Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2018

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) 23:57, 30 June 2018 [1].

Isis

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isis is the ancient Egyptian deity with the greatest impact outside her home land. She lies near the center of many puzzling questions about Greek and Roman religion and still shows up in odd places in modern Western culture. This is the most thoroughly researched article I've written, so it should meet the criteria.

For source-checkers: I use academic sources in nearly every case, but when discussing Isis' impact in modern culture, that's not always possible. The source I'm least comfortable with is Forrest 2001, which is mostly a devotional book for modern worshippers of Isis. I used its least subjective chapter to support a couple of statements about Isis' modern followers that are pretty obvious but hard to find citations for elsewhere. Another difficulty is that the article cites sources in French and German, languages I do not speak. I copied fairly long passages from most of those sources and had them translated (special thanks to User:Iry-Hor and User:Nephiliskos). In Bricault 2001 the information is drawn from the maps, so I only needed enough French to read a map key. A. Parrot (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It must be Egyptian Women's Month, with Cleopatra below. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:David_Roberts_Temple_Island_Philae.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Pompeii_-_Temple_of_Isis_-_Io_and_Isis_-_MAN.jpg, File:Isiac_water_ceremony.jpg, File:Figure-6-Fresco-of-Isis-lactans-at-Karanis-fourth-century-CE-Karanis-Tran-Tam-Tinh.png

• File:ThebanTomb335.png: reproduction of a 2D artwork garners no copyright for the author under US law

• File:Temple_of_Isis,_Delos_02.jpg needs an explicit copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:Marble_statue_of_Isis,_the_goddess_holds_a_situla_and_sistrum,_ritual_implements_used_in_her_worship,_from_117_until_138_AD,_found_at_Hadrian's_Villa_(Pantanello),_Palazzo_Nuovo,_Capitoline_Museums_(12945630725).jpg

I have added US public-domain tags for all of the above, although I'm not completely sure I used the correct ones or, in the case of the statue and the temple, formatted them correctly in relation to the other license templates. A. Parrot (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Auguste_Puttemans_Isis_2.jpg: what is the copyright status of the sculpture? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it from this Commons page, the statue was "published" when it was first displayed in a venue where it was free to photograph. That would have been either 1922, when it was installed at the Thomas Welton Stanford Art Gallery, or, if the gallery didn't allow photographs, 1939, when it was moved to its current open-air site. I can find no copyright notices for the statue in the records for either 1922 or 1939. Should I use {{PD-US-no notice}}? A. Parrot (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there is no copyright notice on the statue itself, and you can add a ref for its display history to the image description, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any sign of a copyright notice on the statue. Done. A. Parrot (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

• I'll review soon, some initial points below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a good deal of duplinking, perhaps try this script:[2]

I've removed some, but the few that remain (Behbeit el-Hagar, veil of Isis, and Hermes Trismegistus) are terms that appear a long way apart in the article. I've always been skeptical of the hard link-only-once rule, believing that readers who want to click a link shouldn't have to scroll up through two thousand words of text to find the last place the linked term showed up. I can see removing the second occurrence of the veil link because it's also linked, though less transparently, in an adjacent image caption, but I think removing the other two would be, to be blunt, silly.

• What is the infobox image based on? A specific ancient depiction, or is it some original amalgam based on various sources? Either way, this should be stated in the Commons description, and perhaps even in the infobox caption.

tomb of Nefertari. In this case, everything except the ankh and papyrus staff corresponds very closely to a pair of images from that tomb (visible here

in the third and fourth clickable images). I've added something to that effect to the Commons description.

Done. A. Parrot (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Coptic form ⲎⲤⲈ (Ēse) and to her Greek name Ἰσις" No transliteration for the Greek?

Given that it's just "Isis", I wasn't sure whether to include it. Do you think it should be added?

The reader doesn't know, so probably good to include in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

• "The Egyptian term for a throne" Which is what?

Also st. I've added it to the text.

• Several writers are mentioned, but only a few are presented. I wonder if it might be good to present them all by occupation.

I'm never sure how to handle this problem, especially because the least wordy way to do it is to use the contentious false title. In a section like the first, where several scholars from the same discipline are named close together, it only seems necessary to use it for the first of them (where I've just added it). Because this article draws on multiple disciplines, it gets more complex in later sections. I'll mull how to handle them.

• "Isis took the active role in Horus's conception by stimulating her inert husband" What is meant by "stimulating" here?

