a quote from a review stating that it follows the same style of humour as the show. That plus the commentary on how it looks like an episode of the show I think might cover what you're asking. I also changed the fiftieth and similar to the numerical versions. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

seventh is probably better.

Nergaal (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

• File:SouthParkTheStickOfTruth.jpg, File:SouthParkTheStickofTruth-GameplayBattle.jpeg, and File:South Park The Stick of Truth Euro Censor.jpg all have appropriate FUR's
• File:Trey Parker Matt Stone 2007.jpg is properly licensed, though I don't think you need to state that this pic is from 2007

I might come back later on for more, but felt this should be done first. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like to add the year just so people are clear that the image is not to do with the promotion of the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from jfhutson

I'm not inclined to read this article, but I saw two comma errors in the lead:

• "The Stick of Truth '​s production was turbulent, its release date was postponed several times from its initial date in March 2013 to its eventual release in March 2014." Comma splice
• "There was also a change of publisher, following the bankruptcy of THQ, the original publisher." The first comma is not needed. --JFH (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed, I think. Thanks for the input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from David Fuchs

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Overall, very solid. Some comments follow:[reply]

• Why are the series of slipped release dates mentioned twice (first in the last part of the Development section, and again in the release?)
• References:
  • Looks like all the refs are archived, good for being proactive.
  • What makes Topless Robot a high-quality reliable source?
  • I've spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 5* (fast travel), 10, 18, 34, 40, 41, 42, 49*, 55, 74, 75, and 83.
    • Ref 5 states: "Well, you'll roam around just like a typical RPG (with fast travel in tow, compliments of Timmy), discover loot, find some quests for your quest log, and complete the main story along the way.", which does not adequately cite the entire statement in the article: "The game features a fast travel system, allowing the player to call on the character Timmy to quickly transport them to any other visited fast travel station". I would fix this and double-check the rest of the gameplay section for these sorts of source-stretching; it's difficult to fact-check each statement throughout this article because you are often citing long stretches to multiple sources.
    • Sources 74 and 75 conflict, with one saying there were six scenes censored and the other saying seven.

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. With the release dates, my thought process is that the Development section talks about the kind of the behind-the-scenes reasons and is more focused while the release section talks more about the public knowledge of release dates, and things like the delay only being known when Ubisoft omitted it from its release schedule. If I'm wrong though let me know and I can try to integrate it more into the development section.
2. Topless Robot is owned by Village Voice Media so it does have oversight by a legitimate company that owns multiple news outlets.
3. I've added an additional clearer source for the Timmy fast travel (bonus, it contains information about characters in the game I was struggling to find, so thanks for making me look)
4. Did the same for the censorship conflict, more sources said seven were censored so I added an additional ref to back that up and moved the Guardian away from backing that particular claim up.
5. Aside: I will go through the article and review multiple refs for single statements. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Has there been any discussion about the reliability solely focused on Topless Robot? I'm hesitant to consider it high quality just because of its parent company. As for the release dates, I think it's fine to mention earlier in the development, but it's pointless to restate the exact dates; you can just say earlier that the release date slipped and leave the hard dates for later. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No discussion that I know of. They do have a privacy policy dictated by the parent company but that's all I can see here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Development release dates to ", pushing its release date back by six months to March 2014."Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you just remove the questionable source? It seems like most of the content is cited to other better sources anyhow, so as long as it doesn't leave something orphaned source-wise it shouldn't suffer for lack of it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs, just checking if you saw my response? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks for pinging me. I'll take another look at the article tomorrow and see if there are any other outstanding issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have any additional concerns and think the article meets criteria, so I'm going to support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

only one character can be active at any time - I'd be inclined to make this contrastive - ", though only one character can be active at any time" as it links better to previous like this (with comma rather than semicolon).

Looks good prose and comprehensiveness otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I think I support this on those grounds....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2016 [4].

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC) • Astynax ^talk[reply]

Juan Manuel de Rosas is one of the key figures in South American history, probably the most well-known 19th century dictator in that region (after Francisco Solano López). For a brief moment he was almost able to turn Argentina into the main power in South America, and almost conquered nearby countries. He became so powerful that the Empire of Brazil under Emperor Pedro II forged an alliance with his enemies to crush Rosas. This article uses dozens of well-known sources in academia, although is mostly based on John Lynch's biography, regarded as the best one available in any language. Lecen (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for its previous FAC; I wasn't catching everything then, but I see that a lot of helpful copyediting has been done, and I'm happier with this version. I can't really comment on questions of tone and NPOV, which I'm not in a position to judge. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• ready to Support pending comments from those who know something about the subject. A good read. Are there no depictions in film etc? A character in one of the Sherlock Holmes stories is very clearly based on him in exile - the "Tiger of ..." somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, it's good to see you here. I'm afraid we have no Wikipedians with true knowledge of Platine history, except for me and Astynax. About your other comments, Rosas showed up in movies indeed. We left out pop culture facts on purpose, since there are already two articles focused on Rosas' legacy. We kept what was most important, as to maintain the article simple and straight forward. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything on films (which generally should not be referred to as "pop culture") in other articles - where? Even if there is, it should be summarized briefly here. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but I couldn't find an equivalent section in other FA biographies, which seems that any mention in movies is optional. Since Rosas's appearances in other media is not vital to his character, I can't see the reason to add something here, especially because it would be pointless to add a line saying "Rosas appeared in X movie". What would that add to the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There have been several depictions in literature, films and television but almost entirely in Argentine media and much of it unabashedly partisan exploitation feeding on the ongoing historicity problem mentioned in the Legacy section. Although depictions of Rosas in literature and media might be appropriate for some sort of separate list linked to within the article's Legacy section, there is also the problem of finding coverage in reliable historical sources that establish the
  notability of these and their relevance to political and popular culture. If a RS comes to light that explores how Rosas has been depicted in media then I see no problem of including a mention, but I cannot recall coming across such material. • Astynax ^talk 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Johnbod: The Sherlock Holmes story is Wisteria Lodge (1927), the second part of which is The Tiger of San Pedro, here for easy reference [5]. Rosas is disguised as "Don Murillo". Conan Doyle would have got the reference from W.H. Hudson. Far Away and Long Ago (Dent:London and Toronto:1918), pages 107-8, here: https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_EF0_AAAAIAAJ#page/n121/mode/2up . Might it worth doing two lines as per "In fiction"? Ttocserp 09:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'll support. I think it's pretty good. And I believe you can add my name to Lecen and Astynax to those who have some "knowledge of Platine history" (sorry, had to get that off my chest!). Ttocserp 09:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Well written article on an important figure in South American history. It covers Rosas extensively and does so in an objective light, on par with the quality of other featured articles, such as Pedro I of Brazil, another of the great articles worked on by Lecen. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet supporting Always good to see another piece of work by Lecen. I'm not sure the prose is quite there yet; I've gone through as far as "Apogee and downfall" and picked up some points below:

• It isn't clear who some of the quotes are from; e.g. 'Clemente López de Osornio, "a tough warrior of the Indian frontier who had died weapons in hand defending his southern estate in 1783."' If this is Lynch himself saying it, I'd expect it to be attributed in-line, e.g. "according to the historian John Lynch, "a tough warrior..."". If it is a contemporary quote, from Lynch, then it should be similarly attributed, e.g. "according to XXXX, "a tough warrior...". Ditto "in other words, "unbridled dictatorial powers"" etc.
• "although it is thought that he was barred" - I'd prefer it to say who thinks he was barred, or just say "although he was probably barred" if that doesn't matter.
• "owners of large landholdings (including the Rosas family) provided food, equipment and protection both for themselves and for families living in areas under their control. " - I didn't think the food and equipment made sense in relation to "themselves" - i.e. leave the other families out of it and you'd have "owners of large landholdings provided food, equipment and protection for themselves". It wouldn't make very such sense; who else would provide them with food and equipment?
• "Shaped by the colonial society in which he lived, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority.[11] He was in this way merely a product of his time and not at all unlike the other great landowners in the Río de la Plata region." - this felt overly complex, and the "merely" felt a little condescending. Could it just read : "Like the other great landowners in the region, Rosas was conservative, an advocate of hierarchy and authority."?
• " and acquired real property in the process. " - "real property" isn't a common phrase for most English readers. Would "real estate", "landholdings" or "lands" be more natural?
• " Rosas, like many landowners... Like many landowners..." - repetitious, and I think the reader has probably got the idea by now!
• "Colorados del Monte" ("Reds of the Mount") - just to check, is "reds of the mount" the standard translation? It read a bit oddly to me.
• "At the end of the conflict, Rosas returned to his estancias with acquired prestige for his military service." - "with acquired prestige" read oddly to me. "having acquired prestige"? "respected for his military service"?
• "He was granted the rank of cavalry colonel " - would "He was promoted to cavalry colonel" be simpler?
• "By 1830, he was the 10th largest landowner in the province of Buenos Aires (in which the city of the same name was located)," - I thought the bits in brackets were superfluous; it would be my initial assumption as to where the province would be!
• "300,000 head of cattle" - would "300,000 cattle" be simpler?
• "with the severe deficits, large public debts and currency devaluation which his government inherited" - can you inherit a devaluation? It's an event, not an object. You could inherit the "impact of a devaluation" though.
• " he improved revenue collection (while not raising taxes)" - the brackets here felt clumsy to me.
• "the government's financial issues" - I think issue is wrong here; for alleviate, I'd recommend "problems"
• "curtailed expenditures." - I'd have gone for "expenditure." in the singular
• "called for the adoption of a Constitution" - why the capitalisation on constitution?
• ""The fine territories, which extend from the Andes to the coast and down to the Magellan Straits are now wide open for our children." - I don't think the linking within the quote complies with the MOS guidance on this.
• "reelection and assumption of dictatorial powers. " - "reassumption", as he'd had them before?
• "The result of the 1833 election was a predictable 99.9% "yes" vote" - would the MOS prefer "percent" rather than "%" in this sort of article?
• "Rosas believed that rigged elections were necessary for political stability" - would "Rosas believed that the manipulation of elections..." be somewhat closer to his actual beliefs?
• "Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." - given that the Jesuits don't in the next sentence, would "Most Catholic clergy in Buenos Aires willingly backed Rosas' regime." be more accurate?
• "None of the lands confiscated from Indians and Unitarians were turned over to rural workers (including gauchos)" - the bracketed bit felt clumsy.
• "Rosas was not racially prejudiced. " - this seems a remarkable and quite exceptional statement for the time. Do we really mean he wasn't racially biased at all...?
• "a threat that historians have considered state terrorism." - just to check... do all the cited sources in the reference use the term?
• "His targets were denounced as having ties (real or invented) to Unitarians. " I'd have gone for "His targets were denounced as having ties, sometimes inaccurately to Unitarians."
• "Although a judicial branch still existed in Buenos Aires, " -"a judicial branch" seemed oddly worded to me. "Although courts still existed..."?
• " Terrorism was orchestrated rather than a product of popular zeal, was targeted for effect rather than indiscriminate." - felt repetitious; you've already said this in preceding sentences.
• "the port of the city of Buenos Aires, " - would "the port of Buenos Aires" (the title of the wiki article linked here) be simpler?
• "Rosas either imprisoned or executed the plotters." - unclear if this means we are uncertain what he did, or that he imprisoned some and executed others.
• "In the countryside, estancieros (including a younger brother of Rosas) revolted" - I'd have gone for commas rather than brackets here.
• "Men who tried to escape had their throats cut and their heads put on display." - I'm not sure this makes sense. Why only men who tried to escape?
• "Around 1845, Rosas managed to establish absolute dominance over the region, with no challenges to his authority remaining" - second half of the sentence felt redundant, given the first half.
• "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) since 18 December 1829." > "Rosas had been raised from colonel to brigadier general (the highest army rank) in 18 December 1829." "or "Rosas had been promoted to brigadier general, then the highest rank in the army, in 18 December 1829." (which might flow more easily)
• "which by 1831, following the Federal Pact (and officially from 22 May 1835), " - the brackets felt awkard here
• "claiming that " - "stating that" would be more neutral in tone
• "Rosas was a closeted monarchist, " - "closet monarchist" would be the normal rendering
• " as had been many of his fellow countrymen. " - "had been" or "were"? If the former, the statement seems a bit irrelevant.
• "Nonetheless, in public he claimed that his regime was republican in nature." - "claimed" > "stated", especially since we've just said that we don't know what his actual beliefs were. Hchc2009 (talk)

• It's really good to see you here, Hchc2009. Your suggestions are great and I implemented them all. Just a few notes: 1) I've seen one historian call the "Colorados del Monte" "Red Rangers" and another "Red Soldiers of the Wild Country". There is no standard translation, thus I opted for a literal translation. Anything else would be Original Research, I think. 2) Every single source presented call Rosas' regime an sponsor of "state terrorism". That's why I added so many sources (as I did when I mentioned that he headed a dictatorship): to show that it is the prevalent opinion within historiography. As far as I know, there is no one that says that he was not a dictator nor that his regime did not sponsor state terrorism. 3) John Lynch is the one who says that Rosas was not racist, but later on the book he shows a quote from Rosas himself calling Brazilians blacks "monkeys". I chose to remove the mention of non-racist. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "some of its territories were separated and became the independent nations of Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay," - would "some of its territories declared independence as Paraguary, Bolivia and Uruguay" be more accurate and possibly simpler? (unless someone externally separated them)
• "and regarded it a rebel Argentine province bound to be reconquered" minor, but "and regarded it a rebel Argentine province that would inevitably be reconquered" would prevent a potential misreading of "bound to" as the reader moves through the sentence.
• " had either collapsed and disappeared" - I wondered if you could lose "and disappeared" here, as collapsed sort of implies it, and it would make the sentence read more simply
• " like Gran Colombia..." - some would argue that "like" isn't strictly correct here, and "such as" would be more appropriate (although in normal writing, no-one would complain!)
• "The undeclared war" - "This undeclared war" might make the paragraph flow more easily.
• "the loss of trade with Buenos Aires did not compensate free navigation with other ports " - I think there's a word missing around "compensate free navigation"
• "He declined to meet with his ministers and relied solely on secretaries who matched his own heavy workload." - I don't think you need the "who matched his own heavy workload" here; it doesn't really fit with the flow of the paragraph or the first half of the sentence.
• "gave aid to the Uruguayan government " - "provided support to"?
• "but could hardly disguise his ambition" - slightly unclear if this means that he did disguise his ambition, or if he didn't. How about "but did not disguise his ambition"?
• "The new Argentine government confiscated all of Rosas properties" - a missing apostrophe after Rosas?
• "More than 30 years later, in 1961, " - I don't think you need both of these as it is close to the previous date (i.e. either go for "More than 30 years later," or "In 1961,"
• "who "have long been fascinated and outraged" by him" - unclear who the quote is from without in-line identification.

• Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented most of your suggestions. A couple seemed to require a bit of response in addition to edits:

• Regarding your first point in the list immediately above: The breakdown of central authority produced a vacuum that took years to sort out. Argentina itself took years to emerge as a nation. I have changed the sentence to read: "The breakup of the old Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata during the 1810s eventually resulted in the emergence of the independent nations of Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay in the northern portion of the Viceroyalty, while its southern territories coalesced into the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata." Getting into the maze of rebellions, competing regional claimants, territorial shifts and factious infighting that took some time to work out would be a fine addition to the current
  Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata
  article, but could easily become a distraction here.
• Regarding "hardly disguise his ambition": I am unsure how to reword this one. His ambition was known, but not explicit. Like Caesar refusing the crown but wanting the power at some point, Urquiza did not want to openly advance his ultimate aim, and thus risk alienating some of his allies, while things were still in flux. I have changed to: "Once one of Rosas' most trusted lieutenants, Urquiza now claimed to fight for a constitutional government, although his ambition to become head of state was barely disguised."

I hope these edits make things a bit clearer, though further suggestions are welcome. Thanks for your input. • Astynax ^talk 09:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hchc2009, is there anything still missing that we should improve in the article? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the delay in replying, happy to now support. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- image/source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, Nikkimaria already did an image review in previous nominations. Nothing changed on that regard since then. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• For the Meade reference, is the book title wrong? It is the same as Miller below, I'm assuming a copy/paste error.
• No other issues noted. --Laser brain (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laser_brain, I made a mistake. I added the correct title. Thanks for noticing it! --Lecen (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2016 [6].

Killer Instinct Gold

Nominator(s): czar 00:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing 90s video game history comes with a special set of source issues: a world of consumer magazines too young and insufficiently nostalgic to warrant systematic online archiving, and too old to be around in any form on the Internet or in public libraries. This is my second 90s game article (first FA being Mischief Makers though Deathrow was not too far behind in years), and I can say that it's really rewarding to track down every extant, major source on such a topic. I think this article makes an easy FAC because of this element of completeness alongside easygoing and engaging prose, and I hope you'll think the same.

This is a

Nice! Thanks, @Techtri! I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'd like to take a look. My understanding is that the Internet Archive has unique permission to make specific, otherwise out-of-print, archival works available to the public, and I don't think it has been an issue before. czar 14:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Comment on sources: The sources which you cite are all wholly appropriate for an article of this sort, but I would like to make a quick comment about formatting. It seems that in many cases what you're citing first and foremost is the physical magazine, with the online source being a mere courtesy link (this is especially true, for example, in the case of the Archive.org links). As such, you should really be citing them as magazine articles with URLS, rather than as web sources. So, as a "for instance", your Scary Larry source could specify that this was volume 9 and issue 2 of GamePro, and then there would be no need for an accessdate (as the source would clearly be the magazine, and not the webpage). Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn, nice catch—fixed! Any more comments on the source review? czar 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some inconsistency when it comes to providing publishers for magazines/websites; I honestly wouldn't bother. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added GamePro's publisher but what are the other inconsistencies? The other publications either had no publisher or gave their name to the parent company. I'd also be amenable to just scrapping the publisher field for all of the refs in this case, as they are almost all hyperlinked and it's doubtful that they'll be misconstrued. czar 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worried about things being misconstrued, I'm worried about consistent/professional formatting. So, I know that Destructoid's publisher is Modern Method, but I don't know the New York Daily News's publisher; I know that Nintendo Life is from the Gamer Network, but I don't know where Next Generation comes from. And so forth. When I say "I wouldn't bother", I mean I wouldn't bother providing the publishers- I can't say I've ever seen publishers provided for magazines/newspapers/journals in more traditional academic sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because the Daily News's publisher is the Daily News (same for the NYT, etc.) and the standard is to not repeat in those cases—hasn't been an issue in my previous FACs. But as I said, I too don't see the publishers adding more clarification than clutter here, so they're gone now. czar 14:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that this is a very strong article- well-written, well-sourced and an appropriate, scholarly tone. I made some copyedits; please double-check them. I have two "big picture" comments.

• First, I know that you and I disagree about how to refer to our sources in the text; I aim for the citing of authors rather than the citing of publications. We can perhaps pin this on stylistic differences. However, I note that while you often approach this how I would (eg, "Doug Perry (IGN) found Gold '​s music to be crisper,[3] though he and Ed Lomas (CVG)") you sometimes refer only to publication, even though we have an author name (eg, with Allgame). It may be preferable to provide the author where you can.
• Second, are you completely opposed to a character list? I note that a lot of video game articles would have a story section, but such a thing would (I'm guessing?) be inappropriate here. (That said, there must be some thin premise that explains why all these people are fighting each other- something about "Ultratech"? Shouldn't this be in the article, even if only in passing?) However, given that this is something discussed at length by commentators on the game and surely part of any enduring appeal of the series, maybe a list of the 11 characters (name, very quick description, notes indicating whether they are a new arrival, hidden character or what-have-you) could be added to the end of the gameplay section? It could even be a collapsible list so that it's only looked at by those interested. On a related note, it seems that the main character list article doesn't even specify who is and isn't in Gold.

I am close to supporting, but I'd like to hear your response to these. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

video game trivia. czar 07:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm on the fence here. I'm inclined to think that plot/character details are important, and that the article isn't complete without them. I'm going to mull this over a little and see what other reviewers think. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though, to reiterate, I do think it is a very strong article! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn, any last thoughts on this? czar 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my last thought is that I am very much not opposing. I am not of the view that this fails the FA criteria. However, I'm afraid I am not comfortable supporting at this time. I'm sorry to be such a pain, and I sincerely hope that this does not negatively affect the nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo

Alright, enough messing around, let's do this.

Lead

• Killer Instinct Gold uses all of the characters, combos, and 3D, pre-rendered environments of the arcade version, but adds a training mode, new camera views, and improved audiovisuals. Change "all of the characters" to "every character, combo, and 3D pre-rendered environment".
• Following the success of the 1995 Killer Instinct port for the Super Nintendo home console... Why not just say it's full name?

But that is its full name—and the other details are included to provide background for why there was a sequel in the first place czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewers preferred the Gold Nintendo 64 port to its arcade equivalent. I'd remove Gold, since it's more or less redundant.
• Critics recommended the game primarily for fans of the series and genre, but IGN reported that even fans were upset by changes in the combo system and the absence of several well liked characters. Why is IGN in italics? Also, link IGN, as most casual readers won't know who they are.

Per

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". In the article's context, IGN exclusively refers to an online publication that produces original/creative content (and in no capacity as a network/company) czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

None of the sources said anything more about it czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development

• The Killer Instinct series began as an arcade game (1994) and became known as "Nintendo's version of Mortal Kombat" upon its release on the company's Super Nintendo (1995) and Game Boy (1995). Once again, why not just simply write out the full name for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System?
• The image states that the game was included as a launch title, but this is contradictory to what is stated in the third paragraph. If you meant to say it was originally meant to be included as a launch title, reword.

Reception

• This is the one section that's a real problem in my mind. The problem is that you jump all over the place. Like seriously all over the place. One minute, it mentions the music, then the framerate, then whether reviewers recommend the game, then a reader's poll, and finally a quiet European release, in just one paragraph. I honestly can't support this article until a little more order is brought to this section. Take for example The Last of Us (no particular reason for choosing this game, other than it was the first one to pop into my mind). That article's reception section gives individual aspects of the game their own section, as to what reviewers thought of it (plot paragraph, characters paragraph, gameplay paragraph, etc.) I can see the second paragraph of this article working, because talks soley about the sound and backdrops, but still, this section as a whole needs a good reworking.

I didn't think this was off, but I've tightened this based on your feedback. TheLast of Us comparison isn't apt—the game launched a thousand think pieces and reams of Reception on its constituent elements (on each, separately!) Game reviews from the 90s are shorter and less detailed (print mags), especially on games not considered masterpieces. The goal is to adequately summarize the reviews, and the reviews were generally thumbs up/down for sound/graphics/gameplay. Anyway, I think you'll like the cleanup. czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

• No problems here.

Like others have said, this is a VERY solid article, just need to cleanup the reception section to get my support. In regards to a plot and characters section, I think it would be quite pointless, since this game really doesn't have a plot other than "an evil guy is evil, and you need to fight him" or something like that (I never made it very far in this game to find out). Famous Hobo (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo, appreciate the review. I think you'll like the changes, but let me know what you think? czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh definitely, that reception section looks better. Sorry about the comment about the reviews, I don't deal with a lot of old games. Anyway, I'd still like to get a clarification on the N64 caption as to whether it was a launch title, or if it was pushed back, but other than that, you got yourself a Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks czar 22:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink

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

• " Characters including a gargoyle, a ninja, and a femme fatale fight in settings such as a jungle and a spaceship" - could use a comma or a dash after the "characters"
• "Rare was a prominent second-party developer for Nintendo" - specify when (the 1990s)
• "It received a wider release in May 1997." - maybe specify "worldwide" instead of "wider", for people who don't know that term.
• An announcer narrates major game moments with phrases like, "Awesome combo!" - this could be an odd comment, but are there any other phrases from the game that might be a bit more.... appropriate? Don't get me wrong, it's fine, but it doesn't have a ring of excitement, especially involving a major game moment. If you don't have sources to any other phrase, it's fine, it just struck me as somewhat odd for an article going for FAC.
• "There are ten characters in total: three new and seven returning from the previous title." - new from the arcade port? Or the original?
• "There is also an additional, hidden character." - no comma needed
• I feel like this sort of sentence is missing from the lead: The reception was mixed. I read half of the article before realizing not many people really liked the game (I especially liked the quote about its shelf life being weeks, not months). Given how negative and mixed some of the reviews were, I think adding that sentence would help set the tone earlier on.

All in all it's a really good article. My comments shouldn't be too hard to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink, thanks! I think I've addressed them all, if you'll take a look. Awesome combo was the best direct quote that I saw in the material—I don't think it's so bad an encouragement. Also no source summarized the reception as being mixed, so I thought it would be original research for me to conclude as such myself. Instead, I think I balanced what the reviewers did posit about the game. czar 07:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thanks, looks good for me to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco

• Lead strikes me as a bit long for the length of the article. I'd probably put less emphasis on the reviews

• I'd try and reduce the lead's discussion of reviews to two sentences.

Reduced (reluctantly) czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• the arcade version - Above you listed Killer Instinct 2 as a separate game, not a different version of the same game (which "version" implies).

• You say it's a game based on a game. This implies that there are two games being discussed. "Version", meanwhile, implies that there is one underlying game, with different iterations. They are subtly but fundamentally different. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is both. It is both in the image of its model and its own entity. Fixed anyway czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• the series remained dormant through its 2002 acquisition by Microsoft - might be read as only KI having been acquired by Microsoft, when it was Rare which was acquired

• Again, this sentence as currently written implies that only the property was acquired by MS, rather than the company (viz. Bethesda's acquisition of Fallout, which did not include acquisition of Interplay). We should be unambiguous. "acquired by Microsoft through the purchase of Rare" or something more polished. Might work well as part of your discussion of the company in paragraph 2 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't imply anything other than that the series became Microsoft property, which is the only detail about the matter that I would consider important for the lede. The fate of Rare doesn't matter here for KIG at all, especially when I'm removing important parts from the lede for length issues anyway, no? czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do any of the previous reviewers have an opinion on this matter? Josh? Techtri? Hurricanehink? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to agree with Czar; the fate of Rare is of limited importance, and the current wording does not imply, as far as I can see, that it was only KI that was acquired. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright. I'll strike this one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "
  combos
  " - why the quotes?
• computer-controlled or
  human opponent
  - Although I know what you mean, this could be misread as the opponent being human, rather than the opponent being controlled by a human player.
• the previous title - I don't think you've linked the original KI yet, outside of the lead. Might do it here.
• Agree with Josh: a plot section is sorely lacking.