I changed it to "sexually stimulating", as that's what's meant, but there might a better way to word it.

• "apotropaic power" Explain this uncommon term in parenthesis.

It felt awkward to do that, so I changed the wording to "protective magical power", with the link destination the same. A. Parrot (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll review the rest of the article once the structural issues discussed below are resolved, so I don't end up reading a soon outdated version of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Isis Pelagia developed an added significance" Shouldn't the name be in italics here too, like at the previous mention?

I've italicized the second mention too. A. Parrot (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "as priestesses in the many of the same" Seems "the" is not needed.

Yes. Just a typo, now fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nature is capitalised inconsistently.

I think I capitalized it when thinking of nature as a personification, but I didn't think too hard about it. I've made it consistently lowercase. A. Parrot (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nergaal

• Why isn't this article split into 1) Egypt and neighbors; 2) Greco-Roman world; 3) After/elsewhere?
  Nergaal (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nergaal, Squeamish Ossifrage

: The major reason I didn't use overarching sections on Egypt vs. the Greco-Roman world is that the current subsections would have to be dropped down to Level 4 (i.e., ====Mother goddess====). I don't think Wikipedia renders level 4 headings visually distinct enough from Level 3; I often don't recognize the difference between them when reading and lose track of the article structure. If it's necessary, though, it would be easy to add new top-level headings. If I do that, do you think the section on Christianity should be put into the larger Greco-Roman section (given that any possible influence was in ancient times) or kept separate?

I thought about including an Egyptian "relationships with other gods" section, but Isis's connections with other Egyptian deities are tied very tightly to her roles, so I considered it redundant. An Egyptian "adherents and priests" section wouldn't make sense because Isis was just a regular part of the religious landscape in Egypt. If there was anything distinctive about the people who worshipped her or who served as her priests, other than what's already mentioned in passing in the article, it hasn't been studied. In Greece and Rome, on the other hand, the demographics of her worship are easily studied (the evidence for individual religious behavior being much more abundant) and scholars have discussed fairly extensively who was attracted to this cult that started out on the religious fringe.

Well, I'm not wedded to Nergaal's proposal of Egyptian / Greco-Roman / Other as the organizational guideline. But I do think something needs to be done. You've got top-level sections that don't actually contain top-level content, and that's confusing for the reader, to say the least. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that a tighter look at structure might also help with the prose in general. There are some, well, clunky bits. On a cursory examination, I especially noticed that discussion of patients being identified symbolically with Horus in order to benefit from healing spells dedicated to Isis appears in §Roles in Egypt > Mother goddess ... but then appears again in very similar form in §Worship in Egypt and Nubia > Popular worship.

I'll work on this over the weekend.

• There's some leeway about whether chapter title and journal articles should be presented in Title Case or Sentence case (my preference being the latter, but you're welcome to ignore me); in any case (rimshot), there's some inconsistency in which is used here.

I've capitalized them all—except in a couple of quotations that are included in article titles, and in the case of French titles. I'm not sure how to handle these two cases, as French uses capitalization much less often. (In Brill's multilingual volumes, for instance, titles of studies in English are in title case and those in French are sentence case.) For that matter, I'm not even sure how to capitalize French book titles. Any advice would be appreciated!

• You are not consistent about how you cite edited works that include chapters with separate authorship. Compare the Bodel (2008) and Cruz-Uribe (2010) (and other) sources with any of the times you list the edited work in §Works cited, while referencing the specific chapter only in §Notes and citations > Citations.

I've never been sure how to handle studies within books. (Right now the books in which more than one study has been cited are listed as books, whereas single studies are listed by themselves. Arbitrary and finicky, I know.) If all the individual studies in this article were listed separately, as they are in at least some FAs, the works cited list, already very long, would be made much longer. Is it acceptable to just list the books in the works cited and relegate the listings of studies to the citations?

Personally, when I'm dealing with a book that contains a number of published studies (and/or just chapters with distinct authorship), I use {{cite book}} to just point at the material written by each author I reference, individually. If that means I've got two or three sources in the same book, well, so be it. That has the advantage of letting me point sfn tags at the actual author who I'm referencing, without a lot of extra clutter. Now, that said, Wikipedia is nothing if not permissive with referencing styles so long as there are consistent rules being applied. I'm ... not sure I've seen anyone else draw the line quite where you have here. It's not what I would do. But it is a consistent decision, so it's (probably) copacetic with regard to the FA criteria. On the other hand, don't ever worry about a Works cited / reference list being too long if that's what's needed to reference an article (you can probably kick that Works cited list to 30em columns for a little more compact presentation). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Journal references (such is Bianchi) should ideally include the page numbers of the article cited.