• Page 7 of the manual, at the very least, says that it's some sort of tournament. Have you tried the game itself? That is an RS for WP:VG, albeit a primary one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this when I first wrote the article. (1) If the sources don't think that tournament plot is worth mentioning at all, I don't think it has sufficient

weight to be rationalize its inclusion. (2) Plot in the instruction manual doesn't mean it's present in the game—in fact, many 80s/90s games included all kinds of backstory and plot completely peripheral to the final release. czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Can't say that it is entirely peripheral. If we read the article on Scorpion, for example, we see that it mentions character developments which occurred outside of the games proper (even in the early 1990s). If we don't have much detail on the plot proper, however, there's nothing to do. Guess I will (reluctantly) accept the lack of plot. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• games industry, game industry, or gaming industry? Don't think I've heard games industry before
• Reviewers highly praised the game's sound and environment backdrops, and noted that the character animations were not as sharp in comparison. - "And" suggests that both are parallel (i.e. positive); is this supposed to be contrasting them? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

video game reliable sources custom Google search). I think I've fixed everything else, if you'll take a look. Really helpful—thanks! czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@Crisco 1492, I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'll take a look. Appreciate your time, czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Alright, looks good now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhain1999

Image review:

• File:Killer Instinct Gold cover art.jpg is the game's cover art, and has proper rationale.
• File:Killer Instinct Gold screenshot.jpg is a screenshot, with appropriate rationale and caption.
• File:N64-Console-Set.png is a free image, with an appropriate caption.

All images have proper rationales, and appropriate captions, so I can support on images.

For the sources, I looked at this version, and checked sources 1–12, 14–15, and 17–28. As much as I'd like to leave some comments for you to fix, I could honestly find nothing here. Every fact in the article is immediately followed by a source, all of which are

@FAC coordinators: Anything else needed here? czar 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: czar 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow response,

Czar. I plan to go through the list to look for ready nominations today or tomorrow—I'll let you know if anything seems amiss. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2016 [8].

Temperatures Rising

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures Rising is a sitcom that I enjoyed immensely when it originally aired in the United States on the ABC network back in the early 1970s. Although it has yet to be made available commercially on DVD I have been able to obtain some episodes via a private source. I still think it is a very funny show and would like to see it brought back into circulation. My interest in the series inspired me to learn as much as I can about its history. Thus I have spent the last few years accumulating a large amount of information about the series (mainly vintage newspaper articles). Using this information I re-wrote and greatly expanded this article last year and attempted to elevate it to FA status in January of this year. The article was not promoted despite the support of four people. Since then the article has achieved GA status. I have had several friends (many of whom are published authors) look it over and offer comments to improve it and, just last week, it received a "makeover" by the Guild of Copy Editors.

I am now making another attempt at FA status. If anyone can make suggestions on how to improve this article please feel free to over up any that you have. Also note that some of episodes of Temperatures Rising are available for viewing on YouTube. Take a look and have a few laughs. Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The prose looks fine. I can't fine any other issues. Great job.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

• Four dead links need looking into
  • Three fixed and one deleted.
• Pilato in the bibliography isn't used in the article and should be removed
  • Removed.

- SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (October 16, 2007): I think we can cut the date back to 2007, rather than the full date.

Sorry it's a bit bitty, but I've got a full work schedule at the moment. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Cut back to just 2007. Jimknut (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Nice work - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I supported last time. Looking at the later comments on that review I think I understand why that candidacy didn't go through, but this one looks pretty solid to me. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 17:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I have gone through the article and its previous archives to see whether or not everything has been resolved. I can't find anything to complain about. Good work. -- Frankie _talk 16:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Image review
• Way too many fair use images. You could probably get by with
  WP:FUC. Her physical appearance does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", and removing it would not be "detrimental to that understanding". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm a bit of a loss to fully understand how a mere three photographs could be construed as "way too many". However, I have removed the portrait of Nancy Fox per your suggestion. The other two show the different cast members of the first and second seasons so I think they're essential to the article. Jimknut (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read
      WP:FUC
      if you are not sure how three photographs is too many, particularly the part about "minimal usage" and "contextual significance". Although one is preferable to two, considering the drastic cast change you're illustrating, I am alright with the current selected images.
    • However, it would be best if your fair use rationales could explicitly say why these two images are contextually significant, rather than simply saying "The illustration is specifically needed to support the following point(s): The first season cast of Temperatures Rising" and forcing readers to make the connection (i.e. that there was a drastic shift in the cast appearance and composition between seasons, and that this is most easily illustrated visually) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have revised the fair use descriptions. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright. Images are fine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- have I missed a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All the newspaper articles that I used I copied onto Word files. I would be more than happy to send them to you. Jimknut (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I was talking about was a check of formatting and reliability or sources but I think
    this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • The formatting and reliability of my sources was addressed last year during my second attempt at FA status. Likewise, I believe the accuracy and close paraphrasing was addressed as well. I had several friends who are published authors (among them Frank Thompson) look over the text and they give it a "thumbs up". Regarding duplicate links: I used the system you recommended and, yes, there are some. However, none appear near the other (i.e. they are not within a sentence or two of each other but rather are separated by several paragraphs) so I strongly believe that the use of the duplicate links are fine. Jimknut (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing wrong with peer reviewing outside WP but we would need someone to do such a spotcheck within the FAC nom, and I'm happy to place a request for such at the top of
        WT:FAC. Re. duplinks, it's not something on which I come down hard, I mainly like to ensure the editor is conscious of it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • About the
          WT:FAC: Yes, feel free to place a request. Jimknut (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I'm willing to give the article a spotcheck, Jimknut. If you have copies of the newspaper articles for the footnotes, can you send me the ones for the footnotes which are multiples of 5? (In other words, the Hardester article used in footnote 5, the Page article in fn 10, the Thompson article in fn 15, etc.) You can e-mail me through the link on my user page, and I'll reply to receive the copies. Imzadi 1979 → 10:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Imzadi1979

Stumbling here from my own nomination:

• Constructions like "fictional Washington, D.C. hospital" need a comma after the district name to balance the one between city and district, or "fictional Washington, D.C., hospital".
  • Fixed.
• "led to him being cast in" is an awkward and clumsy construction of the "noun plus -ing" sort. I'd suggest recasting that as "led to his casting in" to avoid it. There are be some additional opportunities to fix other similar issues in the prose.
  • Reworded per your suggestion. (This article did go through a peer review and rewrite.)
• "Little's casting reflected: 'pressure...'" the colon there isn't needed since the sentence flows right into the quotation.
  • Fixed. (Actually I did not have the colon in there to begin with. Someone doing a peer review and rewrite added it in.)
• There's a bit of inconsistency in subsequent references to people in the article, In most cases, after the first mention, the first name is dropped and all subsequent mentions do with just surnames, but once in a while the first names re-appear. Obviously you shouldn't alter direct quotes, but our prose should be a bit more polished in its presentation in this respect.
  • I'm holding out on this. I used full names when a person is first mentioned and refer to them by the last name only in subsequent sentences. I return to using their full names only in later paragraphs - often in different sections of the article. I don't think there is any wrong wth this but if you (or anyone else) strongly objects to it I'll change it.
• Also, we should be consistent where dealing with the distinction between actors and roles. By this, we have :

  Subsequent episodes feature Noland performing a secret operation on a young baseball player while Campanelli deals with a hospital inspector, Ed Platt,[19] and John Astin as a gangster wanting Noland to be his personal physician.[20] In another episode, Noland hypnotizes a patient (Alice Ghostley) and, accidentally, Nurse Turner as well. This nearly costs the hospital a large donation from a potential benefactor (Charles Lane).

  The first sentence puts the actor's name in commas after the reference to the character, but the last sentence has the actors' names in parentheses. Neither is wrong, but the inconsistency is a bit weird to me.
  • Fixed for more consistency. (This is another case where a peer reviewer made the change.)
• Footnotes 17, 30 and 44 have access dates defined in the citation templates, but no URLs, a situation which prompts an error message (at least to those of us who have all of the error messages displayed).
  • URLs are now removed. (These articles used to be available online but have since been removed.)
• There's a bit of a formatting inconsistency between the footnotes and the bibliography. In the former, state names are spelled out in full for locations, while in the latter they're abbreviated. Consistency is a key for promotion to FA status, so this should be fixed.
  • States are now spelled out fully in the bibliography.
• Now, in my experience, it's not necessary to list a city of publication for a newspaper unless the newspaper's name lacks the name of a city. So the Los Angeles Times doesn't need it, but The Sun (Lowell, MA) does. In any case, it doesn't hurt to include them where not needed, but they don't need to be wikilinked, especially if the newspaper name itself is/can be wikilinked as a more specific target. Also, if locations are going to be included, they honestly need to be included even when the same paper is being cited again, as a matter of consistency. Why bother to include it for the Los Angeles Times in footnote 3, but then drop it in footnote 18?
  • Here's what I did: All newspapers are linked if there is a Wikipedia article for them (in the case of the Los Angeles Times it is linked only in the earliest citation). Location names are only presented when there is no Wiki article. (I'm presuming that readers know that the location for the Los Angeles Times is Los Angeles, California, and not Los Angeles, Texas.)
• It looks like a few newspaper citations are not using {{cite news}}, so the location isn't being displayed in parentheses. Also, in at least one case (footnote 13), the paper name is apparently put in the |publisher= parameter, so it's not in italics and it comes after the location.
  • See above comment. Footnote 13 is fixed.
• One final note about the citations, but you can, and should, harmonize the capitalization style for the article titles. Some are in Title Case, and some are in Sentence case. Harmonizing this would make everything look more polished.
  • Capitalization is now harmonized. (Actually, I was presenting the headlines as they actually appeared in the newspapers.)
• Now, having said all of that, I think the article is a great read. It's a matter of polishing some details before promotion, that's all. Imzadi 1979 → 11:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope this brings the article closer to FA! Jimknut (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Imzadi1979

Ok, as noted above, I'm auditing the footnotes divisible by 5, so approximately 20% of the sources. I have tagged any footnotes that failed verification in the article.

• The source in n. 5 does not support the cited sentence. The article does not mention any connection between Temperatures Rising and This is a Hospital? at all, and it only mentions that a certain actress had appeared in the pilot for This is a Hospital?.
  • n. 5 has been moved to the next sentence. Since it presents an article from 1965 it is obviously not going to discuss a TV series made seven years later. However, n. 6 does state that Temperatures Rising derives from This is a Hospital? However it states that the unsold pilot was from the "mid-1960s"; n. 5 is therefore used to pinpoint a more accurate date.
• n. 10: the first passage is verified, but you lifted the phrase "always covering up for the inept crew" from the source without putting it in quotation marks in the article. The second direct quote from the article is also verified.
• n. 15: the brand name of the toothpaste for the commercial does not appear in the source.
  • Changed to state only "a toothpaste commercial".
• n. 20:, verified.
• n. 25: Albertson is not mentioned in the snippet, so that fails verification as well.
  • A second source is now added to verify that Albertson is in the episode.
• n. 30: verified, and properly quoted for attribution purposes.
• n. 35: verified.
• n. 40: verified. I didn't receive a copy of n. 41, but the content of nb2 can be verified to n. 40 alone.
• n. 45: verified.
• n. 50: verified.
• n. 55: verified.
• nn. 60–61: basically verified. n. 60 doesn't explicitly say that it was the last episode, but the replacement the following week in n. 61 does imply that.
• n. 65: verified.

The items marked as failing verification need to be rectified. I added the missing quotation marks myself. Given that over a quarter of the sources checked revealed issues. I'm going to ask for additional sources to see if they weren't aberrations, or to see if they're part of a pattern here. Jimknut, please supply copies of the sources for the footnotes that end in 3 or 7 so that I can do further verifications. Imzadi 1979 → 14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Changes made. Next batch of sources in the works. Jimknut (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Next batch sent. Jimknut (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the latest batch to be checked:

• n. 3: verified in all usages.
• n.7: verified.
• n. 13: verified
• n. 17: verified. (as a note, this would verify the brand of toothpaste that n. 15 couldn't.)
• n. 23: verified.
• n. 27: verified (and isn't the expression "card shark" and not "card sharp"?)
• n. 33: verified.
• n. 37: verified.
• n. 43: verified
• n. 47: I'm not sure why this appears after "As to why the series was not cancelled, Asher remarked, 'I can answer that in two words: Paul Lynde.'" because that quotation only appears in n. 3 and not n. 47. Otherwise, this one is verified.
• n. 53: verified.
• n. 57: verified.
• n. 63: verified.
• n. 67: verified.

Overall, this is much better than the last batch and counters my fear that there was sourcing issues in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 14:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review. Concerning your comment for n. 27: "Card shark" and "card sharp" are interchangeable; however, Wikipedia has an article under card sharp and it is also what appears in Webster's online dictionary (as one word: cardsharp) described as "someone who makes money by cheating at card games". Hence I will stick with my spelling. Jimknut (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2016 [9].

Union Station (Erie, Pennsylvania)

Nominator(s): Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While there are several railway station FA's (mostly British), there isn't one from the US, only a handful of GA's. Wasn't sure there would've been enough for an FA when I started, but was surprised by Union Station's unique, and often overlooked, history as well as how it went from neglected and abandoned to being revitalized and a hub of activity. This article has previously been reviewed by Finetooth and West Virginian who were instrumental in helping to get the article ready for FAC. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Erie_PA_Panorama_c1912_LOC_6a14402u.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced from the Library of Congress who indicate that it's original copyright was to Haines Photo Co. in 1912. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 19:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but the tag you're currently using is intended for images published, not just taken, before 1923 - do we know whether the company published the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been...it is listed in the 1912 Catalog of Copyright Entries as "Erie, Pa. two panoramic views. © Sept. 18, 1912." [10] (page 20049, if you're interested). Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then just add that detail to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added, thanks for doing the image review. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginia

Support As Niagara has stated above in his nomination of the article, I've already engaged in a thorough and comprehensive review at this article's peer review. All my comments and suggestions were addressed there. I still assess that this article easily meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria because it is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, and has a lede that adheres to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Once again Niagara, you've done a splendid job illustrating the storied past and revival of this historic building. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Finetooth

I peer-reviewed this article in August 2015 and did some minor copy editing, and all of my original concerns have been addressed. I'm leaning toward support, but after re-reading the revised article again today, I have two (or several, depending how you count) additional suggestions:

• I see four sentences in the article that appear as unsourced last-sentence additions to paragraphs. The first of these (Fellheimer) is at the end of the first paragraph of the "Design" section, and the second (railroad offices) ends the third paragraph of the "Design" section. The other two are in the "Operations" section, at the ends of paragraphs 2 and 3 (express trains and Bliley). Can you add reliable sources for these claims?

• For the books in the bibliography that are too old to have ISBNs, I would add OCLCs as in the Harriet Tubman bibliography. You can generally find these via WorldCat. For example, WorldCat lists the OCLC of History of Erie County, Pennsylvania as 8622308 here. Readers who use your bibliography will then be able to click on an OCLC link to see the WorldCat listings, which include information about other editions and formats and where to find them. For example, the History of Erie County, Pennsylvania, has appeared in nine different forms, including a 2006 reprint. Finetooth (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added the appropriate sources and OCLC numbers. Thanks for catching those! Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very well-done and interesting article. Finetooth (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley

• "The first railroad station in Erie was established 1851" Is "established 1851" AmerEng? I would say "built in 1851".

Missing preposition, should read "established in 1851". Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Superintendents for both the New York Central and Pennsylvania railroads, as well as other railroad officials, retained offices on the second floor of Union Station." "retained" does not sound right to me - maybe "had"?

Replaced. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• " early-1960s" Why the hyphen?

My thinking was along the lines of

MOS:DECADE which specifies that prefixes for decades like "mid-" or "pre-" should have hyphens. If I'm misinterpreting it, let me know and I'll remove the hyphen. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Changed to avoid making the reference. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lake Shore '​s demise.[43][44] Erie remained devoid of any passenger rail service until the Lake Shore Limited was introduced on November 30, 1975" This is a bit confusing. How about something like "until November 30, 1975, when service was restored, named Lake Shore Limited after its predecessor."

Changed, but actually named for the original, New York Central train. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Train arrival times - I think they are too detailed for an encyclopedia article as they will be subject to frequent change.

It was suggested in the peer review that they be added. I could be less specific and just say "early morning" if that's any better. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally I disagree with the PR comment. You provide a link for the times. However, if you added "As of December 2015" and deleted the actual times that would be a compromise. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The microbrewery details are excessive and verge on advertising.

Obviously I'm better at historical and architectural/engineering writing than about businesses; I'll work to tone it down. If you have suggestions on what is the most egregious, I'll have a better idea of what needs to be changed or removed. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at it again, the same comment applies to Logistics Plus. I do not think that details about commercial tenants belong in an article about a railway station. If any are significant enough to have its own article you can wikilink it. I suggest instead of one section on "Major tenants", two sections headed "Railway services" and "Commercial tenants". In the latter you could list them in one paragraph, with maybe a sentence about the most important ones. You might also change "art gallery" to "art studio" as it is a commercial business rather than a public gallery. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've cutback on extraneous details. I've also retitled the rail section "Services and facilities", which appears in other Amtrak station articles, and decided to reorder the sections for a more logical progression. Did I miss anything? Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No change needed, but there has been a dramatic revival of passenger numbers in Britain. I assume from this article that there has been no US revival?

When oil prices were high, Amtrak ridership did increase and had a record ridership of 30 million in 2013. But, outside of the California and the Northeast Corridor, driving and (as is often the case) flying is faster. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A first rate article. All points are minor apart from advertising for the brewery. Dudley Miles (talk)

• Support - although I would delete the last sentence as close to advertising. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Imzadi1979

Just some comments after meandering here from my own nomination:

• "with stairways leading to the platforms" would read better, and avoid the "noun plus -ing" issue. I suggest "with stairs that lead to the platforms" as a neater replacement.
  • "with the remainder having level crossings" likewise would be better as "and the remainder had level crossings"
  • "with trains traveling west to Cleveland" would be better as "with trains that traveled west to Cleveland".
  • "Conrail, in turn, was dismantled on June 6, 1998, with the former New York Central rail lines going to CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway gaining control of the former Pennsylvania lines" → "Conrail, in turn, was dismantled on June 6, 1998, and the former New York Central rail lines were transferred to CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway gained control of the former Pennsylvania lines."
• "early-1960s" doesn't need the hyphen like "mid-1960s" or "pre-1960s" would.
• "...waiting room could patronage its... " → "...waiting room could patronize its... "?
• "moved from 8th and Peach Streets" → "moved from 8th and Peach streets" to match how other similar pairings of streets are named in the article.
• "continued to operate a New York to Chicago train" → "continued to operate a New York-to-Chicago train" or "continued to operate a New York–Chicago train" because the two cities form a compound adjective to describe the noun "train".
• In footnote 33, there's a [sic]. For something as minor as a missing space, I'd have just silently fixed the issue and avoided the notation. Correspondingly, over on footnote 47, there's an apostrophe error that has no notation (assuming that isn't a transcription error and it's an actual error in the original source).

• Looking back at the source, the exact format was "Gradecrossing" which means it was intentionally one word; the other footnote was a transcription error on my part. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If it's possible to add the missing page numbers for news sources, they should be provided for articles not published/re-published online. I'll take you at your word though if those articles came from databases that omitted the page numbers. (If possible in the future, if you can make a trip to a library and find the original articles on microfilm and add the page numbers, that would be a benefit to our readers who may want to verify sources in the future.)

• I had intended to do that, but never did. The articles had been clipped from the original newspapers and sorted by subject; most did not have the page numbers included. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think the article is in great shape. My comments above are really quite minor and could be fixed in a few minutes' time, except the missing page numbers. On that last point, I wouldn't oppose promotion over that issue, and I'm inclined to support overall pending fixes. Imzadi 1979 → 10:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the article. I have also made the grammatical and punctuation changes you've recommended. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 02:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—everything looks good now. As I said, adding the missing page numbers is a bonus, and not something I'd hold up promotion over. Imzadi 1979 → 06:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

I'm far from a railfan, but I'll give the best lay review I can.

• WP:SEAOFBLUE, this should be reworked. President-elect Abraham Lincoln
  too

• Removed links where not relevant. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The first railroad station in Erie was established in 1851 - was this on the same site? If yes, probably worth mentioning in the lead. If not, definitely worth mentioning in the body.

• The sources I have say only say that it was "replaced by" the 1866 station; that could mean either way. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• rough brown firebrick and sandstone - though you are using others' wording, I'm not sure you need the quotes. I mean, Fire brick and sandstone are both technical terms, and "rough brown" is not a unique idea in and of its own

• I've left "rough brown" in quotes as its not a phrase I would come up with on my own to describe the building materials. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Entrances from 14th Street open into a large, - what period is this paragraph talking about? And the next? Some may facilities have lasted for 50 years, but restaurants and lunch counters generally don't have that kind of longevity.

• Clarified. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How many entrances on 14th street?

• There are two other sets of doors in addition the main, but they may or may not be original. It is likely they were added when the building redeveloped, but I don't have any sources that indicate which is correct. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lake Shore Limited arrives at Union Station twice daily, eastbound from
  New York Penn Station and Boston South Station
  in the early morning"

• Changed. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Link locations etc. on first mention outside the lead as well?

• Cleaned up links. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Name of the restaurant?

• Not knowing which one you are referring to, I've added details for both. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Been two years since the feasibility assessment was undertaken for the high-speed line. Any follow-up yet? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Last October, the group raised enough money to fund the the study; if that's relevant I'll add it. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... no, I guess that's not sufficient development in and of itself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe I've taken care everything; let me know if I've forgotten anything. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 01:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2016 [11].

Palmyra

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra. This is the second nomination following a previous one that spent a month without any input by other users save for the Image review. The article is a GA, recieved a Peer review and a copy-edit. Plus, it was translated to Portuguese and Afrikaans and it is now a featured article in Portoguese, Afrikaans and Azerbijani Wikipedia pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira.

Palmyra was a unique city and a melting pot between the East and the West. Its warrior queen Zenobia left a lasting romantic impression in the minds of classical writers and its ruins are (were) one of the best preserved from the Roman era. Sadly, a monstrous militia (ISIS) is destroying it piece by piece.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod

• Now Support, as points fixed - Fine Work! Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a pity such a fine, and (sadly) topical, article received no comments last time! By the way, this got 256K desktop views in the last 90 days. I have I think edited it a few times. On a first look:
• Lead: I might shorten para 3, but include a link to the short-lived Palmyrene Empire. No need to drop the next one.
• Sections: My main comment is that the sequence of the sections, though in the conventional WP order, does not serve this subject, treated at this length, at all well for most readers. They mainly want information on the ruins, their recent destruction, and the culture that produced them. At the moment the main "Notable structures" section begins on the 16th screen down on my computer, which is just far too low.
  • Taking them in turn:

Location and etymology - I'd split this, & put etymology at the end of the article. I'd add the "City layout", now many screens lower, to the current 1st para on "Location".

History - very long, and not the priority for most readers. Move lower. You might even split the section, keeping the pre-Muslim history higher, but the commendably full subsequent history much lower, as until ISIS this contributes very little to the fame of the city.

"People, language and society" then "Culture" - ok to follow location and layout. I'd then have "8.2 Cemeteries and 8.3 Notable structures " next, with the ISIS destruction just after. Excavations might go into the history section.

Government, Religion and Economy next, but the rulers table right at the bottom of the article. I even wonder if all the redlinked Al-Fadl dynasty should not be moved out to a dedicated list page. If that is done the House of Odaenathus might go below the relevant section in the history.

• If not this, then something else needs to be done.

Thanks for taking the effort. I dont mind the rearranging of the sections but would like propose a similar arrangement. The etymology section (as I've seen in most articles) is always at the beginning. It is just too out of place to have it at the very end.
Para 3 of the lead is the shortest and probably summaries the reason why Palmyra is famous : Odaenathus wars and the rebellion of Zenobia. I feel strongly that it should remain.
I made the changes you asked but kept the etymology up. Im thinking about creating an article for the list of rulers. Hope this is adequate.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think that's much better! The removal of the rulers reduces the crude size somewhat, to 177K, which is a good thing also. I'll do a detailed read-through, but not today. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, this will have to wait for a few days. I am likely to support, & I'd encourage you to stick with the process, tedious though the referencing issues are. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I've done some small copyedits for language. In the notes, I can't be bothered to hunt these down:
• Palmyra as a polis is not extensive, and the earliest known reference is an inscription dated to 51 AD, written in Palmyrene and Greek, mentioning the "City of the Palmyrenes" in its Greeks section.
• No evidence for Germanicus visiting Palmyra exist.
• Although a mainstream view is that Palmyra benefited from Petra annexation,
• The Mesopotamian Jewish population was deemed by the Palmyrenes as loyal to the Persians. - "regarded" better than deemed.
• Richard Stoneman propose that the law regulated taxes imposed on goods destined
• Let me know if the problems with these aren't obvious. Johnbod (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Will support when remaining points sorted. Excellent article! Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Beginning, as is my custom here, by examining references and reference formatting:

• Right off the bat, I have to note that you're doing some very nonstandard things with your reference formatting. In particular, I'm not certain what criteria you're using to include books in the bibliography; there are a considerable number of book-format works referenced but not included therein. Also, while things like sfn aren't required, there's no connect between the citations and bibliography entries. The net result makes it rather difficult to evaluate the referencing properly. Considerable editorial discretion is given to reference format choices, but this may actually rise to the level of MOS-noncompliance.
• You format author names first last in citations but last, first in the bibliography. Regardless of choices within editorial discretion, you need to be consistent about the standards you enact.
• As an apparent consequence of the referencing formatting choices, print sources that appear in the citations but not in the bibliography do not have a full bibliographic entry anywhere in the article. Murtonen 1989, for example, lacks a publisher or ISBN. Charnock 1859 lacks a publisher (and, ideally, an OCLC). And so on.
• In what is currently citation 1, you italicize and wikilink CBS News. In citation 11, you do neither for BBC News. Italicization of web sources is a contentious topic in the MOS at this time, but here, especially, consistency needs to be applied.
• You've fallen prey to what I'm increasingly deeming the "Google Books trap". Google Books does a terrible job at extracting bibliographic information from scholarly journals that it has indexed as if they were books. The material you have cited as "Space archaeology" by Shiruku Rōdo-gaku Kenkyū Sentā isn't a book at all, but a journal: Silk Roadology, the published proceedings of the Research Center for Silk Roadology. I don't have access to this material, so I can't even try to construct a proper citation, which would need the article title, author, and pagination, in addition to the volume (and issue, if assigned) of the journal. None of which can Google Books be trusted to accurately provide. I offer no opinion as to the reliability or academic rigor of this source at this time.