Done.

• Book-format sources that lack ISBNs (like Griffiths (1960) and several others) should ideally have an OCLC identifier.

Done.

• In §Further reading, I assume the Bergen source is in French?

The studies in the book are in different languages: French, English, German, and Italian. If there's an established way to reflect that in a citation template, I'd be happy to add it.

Cited individually, that's easy, of course. I'll need to give some thought to how you'd do that if you opt to retain your current practice. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though the volume by Berger et al. is in the further reading, not the works cited, so addressing studies individually wouldn't make a difference there. A. Parrot (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bricault is cited quite a bit in the article itself; what warrants giving him four entries worth of further reading also?

Many of the Bricault volumes, both in the works cited and the further reading, are edited by Bricault but largely written by others. The study of Isis in the Greco-Roman world is becoming almost its own sub-discipline, and Bricault is its hub. The article text has only three citations to works actually written by Bricault, because, not speaking French, I wasn't able to use his work very extensively. Regarding the two books in the further reading that are fully his: Bricault 2005 is the definitive collection of epigraphic references to Isis's cult, and Bricault 2013 is a much longer and (one hopes) thoughtful and thorough overview of the subject than the two rather superficial English-language overviews (Witt 1997 and Donalson 2003) that I was able to cite. A. Parrot (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know how it goes when you need to rely heavily on the major experts in a narrow field. That said, even if he's central to current scholarship on the topic, you might opt to pare down the Further reading to the essentials (perhaps those 2005 and 2013 works?). That does raise an interesting question though – whether you should redlink him and/or kick out a stub for him, if his scholarly contributions are significant enough to garner him notability in the project's sense. He does have articles at the French and German Wikipedias, although neither are really the sort of quality to get excited about. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to return for a more diligent pass later in the process, although the structural issues are a significant barrier to support at the moment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage: I've created overarching sections for Egypt and G-R, and it works better than I thought it would. I hope it helps with the problems you raise. I cut the one passage you pointed out as a problem and tried to look for other redundancies or passages that might better be placed differently, but I didn't see many. I've been steeped in this article for so long that it's hard for me to see whatever flaws there may be. A. Parrot (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Apologies for the slow response time here. Travel and Wikipedia rarely combine well. I think the new structure is a substantial improvement, although, perhaps pedantically, I would move §Adherents and priests under §Worship. Others may (and do) have a different opinion there. I also still think you're better served citing works with individual authorship separately, even if there is more than one such work cited from a single edited compilation; the established rule (that multiple such citations warrant a reference to the larger work, with the individual authorship defined in the note) strikes me as somewhat challenging from a maintenance perspective. But, again, I do think that your standard is probably FACR-compliant, and the FAC process isn't about making me happy! Regardless of whether or not you fiddle around with either of those considerations, I don't see any reason why this wouldn't satisfy the criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage: I think I will separate out the works cited entries sometime in the next few days. Thank you very much for your critiques and your support. A. Parrot (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by PericlesofAthens

@A. Parrot: I am quite happy to support this article for Featured status. It is obviously well researched and utilizes a wide variety of reliable scholarly sources, with a seemingly large representative sample of academic material on the subject. It is well written and relatively easy to digest despite covering a large amount of topics. I disagree with reviewers above about structural issues; I think the article is reasonably formatted and organized in a logical manner. The images are well sourced and as of now they don't seem to violate any licensing rules. If this is not an example of quality FA material on Wikipedia, then what is? Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

Fascinating topic, happy to see it here (I used the opportunity to improve on my poor knowledge on the topic by reading related FA and GA articles as well). The article is high quality overall, and I found it difficult to pinpoint any concrete issues. I however agree with the above reviewers that the structure could be improved on. I tried to provide suggestions below, but I'm not sure at all if this would be feasible, and I certainly see the logic of your current structure.

• I can imagine there might be very good reasons against it, but I still wonder why not dissolve the headings "In Egypt and Nubia" and "In the Greco-Roman world" completely. I feel that you cannot strictly separate these two categories anyways, also because Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt can be argued to belong to both categories. If topics like "Iconography" and "Roles" would be discussed for both categories together, it would be easier for the reader to follow, and to understand the long-term evolution of the cults. This would result in a completely different structure, as, e.g., 1) "Names and Origins", 2) "Mythology", 3) "Spread", 4) "Iconography", 5) "Roles", 6) "Worship", 7) "Possible influence on Christianity", 8) "Influence in later cultures".

Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt are a sticking point because they're both Egyptian and Greco-Roman, but the Greco-Roman cult was too radical a transformation to be lumped in with the original form in Egypt. As the "spread" section of the article states, the cross-cultural worship of a deity by a small but personally devoted minority of the population was not only a dramatic departure from the customs in Egypt; it was an entirely new phenomenon in world history at the time. Combining these sections would obscure that distinction. That aside, the sections on worship really can't be combined with each other. With the exception of daily temple rites, Isis's worship was dramatically different in the two cultures. A. Parrot (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I had the impression that the "In Egypt and Nubia" is pretty much centralized around the separate roles of the deity. Other important aspects, most importantly the mythology, is treated within the sub-sections of the separate roles as a mere side note. Also, a lot of information given in the "roles" section is not strictly about the roles. I understand that these roles are extremely important; still I was surprised to find it organized in this way, as I would have expected a stronger focus on the sources and the mythology before discussing the roles. Also, isn't the mythology (at least the Osiris myth) also of relevance for the "In the Greco-Roman world" section? What speaks against having a section on the mythology, which, e.g., focuses on Isis's role in the Osiris myth, and also discusses different variants of the myths, before the section "Roles"?

For one thing, every book that has separate entries on Egyptian deities integrates deities' actions in myth with their roles, rather than covering the two separately. (The larger entries in Wilkinson 2003 have sections titled "Mythology", but they're really about roles. Most deities didn't have any myths about them.) Greek myths are elaborate stories that often don't have much of a religious meaning, so it makes sense to have mythology sections in articles on Greek gods. Egyptian myths are rarely narrated as continuous stories, and nearly everything about them has a religious meaning. Egyptian gods are what they do: their mythical behavior is the prototype for their interactions with humans. Isis's roles truly are outgrowths of her actions in the Osiris myth, which is why the article covers the relevant parts of the myth in the related subsections of "Roles".

Moreover, Isis doesn't play a significant part in the two or three other major groups of Egyptian myth, so a separate section on her mythology would be a not-quite-complete retread of the Osiris myth article. Perhaps the link to the Osiris myth article in the body should be replaced by a Template:Further at the beginning of the "Roles" section, to make it more prominent? A. Parrot (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I have two more minor notes:

• I miss something about the Iconography in the lead.

I've added it. A. Parrot (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The image caption "Isis and Nephthys standing over the deceased during embalming, 13th century BCE. A winged Isis appears at top" did not specify which is Isis and which is Nephthys, that would be helpful to know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A. Parrot (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the convincing answers. There is no more to add for me – great work. Supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Johnbod

• A fine piece of work. Structure now seems fine and natural.
• I was rather surprized by "In Roman times, temples to Isis in Egypt could be built either in Egyptian style, in which the cult image and the daily offering rites were out of public view, and in a Greco-Roman style in which the cult image was freely visible to the public.[99] Yet Greek and Egyptian culture were highly intermingled by this time, and there may have been no ethnic separation between Isis's worshippers.[100] The same people may have prayed to Isis outside Egyptian-style temples and in front of her statue inside Greek-style temples.[99]" - which I think overstates the difference between the two styles of worship, making the Greek & Romans sound like Catholics of recent centuries, which they were not. Most Roman worshippers also stayed outside the temple, and sacrificed at altars in the precinct, rather than praying to statues. Some cult images were tourist attractions in the modern style, but it is often unclear who could access others, and when. But I'd need to research that a bit more.

I see the problem, but I'm not sure what to do about it. Dunand is vague about who might have been allowed into these temples. Aside from Naerebout, who doesn't discuss the accessibility issue, she's the only one who really deals with the ethnic/cultural implications of this type of temple in Egypt. A. Parrot (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has several useful pages on access in the Greek world, evidently very varied, and generally fairly poorly evidenced, it seems. I think it might be enough to tone down the language here though. Or there's this which other books refer to, & I don't think I can access. Mind you this pp. 212-220 supports fairly general access & praying before statues. Maybe our