• The same is true of Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. This is actually material from Les Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes, a journal published by the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums. I'm not convinced this was an Arabic-language publication, either (or, alternatively, that the cited volume is incorrect). I know that AAAS changed publication language several times, and relatively recent volumes exist in both Arabic and English, but as of volume 42, may have still been in French. Regardless, whatever is being cited here needs confirmation from a more accurate source.

• Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is a scholarly article republished in a book-form journal proceeding. This one does appear in the bibliography, but isn't formatted appropriately in either location. Among other issues, it needs to include the editors of the bound work.

At this point, I'm done attempting a thorough survey of the sources. Many, perhaps most of the sources used here lack a complete citation. At least two, and likely more, are cited in a factually incorrect manner because of mangling by Google Books. That is especially problematic for obscure and foreign-language sources as used here. Accordingly, I have no choice but to strongly oppose promotion on 2c and probably 1c grounds. No opinion on prose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OH WOW , strong oppose because of this!!!!!!!!!!!! imagine if the article lacked some sources, whats then ? delete the article ?!!!. I didnt expect that FA was a process to see if the sources are neat, tidy and packed in a pretty way. I thought this was about articles being informative and cited. This is a very shallow criteria to oppose !!! its not because the article isnt sourced but because the sources change the style of naming the authors !!!! Does it really matter to the reader !!!! He can click on the link and the book and page will appear in front of him, is he really going to care that the name order is changed between the cite and the biblio !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I dont think that the reader immediately jump in excitement to the bibliography section once they have clicked on the article. So it doesnt matter using the most reliable academic sources or comprehensiveness but the way the name of the author is given in the citation and the bibliography or the italicization of BBC and CNN!

Now, to tackle your issues :

• I know for sure that I have the privilege of choosing my style of citation and since I've chosen a way that doesn't require a bibliography (templates) then I've decided to delete the bibliography all together
• I provided every citation with full information to compensate the deletion of the bibliography so now every source have a complete citation.
• As for the journals, they are now in an adequate format : (cite journal). So Space Archaeology is properly cited now
• As for the Annales archéologiques Arabes Syriennes : you said a more accurate source. AAAS is one of the most reliable sources about Palmyra, you cant get more accurate than that. The issue cited is in Arabic and you dont need to doubt it. If you dont know for sure then you really shouldn't doubt that it is written in Arabic or not. I wrote the key word Qatna in Arabic so you can see that it is written in Arabic.قطنا but anyways, it is not needed as the next source also cover the subject so I deleted the AAAS.
• This journal "The Penny Cyclopaedia of the Society for the Difussion of Useful Knowledge" from 1840 didnt normally mention the names of its authors so I cant have them.
• This book for example : Local Etymology: A Derivative Dictionary of Geographical Names by Richard Stephen Charnock is from 1859 and have no ISBN. Many old books and journals have no ISBN or ISSN, how can I get you ones ?!!!!
• Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is now properly cited.
• BBC and stuff are consistence now in regard to italicization. By the way, it wasnt me who italicized CBS. I didnt add that reference and the difference isnt because of intended italicization but because of the templates. the "cite news" template will give you an italicized publisher while the "cite web" template will give you a non italicized publisher. I cant even believe that this is a serious problem !!!!!
• You cant oppose this on bases of 1C. The article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable
• I just spent 7 continuous hours to make every citation full, hope this is appreciated and will make your strong opposition a normal one. If this way ^[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) is the only accepted way of citations and the citation templates are refused then Im gonna think about withdrawing the nomination because this is just a complete child play. Spending months writing and reading hundreds of books then getting the article refused because "the style of the citations isnt pretty to my eyes".--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Featured Article process is very demanding. It makes expectations not only of the quality of the prose and references, but that references are fully cited and presented in an internally-consistent manner (which, no, does not mandate short-form references). I realize that this isn't the "fun" part of article writing, but it is a well-established aspect of the Feature Article candidacy process. Please don't take it personally; my interest is in ensuring that the articles we highlight as our best work meet all of our criteria for that standard, even the ones that aren't exciting. Taking a moment to opine, I often wish that the GA criteria were more stringent, so that the leap in expectations between GA-quality work and FA-quality work were not so large as it is. But we work with the criteria we have.

• Following up on your comments about AAAS: AAAS is, without question, a high-quality source. My suggestion that you might need to consult another source was not meant to imply that it was unacceptable, but that Google Books was giving you insufficient and possibly incorrect material. Specifically, as with several other references, this is a scholarly journal; citations to it need to be to the individual articles, not the journal as a whole.

• Publishers should generally not be abbreviated. For the Bryce source, Oxford University Press, not OUP. And definitely not "OUP Oxford", even if that's what Google Books claims in its sidebar.
• The Arbeitman source is not correctly cited. Yoël L. Arbeitman is the editor of the book, not its author. Each section is an independent article with its own title and author. Arbeitman needs to be moved to |editor and the article title and author indicated with |chapter and |author. In this case, "The etymologies of Tadmor and Palmyra" by M. O'Connor (at least for anything citing pages between 235 and 254, inclusive). Ideally, the citation would provide the full pagination of the cited article within the larger source, but citing exclusively to the referenced page is probably acceptable under the MOS, and I won't quibble. Pedantically, the publisher is styled as Peeters, not Peeters Publishers.
• Brill, not BRILL, in the Murtonen source. This is one part of a very large multivolume work. The full set of sub-subtitles here is unwieldy, and can probably be safely omitted, but adding |volume=13 is probably warranted. Murtonen is correctly identified as the author here; whether you also indicate J.H. Hospers as editor is probably discretionary. Use this tool to convert the ISBN to a properly formatted ISBN-13.
• For works like Charnock, that predate the establishment of the ISBN system, it is possible to provide an OCLC number, which can be found via WorldCat search. There is some art to using WorldCat, as individual printings often receive different OCLC numbers (and sometimes, due to errors, the same printing may have more than one OCLC number assigned). When you can unambiguously identify an OCLC number, and no ISBN exists, it's helpful to include it, because it makes it easier for readers to access the work. I will note that OCLC numbers are sometimes assigned to e-copies of books. Established precedent indicates that when you are working from a faithful reproduction of the print source (as full Google Books scans [usually] are), you can cite the original format of the work; that you are working from an archive doesn't change what you're actually referencing. In any case, always use OCLC numbers, not OCoLC numbers. Accordingly, to get things started, Charnock is OCLC 4696115.
• In the Le Strange source, "A.D.", not "A. D.", and "to", not "To". Cosimo is a print-on-demand publisher and so its works would often not be deemed reliable sources; in this case, however, this is a reprint of a work now in the public domain, so you're fine in that sense. The publisher needs to show the actual imprint it was published under, Cosimo Classics, and not the parent company. Finally, you should add the original date of publication, 1890, using |origyear.
• The BBC article, "Syria uncovers 'largest church'" has an explicit date: 14 November 2008. Because you provide these dates (when available) for other web sources, you need to be consistent.
• Convert the ISBN for Stoneman.
• There are still problems with the Izumi source that you have styled as Space Archaeology. Because you split the author name into the |last and |first fields, it displays in last, first order. Personally, I prefer that. But elsewhere you've used |author and forced names to appear in first last order. You need to be consistent, whichever you choose. More importantly, this journal is not called Space Archaeology, despite what Google Books is telling you (that's basically the cover story of this issue). I don't really blame you for getting tripped up by this. Situations like this got me in the past, too. Google Books is very, very bad at dealing with digitized journals. Very bad. The journal is actually styled as Silk Roadology. Scholarly journals do not need their publisher specified.
• Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner is still not okay. You need to indicate that those three individuals are the editors of the work (use the editor fields). The title of the work should be the title of the book: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität, Berlin. Use author and chapter fields to specify the individual article and its author. Finally, this is a multi-volume work, so you should indicate that you are referencing |volume=1
• For Dirven: again, Brill, and ISBN conversion.
• For Young, Google Books malformed the date range in the title by converting an unspaced endash to a spaced hyphen, because Google hates typography, or something. That part of the title should read 31 BC–AD 305.
• For Smith II, Oxford University Press, not OUP USA.
• The "'Imitation Greeks'" source is problematic. This isn't actually a book published by ProQuest (they aren't really a publisher; they are a microform reproduction distributor). What this actually is is a doctoral dissertation by Nathanael John Andrade. Material such as this is sort of in a gray area regarding
  WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If you can replace this with a higher-quality source, that might be ideal. If consensus here is that it is acceptable to retain, you'll need to reformat it with {{cite thesis
  }} and include the relevant bibliographic information.
• Some days I hate Google Books. I don't know what they did with the source you cite as Hillers and Cussini, but the cover and copyright page make clear that Eleonora Cussini is the sole editor of the work. As in several other cases, restyle the publisher and convert the ISBN. Also, this is another case where the chapters are individual articles with their own authorship. Page 55 is part of "The City of the Dead" by Michal Gawlikowski.

And here I'm stopping again. I've gone through the first 25 of 389 references. Some of these are problems are nitpicking concerns over styling. But several are significant problems with the accuracy and completeness of citations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt take it personally but a strong oppose without giving me directions on how to fix the problems (since Im a noob here, I didnt even know that there are editor and original year parameters) made me upset (and my insomnia didnt help me to stay calm). Now when I read back, i can see that I was rude and overreacted. apologies.

• Yoël and Charnock fixed
• OUP and BRILL fixed
• I replaces the cosimo la-Strange with the original one
• BBC date for the church fixed
• last name/first name problem fixed
• Kühne, Czichon, and Kreppner fixed
• Young and ISBN's fixed
• Andrade took his PHD thanks to this thesis and got it printed as a legitimate book by Cambridge university press Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World. But anyway, I replaced the thesis with other sources.
• Hillers fixed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. A belated welcome to FAC, then! My apologies for not recognizing that you were new to this process, which can sometimes very much be a trial-by-fire. I'll certainly have more material to address when I get a few minutes to review further. The goal, as always, is better articles. As a drive-by comment, there's absolutely no problem with citing Andrade from the Cambridge University Press book, just a problem with citing the Andrade thesis directly. But if other sources serve just as well, that works too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by an IP

• "The Palmyrenes were primarily a mix of Amorites, Arameans and Arabs,[2]" The lead should ideally be devoid of any inline citation. The information cited is something that should be discussed in the main prose, where the inline citation should go.
• "In 1929, the French began moving villagers into the new village of Tadmur." Is there a way to avoid this repetition?
• "its incorporation into the Roman Empire in the first century." AD? Such as this, "By the third century AD"
• "Palmyra was a prosperous metropolis and regional center" is there something missing? center for?
• "Before 273 it enjoyed autonomy for much of its existence." Is this a date? Sorry, not an aficionado.
• "In 260 the Palmyrene king Odaenathus defeated the Persian emperor Shapur I. He fought" I suppose "he" refers to the king Odaenathus?

Fixed. As for the citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them. It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.
For the regional center: nothing is missing, it was a center of its own region.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Al Ameer son

I contributed to this article not too long ago (added a bit of content to the "Arab caliphate" section and otherwise made some copyedits here and there). I've already commended the nominator for his efforts and I do so again. With what has been happening to Palmyra lately, many people who don't know much about the city but hear about its ongoing destruction on the news will come here to learn about the site. I'm glad someone has devoted their efforts at improving their learning experience.

• That being said, having read the entire article, it clearly meets criterion 1a, 1b and 1d. There has not been any real edit warring, but whenever Palmyra is in the news cycle, the article attracts some unnecessary additions made in good faith, but overall it meets 1e. From the outset, the article appears to meet 1c, but I cannot say for sure yet because I haven't gone through all the sources. I will verify a sample of citations throughout the article and anything that seems extraordinary, and from that I can confidently make a conclusion regarding 1c soon.
• The lead is a bit too long, but not totally overwhelming. I think it could be shortened and maybe even restructured a bit to be less a summary of the entire history from the Neolithic period until the present day and more a summary of the article, i.e. the site and its major ruins, the parts of its history most relevant to the ruins and its role as an ancient power (including the city's distinct ancient culture and civilization). Currently, the lead focuses too much on history. The current structure of the article, after Johnbod's suggestion, is fine. The citations format is consistent.
• There is excellent usage of pictures in the article and it appears any issues with the images were addressed in Nikkimaria's image review in the first FAC.
• The article is lengthier than the average FA, but deservedly so due to the sheer amount of information on Palmyra's ruins, history and culture. The article does not go into unnecessary detail, although the lead might. Then again, this is just my opinion.

As of right now, I can say with confidence that the article meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2b, 2c, 3 and 4. I await the nominator's response to my suggestion on shortening and possibly restructuring the lead. I will give my take on 1c soon, although I'm pretty confident that the nominator, who has been researching the subject and has been working on the article for so long, has been diligent in adding material that correctly reflects the many and diverse sources he has used. --Al Ameer (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes, now, the political history isnt the focus of the lead. I will be thankful if you have any specific suggestion (i.e specific sentence to be deleted and another to be written).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is much better now, in my opinion. I just made a few copyedits to it as well. After the changes you've made, I think the following fragment could be removed: "The city was governed by a senate", unless you think this line is critical to the lead. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the first line is grammatically correct: "is an ancient Semitic city in present Homs Governorate, Syria". Shouldn't it be "in present-day Homs Governorate"? If a copyeditor or reviewer previously copyedited the article, it wouldn't hurt to ping him or her and ask if they could take a look at the revised lead and see if they could make further improvements. You could also ask someone who has never read or edited the article before to do the same thing, but that would likely be a longer process since they might not make any comments about the lead without reading through the article first. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senate part deleted. It was the copy editor who wrote (present). I added (day). No new sentences were added, I just deleted some, so the lead didnt change grammatically and pinging the copy editor wont be necessary.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support After a few days of looking through various citations to see if the sources matched up with the text (for verification's sake), I am confident that this article meets criteria 1c. As I noted above, I also believe it meets all the other FA criteria as well. This is a highly informative, beautifully written, and well-sourced article that should grace Wikipedia's home page in the very near future. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Al-Ameer.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support by FunkMonk

• Support - I GA reviewed this article, and I can see it has been significantly improved since then, and now lives up to the FA criteria. Would be interesting to see if Squeamish Ossifrage is satisfied with the changes done since his review, though. I think every effort should be made to help the nominator get this article promoted instead of archived, as it is his first nomination (and English is not his first language), but also due to the high importance of the subject, and its current, dire situation. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Midnightblueowl

• Comments: I have quite a bit of experience with writing about archaeological subjects here at Wikipedia and thus I am gratified to see that such a lot of admirable work has been paid to this article. However, I have some concerns about the Etymology section. For instance, why is there no link to Pliny the Elder when he is mentioned? Why are citations 3 and 7 placed next to each other when both are citing the same article; surely they should be merged? Why is there a single, solitary citation appearing in the lede; is this really necessary? Generally speaking, I think that this article could probably do with a good prose review before being taken to FAC, and for that reason am Opposed at present. I also wonder if a different citation system would benefit this article, given that a number of key sources are used repeatedly as references (see for instance the citation system used in the recent archaeology-themed FA, Mortimer Wheeler, and my GA at Coldrum Long Barrow, which is much cleaner and more user friendly). Moreover, I am very worried at what seems to be an over-reliance on Google Books as a way of finding references in this article. I do certainly appreciate that not everyone has access to university resources and all of the books and articles that they can provide, but really Google Books is too selective in what it offers to be truly reliable for something like this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1- the article was already copy edited by the copy-edit guild. It was also read thoroughly (specially the prose which was edited multiple times) by Jonbod, Al-Ameer son and Dudley Miles (in his peer review). How many prose read should this article get before it is just too much?. Another prose read will mean that this is the fourth time. This could go on forever and a line must be drawn at some point

2- Pliny was linked, I cant remember how the link was removed. Its easy to link it again and the source 3 was removed

3- The citation in the lead: We have a problem with Assyrian nationalists who go around and remove the word Arab from every article about a historic Fertile crescent civilization before Islam. Thats why the reference is important or the word Arab will be removed by one of them (look at the article history before I rewrote it). It is encouraged to have citations in the lead for any information that can be disputed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations.

4- I prefer this citation style in my articles as it can get you to the page in the source. It is not a criteria to follow a certain style

5- There is really no need to worry about google books. They are added for the sole reason of giving you a chance to read the source. I already have a large collection in my university library and I could have not provided any links to google books but I thought (and still convinced) that those links are helpful for users who want to inspect the source. All the recent academic books written on Palmyra were used. So no selectivity and Palmyra isnt a controversial subject to be afraid that the whole truth isnt present. Do you like me to delete the links to google books ?? this way only the name of the source will remain and it wont look like there is a reliance on a library called google books.

I dont think that you noticed that I used many old middle eastern sources that has no preview on google books. Yet, I added a link to google so that the reader can see that this book exist. Obviously, I didnt read those sources on google.

I have edited the article to address the real problems you mentioned.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I still don't think that the prose is up to full FA quality just yet. There are many, many sentences that I feel could be improved. For instance, the article refers to "by the end of the millennium Arameans were mentioned as inhabiting the area" but no statement is given as to where this was "mentioned". Names like Albert Schultens and Hadrian are dropped without explaining who they were. Wording such as "as an alteration (supported by Schultens)," could be improved considerably. I'm still opposed at this juncture, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate all the hard work that has gone into this, and I would be willing to change my opposition to a support if I see these prose problems cleaned up. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you need to point the prose problem considering that 5 other experienced editors read the article and didnt see those problems. Throwing a random note doesnt help as those problems that you found werent considered problems for others. You need to be specific about what you think is wrong so you need to do a pros check yourself since a "problem" to you isnt a problem to another. There is no set of rules to count on, when trying to discover what you consider a problem, so you need to be more clear as other editors cant figure out what you would consider a problem.

Schultens and Hadrian need explanations ? this would most definitely be a distraction. The article is about Palmyra not about Schultens. The names are linked for people who dont know them. We cant explain about Hirohito (for example) in an article about a different subject.

The Arameans were mentioned by the Assyrians which is an information clearly written in the section Palmyra#Early_period. This section came in before the population section but I had to change its place due to Jonbod earlier review.

"as an alteration (supported by Schultens)". How can it get any more clearer ? I even wrote a note (note 3) which explain the alternation and it read like this : According to Schultens, the Romans altered the name from "Tadmor" to "Talmura", and afterward to "Palmura" (from the Latin word "palma", meaning palm),[2] in reference to the palm trees. Then the name reached its final form "Palmyra".[7].

I ask you to do a prose check and point the problems you see since other editors didnt find them and I cant be in your mind to see what you see as a problem cause I find everything clear for now, and so did the people in pt:Palmira, af:Palmyra, az:Palmira who promoted the article to FA. --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to be a little more specific. I have tidied up the prose in a few places where I felt that improvements could be made. However, there are other instances where I feel that a rewrite is certainly desirable For instance, take the following sentence: "It is generally believed that "Palmyra" derives from "Tadmor" as an alteration (supported by Schultens),[note 3][4] or a translation of "Tadmor" (assuming that it meant palm), and derived from the Greek word for palm "Palame" (supported by Jean Starcky).[2][5]" That could clearly be improved. At present, it is quite clunky, what with the three uses of brackets and the use of terms like "supported by Jean Starcky". For me, it is the odd sentence such as this one which hold he article back from truly reaching FA quality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for this User:Midnightblueowl. Dudly Miles already conducted a full review of the article after you asked for one. He pointed whatever he felt "wrong" and so did the other reviewers. Now the ball is on your side. I edited the sentence which you felt needed improvements. I'll be waiting for you to point whatever you consider need improvements.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Others, such as Jean Starcky, considers" should be "Others, such as Jean Starcky, consider". There are a few other prose issues in this paragraph still. It's not a major thing, but for me it holds back the article from being FA. I'm happy to lend a hand and deal with these issues myself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks User:Midnightblueowl.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out my opposition to this page's nomination. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "Palmyra changed hands between the different empires that ruled the area, becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD." For clarity I suggest something like "Palmyra changed hands on a number of occasions between different empires, before becoming a subject of the Roman Empire in the first century AD."
• "Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[19] However, excavation supports the theory that the temple was originally located on the southern bank;" This is confusing. First you say that there was an earlier temple on the site, then that it was elsewhere.

• Now you are saying " Among them is the Temple of Bel, on a tell which was the site of an earlier temple (known as the Hellenistic temple).[18] However, excavation supports the theory that the tell was originally located on the southern bank" This is even more confusing. A tell is a hill built up by successive occupation layers - it cannot move from the south to the north bank. I am still not clear what you mean. Is it that the Hellenistic temple on the north bank did not really exist, or that there was another even earlier temple on a tell on the south bank? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have rearranged some of the People, language and society section. Change anything you are not happy with. I have bundled refs at the end of the section and they need sorting out. In the version before my revision there were three refs for "but after the invasion by Timur it was a small village until the relocation in 1932" - far too many for a simple statement and they are not obviously relevant.
• Temples section. There are links to further information on the temples of Bel and Baalhamon, but Bel is not mentioned below and Baalhamon is spelled differently.

I fixed and did what you noted. I meant that the tell and the temple above it were south of the wadi; for clarity I changed the sentence to give this meaning. As for the temples section, Baal-Hamon is a different deity from Baal-Shamin. Since the temple of Bel and the temple of Baalshamin have their own articles I felt that its enough to give links to those articles, to avoid inflating the article of Palmyra with unecessary explanations.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "The newcomers were assimilated by the earlier inhabitants, spoke their language" This is unclear. Were the newcomers the Arabs? Were they assimilated by the Arameans and did they speak Aramaic? If they learnt the language you should say "learned" rather than "spoke".
• "Before 274 AD, Palmyrenes spoke a dialect of Aramaic and used the Palmyrene alphabet." You mention in a note that Aramaic is last used in an inscription of 274, but nevertheless languages spoken do not change suddenly in one year. I think it would be better to say "Until the late third century".
• In the next paragraph you state that Palmyrenes were a mixture of different peoples until 273 - cities are almost always a mixture of different peoples and they do not suddenly stop being so unless there is mass ethnic cleansing. You say below that tribal identity lost its meaning in the third century, which suggests a gradual process.
• Note 11 "E.g. by the second century, Palmyrene goddess Al-lāt was portrayed in the style of the Greek goddess Athena" I assume BC, but you should make this clear.
• "Palmyrene bust reliefs, unlike Roman sculptures, are rudimentary portraits; although many reflect high quality individuality, their details vary little across figures of similar age and gender" I am not clear what you are saying here. if they are rudimentary portraits which vary little, how can they reflect individuality?
• "Towers were replaced by funerary temples as above ground tombs after 128, which is the date of the most recent tower" This is puzzling and again you are using over-exact dates. 128 BC or AD, and the fact that that is the most recent known date does not mean there was a sudden change then. "as above ground tombs" is clumsy and superfluous.
• Public buildings section. You only give a date for the agora and the Temple of Baal-hamon. An approximate date for the other buildings would be helpful.
• In the temples section, I do not think your practice is correct. You should cover the most important temples for readers who do not want to follow links, not leave them out because they are covered in other articles. This applies particularly to the Temple of Bel, which is mentioned several times elsewhere 'Further information' is for more information about topics covered briefly, not to refer readers to topics omitted. If you are concerned about excessive length, you could create an article on Palmyra temples and refer readers to it for further information.
• "a tessera depicting the sanctuary was excavated" This can't be right. A tessera is an individual cube in a mosaic.
• "Further information: Great Colonnade at Palmyra" You do not give details about this. If it is not important enough to be in the article, it should not be in 'Further information'. (It could be in 'See also').
• "The shrine might have been connected to the royal family as it is the only tomb inside the city's walls" You say this was built in the third century - BC or AD? Did not the Roman prohibition on tombs inside towns apply?
• "to provide a costume barrier" What is a costume barrier?

Fixed. The Arabs are the newcomers. I clarified everything you pointed. I added small paragraphs for the temples and colonnade. Athena-Allat is AD actually. For the reliefs; I didnt write this paragraph as it was added by Jonbod. Some Palmyrene reliefs reveal individuality but the majority do not and I clarified this. The senate of Palmyra wasnt excavated extensively and no date exist. The Tarif court and Triclinium were part of the Agor complex and built at the same time and I clarified this.

For the tessera: the sources about Palmyra use this word and some of them were written by the excavators :

• Nathanael J. Andrade : Syrian Identity in the Greco-Roman World, Cambridge University Press
• Javier Teixidor : The Pantheon of Palmyra, Brill
• Andrew M. Smith II : Roman Palmyra: Identity, Community, and State Formation, Oxford University Press
• Clifford Ando,Jörg Rüpke : Public and Private in Ancient Mediterranean Law and Religion, Walter de Gruyter.

What is your suggestion on the tessera subject ?

I would say a mosaic but you could say tesserae (plural of tessera).

costume barrier as in a border to watch the merchandise entering the city or leaving it. As for the tomb : Palmyra always had more independence than normal Roman cities. The building no.86 is a tomb so obviously the city had the ability to break Roman law.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "when Puzur-Ishtar the Tadmorean agreed to a contract at an Assyrian trading colony in Kultepe" I would add in brackets after Tadmorean (Palmyrene). It is easy to forget that you said Tadmor is an alternative name in the etymology section.
• "In 217 BC, a Palmyrene force led by Zabdibel joined the army of King Antiochus III in the Battle of Raphia which ended in a Seleucid defeat.[" I would say by Ptolemaic Egypt. Did Palmyra stay Seleucid or the Ptolemaics gain temporary control?

Changed tessera to "mosaic piece". Done for Tadmoraen, and as for Raphia : Palmyra wasnt mentioned in the records of the battle. Only Zabdibel was mentioned and scholars concluded that he was a Palmyrene because that name was only found in Palmyra. We really dont know the situation of Palmyra back then and no source discuss it (I tried to look in my university's library as you asked this question in your last peer review but got nothing). Normally, Palmyra is part of Coele-Syria which would mean that it belonged to Egypt during the Syrian Wars but no scholar ever noted or discussed that. They do, however, consider Palmyra with the Seleucids from the beginning and since Palmyrene auxiliary served with the Seleucids and No Egyptian record exist about Palmyra during that era and the concept of Coele-Syria is very fluid in its geographic definition then probably Palmyra was not occupied by Egypt as those wars aimed at Coele-Syria which is an area that has different indications and a term that wasnt used by the Ptolemaic kingdom (hence, maybe they didnt consider Palmyra part of the region). We will never know as no source discuss it.

• "Toward the end of the second century, Palmyra began a steady transition from a traditional Greek city-state to a monarchy;[178] urban development diminished after the city's building projects peaked.[179] The Severan ascension to the imperial throne in Rome played a major role in Palmyra's transition:" I find this and the following comments confusing. You say a transition to a monarchy, but the earliest recorded lord of the city is apparently 60 years later. Then you insert the apparently irrelevant truism that a decline in building projects leads to a decline in urban development. Then you say that the rise of the Severan dynasty assisted Palmyra's transition to a monarchy, and emperors stationed troops there and encouraged a transition to Roman institutions. None of this sounds like encouraging an independent Palmyrene monarchy. Later it appears that the election of a lord was a reaction to Roman weakness in the face of the Persian threat in the middle of the third century rather than the culmination of a long term trend.

The militarization of the city is what led to the monarchy. It was the steady centralization of power that led to monarchy. This centralization and militarization began with the Severans and their policy. The emperors obviously didnt have in mind to turn Palmyra into a rival but stationing the troops in Palmyra and the wars they engaged with the Parthians leading to damage for the Palmyrene trade led Palmyra to strengthen itself and its military. The Palmyrene troops began to protect the Empire instead of trade and it was inevitable that a strong general will someday turn those troops into a power base and end the semi-democracy of Palmyra (Odaenathus was this guy). I moved the sentence about urban development to the preceding paragraph. Now the transition paragraph discuss those changes without distractions. The election of Odaenathus was a direct reaction but the circumstances allowing this election and allowing an strong army to exist started with the Severans and their wars

The Camridge History is directly attributing the rise of the monarchy to those factors. In page 512, the section is titled : From city to principality and it talks about Palmyra's transition into a monarchy. In the preceding pages, it speak about the Severan wars and the Sassanid's caused instabilities, and then open in page 512 with a direct connection between those wars and Palmyra's transition when it say : In this less favorable economic climate, the political situation at Palmyra changed and then continues to describe the Palmyrene transition to a monarchy

• "The nature of those deities is left to theory as only names are known," "left to theory" sounds a bit odd to me. Perhaps "is uncertain".

Done

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "Taxation was an important source of revenue for Palmyra." I would say to the Palmyran government - you say above that the caravan trade was most important to the economny as a whole.
• " where a tax law dating to 137 was discovered" BC or AD?
• "Antiquities scholar Andrew M. Smith II" "Antiquities scholar" sounds old fashioned. Maybe "Classlcist" for an assistant professor of classics.
• "The oasis had about 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) of irrigable land,[376] surrounded by the countryside.[377]" This is not quite right. The citation for the second half of the sentence just says that agricultural land was insufficient to support the city. Presumably it was surrounded by desert rather than countryside.
• "Palmyra was a minor trading center until the Timurid destruction" I would repeat the date here to remind readers.
• "Palmyra's main trade route ran east to the Euphrates, where it connected to the Silk Road.[381] The route then ran south along the river toward the port of Charax Spasinu on the Persian Gulf, where Palmyrene ships traveled back and forth to India." I think you need to state when this applies. The article on Charax Spasinu states that it was a major port in late antiquity. You say below during the Roman Empire - so the first 4 centuries AD?
• "For its domestic market Palmyra imported slaves, prostitutes, olive oil, dyed goods, myrrh and perfume" But above you say agricultural products as well.
• I wonder whether the section on destruction by ISIL would go better at the end after 'Excavation'. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done for all. the products mentioned arent the only ones that Palmyra imported. They are just examples. I reworded the sentence to give the meaning. The tax law is AD. I fixed the part about the countrysides to match the source.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article is nearly there - a few more queries.
• "Benjamin of Tudela recorded the existence of 2,000 Jews in the city during the twelfth century." This does not belong in a paragraph about a period a thousand years earlier. I suggest moving it to after "mainly inhabited by the Kalb tribe".
• "according to traditional scholarship, the Palmyrenes' Greek practices were a superficial layer over a local essence". The source says "scholars have often construed" - this is not the same as "according to traditional scholarship". Also you are implying an alternative view, but you do not give Andrade's alternative.
• "After the Roman destruction of the city, Palmyra was ruled directly by Rome,[319] and its following states (including the Burids and Ayyubids),[248][320] or by subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks." This is confusing. Presumably "its following states" means the states which followed Rome, but they are dynasties rather than states. Perhaps "and afterwards by Moslem dynasties".
• "The royal army was under the leadership of the monarch aided by generals" This is stated as a general description of the army, but it presumably only applied in the mid-third century?
• "In 1902, Gertrude Bell visited the city and wrote extensive letters.[" I doubt that this is worth mentioning. The source does not say she wrote about or worked in Palmyra. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cleared the royal army part and rewarded the sentence about traditional scholarship. I understood (and I could be wrong) that Andrade's view is similar to Millar; that is a fusion between greek culture and oriental one instead of a Greek layer over an oriental one. Since Millar is an A-list historian, I thought mentioning him is enough. If you see that there are differences between Andrade and Millar's views please tell me so I can fix it

I removed Benjamin of Tudela sentence. As for the states, I think its tricky, The Byzantine empire was Rome but it wasnt Rome at the same time. Yes, they are the eastern Roman empire but they are always distinguished from proper Rome. Even if we let go of the Byzantine detail, we still have the Moslims states, the Hamdanids were a dynasty under the Abbasid Caliphate but the Ottomans were their own state not simply a dynasty, so were the Mamluks but the Fadl were a dynasty under the Mamluks. I will wait for your reply on this matter and if you still believe that dynasties is better than states then I will replace states with moslims dynasties

Gertrude Bell part was inserted by an IP or a user, cant remember. I didnt like it but it had a source and I hate edit wars so I kept it. Now its removed.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noted your note about the tell of Bel's temple. I mean that the diversion of the wadi's bed made the tell on its northern bank when the Palmyrenes modified the bed. So its not like the tell physically moved, but the wadi used to flow north of the tell then the Palmyrenes modified the wadi's bed to make it flow to the south of the tell. Can you give me a clearer formula to write ?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not sure about the Greek culture issue. Andrade says that scholars have interpreted Roman and Greek influence on Palmyra as superficial and argues against it. Ball says the opposite: speaking more generally about the Near East, he says that scholars see Roman and Greek influence as dominant and argues against that view. I suggest contrasting their views without saying which is mainstream.

For "and its following states (including the Burids and Ayyubids),[245][317] or by subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks" how about "and then by a succession of other rulers, including the Burids and Ayyubids,[245][317] and subordinate Bedouin chiefs—primarily the Fadl family, who governed for the Mamluks".

Done, I eliminated the names of scholars all together.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: I haven't exactly read a lot of it, but I can tell it looks pretty nice. I might do a full review or whatnot if I have the time, but how come most of the "Destruction by ISIL" section is a bulleted list?

Done.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, I'll give it a read soon. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for the long response. I cannot really detect any major issue, but I'm not sure if I can support because I am far from being familiar with this sort of subject. Judging from many other editors supporting this article it seems more than ready though. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- this has been open a very long time but we seem to be close to consensus to promote. Squeamish Ossifrage, are you able to revisit your opposition now? Also has anyone conducted a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, given this is the nominators first FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Al Ameer son made a full source content review.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment I know almost nothing about Middle Eastern topics, so I shall not comment on whether this article deserves promotion or not. In my opinion, the nominator of this article should have demonstrated to address sufficient efforts to fix prose issues or other arrears that were pointed out by the opposing editor (ie. Squeamish Ossifrage), After which, if the opposing editor does not get back to the discussion, which appears to be hanging in the open, the nominator should then try to drop a reminder message or two on his/her talk page that the concerns have been addressed thus far. And if, after which the opposing editor does not respond, I think the FAC coordinators would then need to make a discretionary judgement on whether the "oppose" still stands. I have checked Squeamish Ossifrage's contributions page, and that his last edit on 29 October 2015. I don't think it is fair to the nominator, if he had made sufficient efforts to fix the concerns of the opposing editor, but the opposing editor appears to be AWOL/MIA at this point of time and this article fails this FAC as a result. Mr Tan (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2016 [12].

Isabella Beeton

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review
  • Make sure captions that are not sentences do not end with periods (Cheapside).
  • Beeton or Isabella? You use the former for the first image but the latter for the second image
  • File:Isabella Mary Beeton.jpg - Fine
  • File:Cheapside and Bow Church engraved by W.Albutt after T.H.Shepherd publ 1837 edited.jpg - Fine
  • File:Epsom New Race Stand – 1829.jpg - Fine
  • File:Samuel Orchart Beeton.jpg - Fine
  • File:Edmsept1861.jpg - Fine (company ownership)
  • File:WNC Beeton.JPG - Fine
  • File:Bhm title.jpg - The author field should specify the author of the work shown (i.e. the cover). Did Beeton draw it herself, or is this someone else? Or anonymous?
  • File:Isabella Beeton.jpg - Fine. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Chris: the Bhm title image has now been tweaked to clarify. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Don't italicize WorldCat
• FN106 and similar: BBC is the publisher
• Check for consistency in wikilinking - for example, OUP is linked in FN114 but not 102
• Authors with the same last name but different first names should have the first person alphabetically placed first
• How are you ordering multiple works by the same author? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Nikkimaria. All now sorted per the above. re your last point, I've gone for chronological order - oldest first. I think I've got these all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley: As a generally v. happy reviewer from the peer review I have only one quibble now: I still think the lead ought to reflect the fact that the "Mrs Beeton's" known to generations of late-19th and early/middle-20th century women was far removed from and inferior to the version put together by Isabella – Christopher Driver's phrase "progressive debasement", quoted in the main text, seems very much to the point – and I think the lead ought to make it clear that for many decades "Mrs Beeton's" was a poor and misguided version of Isabella's original. That apart, I have nothing but praise for this article, which I much enjoyed rereading. I shall support its promotion anyway, but I hope SchroCat will consider including the above point in the lead. – Tim riley talk 01:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim for your thoughts and comments both here and at the very productive PR. I hope this addition covers your very germane point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Indeed it does, and I gladly support the FA candidacy. Meets all the FA criteria, most enjoyably. You've done Mrs B. full justice. Tim riley talk 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I had the pleasure of reading this article as a result of my involvement at the peer review a week or so ago. My comments there were all swiftly dealt with and I'm happy to support this culinary delight. Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Cass - your thoughts on the PR were very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks in good shape for FA, many comments seems ot have been addressed at PR. Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I had my say at PR. Well done article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed for the prose review at PR and your subsequent re-read – all very much appreciated indeed. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I, too, had my say at PR, and have since picked away at the prose. An excellent article on a valuable topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, many thanks indeed for your thoughts and comments at PR, and the subsequent prose tweaks. Your input has been much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: As yet another peer reviewer whose concerrns were addressed there, I have only a couple of additional points to bring up here:

• I may be pernickety, but is it accurate to describe Elizabeth David as a "cook"? Cookery writer, certainly, but did she ever earn her living slaving over a hot stove? I'm a bit dubious, too, about the badger-munching Dickson Wright, though she did sort of cook, as a so-called "celebrity chef".
• The caption in the lead image, "Beeton, c. 1854", is a little too terse for my liking, and as she didn't marry Beeton until July 1856 she wasn't actually Beeton then. Your other captions are more generous; I recommend an extension to: "Isabella Beeton, née Mayson, photographed in about 1854" – or something along those lines.

Otherwise, first class stuff. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Brian: those last couple of tweaks now made and I thank you for them, and youe earlier suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2016 [13].

Banksia caleyi

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a mission to get the whole opus of Banksia "complete" as it were (to FA standard). Here is the latest one of these - Banksia caleyi. I sprinkle these through every so often to 'mix it up' a little. I feel this is of a standard as the other banksia FAs. I'll fix stuff quick-smart I promise. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A few quick comments:
  • The convert template makes the sentence beginning "Seedlings have cuneate (wedge-shaped) cotyledons" have a range of "1⁄2–1⁄2 in". Maybe there's a template parameter that lets you just put "about 1/2 in"? There's also a "5⁄8–5⁄8 in" earlier in that para.

I detemplated it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • The word "lives" is confusing here: "Seedlings have hairy stems and leaves opposite lives..." Could it link to an article or have a parenthetical explanation?

I have no idea what happened there. Reoworded proper now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't understand this sentence: "The caterpillar of the dryandra moth (Carthaea saturnioides) feeds on the leaves, though co-occurring dryandras are much preferred."

rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Missing subject? "Unlike many other Western Australian banksias, has had some degree of success..."

oops, added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • For more logical flow, I would suggest reorganizing Cultivation thus: Seed germination time. growth time. flowers obscured by the foliage. tolerates light pruning, PH range, sun & shade. grows in more humid areas. attracts pygmy and honey possums. After all, who would not want their article to end with something as adorable sounding as pygmy and honey possums??

rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! delldot ∇. 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, everything's addressed, support. delldot ∇. 05:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've basically worked this out now, so I doubt I'll have much to offer...

• The second paragraph of the lead strikes me as a bit choppy.

rejigged a little...can you be more specific? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "friable" jargon?

a little - changed to "crumbly", which is what it means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The inflorescences eventually turn grey, the old flowers remaining as up to 25 large woody follicles develop." Is this what you mean to say? Old flowers remain while, at the same time, up to 25 large woody follicles develop?

yes - they remain on the spike. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "George placed B. caleyi in B. subg. Banksia because its inflorescence is a typical Banksia flower spike" Is it?

the shape is...it's just upside down. I added "shape" to (hopefully) clarify this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "They foreshadowed publishing a full arrangement once DNA sampling of Dryandra was complete" Are you missing a word or two here?

added "of Banksia" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm by no means certain about this, but I'm not convinced that you can use "foreshadow" like that, if the "they" refers to the authors. The OED defines foreshadow as "To serve as the shadow thrown before (an object); hence, to represent imperfectly beforehand, prefigure. Also rarely (of a person), to have a foreboding of." So, the authors' current arrangement foreshadows the arrangement which will be forthcoming, perhaps, but if they are foreshadowing something, it's because they themselves are imperfectly representing it, or because they have some foreboding of it. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed to something simpler. How's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched the tense a little; how's this? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. looks fine. behind the scenes folks are still squabbling a little about the sinking of dryandra into banksia - sensitive topic to some... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As the caterpillar is parasitic, perhaps the paragraph could be merged with that of the mould?

merged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Seeds do not require any treatment, and take 23 to 50 days to germinate." Needs more- a clarification that you're talking about cultivation? I know it's immediately below the section title, but still...

added "in cultivation" now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The caption "old flower spike showing large follicles – MHNT" is a little cryptic to me.

unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, very strong. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine- all freely licensed with details provided. The caption issue mentioned above is perhaps the only issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

• George 1999 is missing a publishing location

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Collins et al 2008 uses the long ISBN, others use the short. Consistency would be good.

done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you need "via WikiSource"? I was under the impression that this was more for newspaper archives. You don't provide "via the Biodiversity Library", for example.

removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to be inconsistent on whether you provide ISSNs- I wouldn't bother.

The 1981 Nuytsia one does not have any other identifiers I could find though..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In Mast and Givnish 2002, your "main" external link is redundant to the DOI

I removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In Lamont and Markey 1995, is "South-western" a proper noun? Same in Wiens et al (along with "Honey")

title cased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For consistency's sake, do we know the first names of McCredie et al?

I found and added (finally!). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why title case for McFarland 1979, but not elsehwere?

oops, I like 'em all title case...done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In Weins et al 1979, the JSTOR link is redundant to the DOI

removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's as picky as I can manage. Spotchecks came back OK. I certainly haven't performed a comprehensive literature search, but Google Scholar certainly isn't suggesting that you have missed anything significant. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very strong, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it really necessary to mention that this species is found in Western Australia twice?

I removed one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• dieback - got a link handy?

Issue is dieback is a disambiguation page and the daughter article is the same as the mould. Should I link twice... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What about linking to wiktionary? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sure Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You gloss cuneate twice

I removed one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The annual rainfall is 550–600 mm (22–24 in). It is often locally abundant. - what is often abundant, the rain or the plant? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rejigged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - All looks good. Just one minor consideration left above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

• I've never reviewed a plant article before, so here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• No photo of seeds?

Hmm, I don't have any. Will do a scour around.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No author dates after authorities in the taxobox, is this a plant convention?

Good point - I haven't done it for many that I can recall, so of the last 5 plants articles put through FA, Telopea truncata, Brachychiton rupestris, Acacia pycnantha and Epacris impressa were lacking in dates, while Banksia lemanniana had one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, comparing the respective Codes, zoology gives the date but botany generally doesn't. Choess (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The type specimen was collected by William Baxter, inland from King George Sound, in 1829." Not sure, but perhaps mention western Australia here?

Added it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The challenge failed, and Banksia L.f. was formally conserved." When?

Alright, all else seems good, how about this issue? FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from "Sprague, Thomas Archibald. "Taxonomic botany, with special reference to the angiosperms." From: The new systematics (1940): 435-54" just trying to find it online.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "George placed B. caleyi in B. subg. Banksia" This is the first time you use the name George alone, and the first time I read it, it confused me a bit, because there are already two George's mentioned (first names) in the text... Perhaps add dates to every time someone did something, to set them apart? Now you only do it for namings, but could be nice for revisions as well.

Added first name and context - it was the landmark 1981 monograph. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No cladogram for the DNA analysis? It seems a bit as if the long lists of arrangements are in vain (in comparison), since they're based on what appears to outdated methods.

The DNA agrees on its closest relatives. And no formal infrageneric classification has been published since all the DNA stuff. Have trimmed some redundant stuff from taxo lists. WIll double check to see what I can get in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Banksia caleyi has had some degree of success in growing in more humid areas, such as Australia's east coast." In the wild? Has it been introduced elsewhere outside West Australia?

Nah, just in gardens. Most WA banksias die quickly when grown in gardens in eastern Australia, but this one is notable in being a bit more hardy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems the image selection is a bit "flower-centric", how about this, showing only leaves, which I guess is more typical of what one would encounter?[14]

The 'cf' to me suggests the photo-taker thinks they probably are caleyi but is not sure. Also, leaves can be seen in File:Banksia caleyi 02.png quite well, I do agree some more diverse shots'd be good. Will scour my computer for habit shots or anything else in a few hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Banksia caleyi is classified as Not Threatened under the Wildlife Conservation Act of Western Australia." Only mentioned in intro.

Added to body now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "No subspecies are recognised." Likewise.

Added to body now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sainsf

Hi Casliber, I like this initiative of yours. The article is indeed perfect on the whole, reviewers above have cleared almost all the flaws. Well, I have only a few points:

• You should link shrub somewhere.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Link or explain serrated (Lead) (it's also there in Description), dentate (Taxonomy)

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Link "described" (scientific description) and pistil in Taxonomy; and pH in Cultivation.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cotyledon" and "B. subg. Banksia" are duplicate links under Taxonomy

delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a big deal but I think it would look better if we followed the sequence of the article in the Lead as well. I mean the Taxonomy details wold look better in the first paragraph of Lead. The bit about distribution need not be disturbed, but then the second paragraph would have to be expanded a bit. The second paragraph of the Lead could be expanded a bit using a few more details from Ecology and Cultivation, for instance I think the bit about pH is an important detail.

late here and I am tired - need a sleep and coffee before rjigging the lead.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 18:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support : All my issues have been addressed, and I notice no other flaw in this article so I believe this article will make a good FA. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 [15].

Lexington-Concord Sesquicentennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a coin that was actually sold successfully. The design may not have been all that was desired, but it's still nice and there's a nice little backstory about the towns of Lexington and Concord, such rivals that they apparently had to have different congressmen. I enjoyed researching this one, it's been a long time since high school history ...Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

Support - Only two comments, both nitpicks.

• Gage secretly ordered Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith on April 18, 1775 to go with 700 men to Concord and destroy the munitions there. - The order was issued on April 18, or the expedition was ordered for April 18? Or both?
• He had alluded, in his report, to the well-known Ralph Waldo Emerson poem "Concord Hymn", with the phrase "embattled farmers", a reference which Arkansas's Otis Wingo used as an excuse to deliver a lengthy speech on tariffs, accusing the Republican majority of harming the farmer. - A few too many commas — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both dealt with. Thank you for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks great. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. "By the rude bridge that arched the flood ... " I had to learn it though I doubt kids do today (in my mind I hear it being chanted by a classroom of children.)--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Detroit_Photographic_Company_(0390).jpg: source link is dead, and how do we know this was published before 1923 when the date range goes to 1924? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped it for a user one. Thank you for the review.==Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• What's the latest scholarship on Margaret Gage spying on her husband? That's a pretty major claim and should be cited independently from any numismatics books.

The most recent major source a hasty search is Fischer's Paul Revere Ride (1995), which is cited in the Gage article. A book review I saw of it on JSTOR (2947060) mentioned that Mrs. Gage "may have been" an American spy. I've added it as a source. Seems to be no documentary evidence. His ANB article avoids the question entirely, I'm sure intentionally.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's supporting a pretty general statement, but why should the History Channel be considered highly RS?

I don't see why not. They're reputable enough, and it's just a general statement of events.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• When did Dawes and Revere arrive?

The events of Paul Revere's ride are a bit complex, and also I'm trying not to distract the reader with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotta agree with Vermeule, not a great design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I appreciate the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding one with a Milhist angle. (And thanks for all the other FAs as well, we sorely need them at TFA.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets all the FA criteria in my view. As usual in this series, the article is a model of its kind, and will, I have no doubt whatever, further enhance Wikipedia's status as a go-to source for numismatists. – Tim riley talk 14:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: with a few minor quibbles and observations:

Background

• "Gage secretly ordered..." I don't know, but surely such military orders would never be the subject of public announcement, so do we need "secretly"?

Legislation

• "Robert Luce, also of that state, introduced an identical copy" – "identical resolution" would be clearer.
• "were not jointly held" → "were not held jointly"?
• "A maximum of 300,000 coins were requested" – maximum is singular, ergo "were" → "was"
• "After the two congressmen appeared..." – I think they did more than just "appear"; maybe "testfied" or "had spoken"?
• Just a thought: the requested $10,000 seems to have become $15,000 without explanation.

Preparation

• "the committee from Lexington and the one from Concord each..." – a mite clumsy; why not "the committees from Lexington and Concord each..."
• the commission had just had its monthly meeting, but that a quorum could be assembled to approve the coin" – not altogether clear. I imagine it means that a special meeting could be held to approve the coin; perhaps tweak for clarity?
• ("Morgan had recently died..." - plus ça change...)

Design

• "It was sounded again at 5:30 am" – we could do with a date here, or earlier in the paragraph.

Production etc

• "An exceptional specimen sold at auction in 2014 for $11,880". What was its exceptional quality that priced it at more than ten times the higher end of the general price range?

The usual solid job. I echo Tim's views on this remarkable series, now more than 50 strong by my count. And the redlink informs me that we are by no means finished yet. Keep going. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2016 [16].

Peresvet-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three Russian Peresvet-class battleships were designed to support their armored cruisers in a commerce-raiding war if war broke out with the British in the late 19th century. They were optimized for high speed and endurance to this end rather than heavy armor and armament, but the situation was vastly different in the war that they actually fought against the Japanese in 1904–05. The two ships that reached the Far East before war began fought creditably in the two major fleet actions with the Imperial Japanese Navy and were ultimately sunk in harbor. The third ship was part of the Baltic Fleet that was destroyed at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 and was the first ship sunk during the battle. The other two ships were salvaged and placed into service by the Japanese after the war. One was sold back to the Russians in 1916 and sank after hitting mines in the Mediterranean while the other participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in 1914. She was probably scrapped around 1923. It just passed a MilHist A-class review which included an image review. As usual, I'd like reviewers to look for examples of unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning support. Very nice effort. The usual quibbles:

Design

• "gainfully employed" mildly dislike using "employed" in this context for non-people. Maybe "gainfully occupied" or just "busy"?

• Shorter is usually better.

• "To reduce biofouling, the hulls of the first two ships were sheathed with wood and copper, but this was eliminated in Pobeda to reduce weight. They had a partial double bottom and the hull was divided by 10 watertight transverse bulkheads" grammatically, "they" refers to "the hulls", ditto "their" in the following sentence. Suggest changing "They" to "the vessels".
• "Their crew" maybe "Each crew".

Protection

• 6 inches is never converted to Metric.

• See the 2nd para of the design section.

History

• "Peresvet, however, was scuttled in shallow water on that same day." I'm not seeing the however. Both ships went to the bottom. There's not much contrast there, especially since per your excellent Peresvet article, there is uncertainty as to the reason for the scuttling.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that you may be overthinking things as the Peresvet article makes it clear that she was not sunk by Japanese shells and I carried that over into this article. Look over them both again and see if this is still a problem and we can discuss it further if necessary.

Support. What you say is satisfactory. Sorry to be slow in getting back.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources appear of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited with the following exceptions:

• McLaughlin 2008. Should not the word "and" between the ship names be italicized? (if you agree, you might want to change it in the other articles in which it is used)--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not assure that I understand your comment. The entire article title is enclosed in quotation marks via the cite journal template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is since ship names are normally italicized, you recognize this in this italicized book title by not italicizing them. However, the word "and" that lies between the two ship names should be italicized as it is just a part of the book title and not part of a ship name.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I understand, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• The Naval Annual should be italicized
  • Good catch.
• File:Peresvet1901.jpg: when and where was this first published? Same with File:Suou1908Yokosuka.jpg
  • The former was discussed in the image review for Peresvet. I've fixed the license of the latter one as it was mostly likely taken by a sailor during the visit of the Great White Fleet to Japan in 1908.
• File:Oslybya23.jpg: when and where was this first published, and under which provision do we assert it is PD in Russia?
• File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg: when and where was this first published, and what steps have been taken to ensure that a) it is a EU work, and b) the author was never credited?
  • Both of the Oslyabya pics were discussed in the Oslyaba image review.
• File:Peresviet_Port_Arthur_LOC_3f06353u.jpg: why the Japan tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch, I think I've gotten a bit too used to automatically assigning a Japanese tag for ships that served in the IJN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

• Might be worthwhile to mention that Japan and Russia were allies in World War I in the lead - readers might be confused why former enemies were trading ships. I might say something like this: "Peresvet was sold back to the Russians during World War I, as the two countries were by now allies, and sank after hitting German mines in the Mediterranean in early 1917. Pobeda, renamed Suwo, instead remained in Japanese service and participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in late 1914."
• You might unpack the Russian decision to focus on a guerre de course strategy with Britain - I think readers might ask why after reading that line.
• There's a link for
  mild steel that might be useful - on a related note, is the chrome-nickel steel used on Pobeda Krupp armor? Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for these suggestions. I've done the first one already, but the other two are going to take some time to source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not as much as I thought.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, but I guess I wasn't clear enough on the chrome nickel steel - that's in the line talking about the deck armor. I'd assume it's Krupp armor, since there wasn't a competing alloy that I'm aware of, but the average reader won't know that. Parsecboy (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not Krupp armor, just a tougher alloy than mild steel, better suited to deflect glancing hits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2016 [17].

Norodom Ranariddh

Nominator(s): Mr Tan (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a