Greek temple needs rewriting somewhat. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The first link you provided isn't accessible to me, but I looked at the entry for Greece in the "Sacred Times and Spaces" section in Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Page 269 says: "Ordinarily, the cella was open for worshipers who wished to pray to or touch the image; some images that were too precious for this (such as the gold and ivory Zeus in Olympia) or attracted the fervor of too many worshipers (such as the images of the healer Asclepius) were protected by a low balustrade. Other activities were strictly forbidden; a sacred law from the Athenian Acropolis explicitly bans cooking meat from the interior the temple—sacrificers were supposed to prepare the meat outside." It also mentions that the adyton was restricted to priests or other specific classes of people, but the adyton wasn't where the cult image was and not every temple even had one. The corresponding section for Rome doesn't specify who was allowed in temples, but it says: "In principle, one only entered the cella only in connection with worship, public or private." That seems to imply that people were at least sometimes allowed to worship in the cella for personal reasons. If really perplexed, we benighted non-classicists can ask Haploidavey.

In any case, I've toned down the language of this passage a bit in case the cult statue wasn't free for just anybody to see. A. Parrot (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Both the iconography sections could do with a mini-gallery of 1-2 rows showing iconographies mentioned and not illustrated otherwise. The article seems generally under-illustrated (though the images are nicely chosen), with very long gaps at the insanely small default px size. We have a plethora of good images on Commons.

A fair point (and I agree about the default size!). I'll look for some examples of the iconographies mentioned in the text, although my initial poking around suggests many of them will be inconvenient to find. I definitely want this for the gallery, as the winged Isis image needs more prominence in the article and I've wanted a good photo of that end of the sarcophagus for years. A. Parrot (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• the current images 2&3 look off the page.

If you don't mind, I'd prefer not to move them. Left-aligned images can look kind of awkward with section headings below second level, as they often separate the headings from the text that follows and there's no horizontal line to extend the heading across the page. I think the MoS discouraged the combination back when I was learning how to handle image layouts, but that's changed now. A. Parrot (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Before that time, cults tied to a particular city or nation had been the norm across the ancient world" - a big hmmm there. While cults were certainly localized, the Greek Twelve Olympians, and then Dionysus in particular had broken those bounds before Alexander, surely?

True, and Woolf does mention a fair amount of trans-Mediterranean religious contact in classical Greek times. I'll have to come up with a more nuanced way of conveying what he says. His article is crucial—its subject may be the most important one touched upon in this entire article—but it's hard to boil down into a few sentences. A. Parrot (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Many Roman temples instead used a jar of water, a hydreios, that was worshipped as a cult image or manifestation of Osiris.[222]" - is this different from the situla Isis carries in G/R images, which was supposed to contain Nile water?

It is, but upon reexamining Wild 1981 I realized a problem. For the record, this is a statue of Osiris Hydreios (that is, Osiris in the form of a water jar), and the thing in this priestess's left hand is a situla. However, the pitcher in the hand of the Capitoline Isis statue probably shouldn't be labeled a situla, even though Tiradritti calls it that. According to Tiradritti, the pitcher was added in a 17th-century restoration based closely on a vessel described in The Golden Ass XI:11. But Wild, when discussing that passage of the novel, never calls this type of vessel a situla. He says instead that it was the cultic water pitcher that took the place of the fixed cisterns. The Osiris Hydreios statues are statues of this pitcher with the head of Osiris set atop them to indicate that Osiris is present in the jar. What a mess. I meant to write an article on the hydreios, but now I'll have to examine Wild's terminology very carefully to figure out what to call that article. For now, I think I'll just use "pitcher" in the caption for the image of the Capitoline Isis and in the paragraph on veneration of water. Situlae seem to be more bucket-like than pitcher-like. A. Parrot (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Images of Isis with Horus in her lap are often suggested as the basis for the iconography of Mary" - I don't know what the sources say, but there is actually rather a long gap between the end of the cult of Isis and the appearance of the classic
  Virgo Lactans, apart from one early Egyptian papyrus
  , only really gets going after 1000.

Well, it is often suggested, regardless of whether it's true, albeit more often in anti-Catholic and anti-Christian polemics than in academia. That one papyrus apparently isn't the only example, though. According to Higgins 2012, Tran Tam Tinh's extensive 1973 study didn't find any images of Maria lactans from Egypt before the seventh century, whereas the latest of Isis lactans date to the fourth. Although (says Higgins) a few more early Maria lactans images have been discovered since then, the chronological range hasn't been extended any further back. However, Tran Tam Tinh still apparently acknowledged a limited amount of influence from Isis lactans. I don't know his exact reasoning, but images of Isis may still have been extant in some places at the time the first images of Mary nursing were created. Mathews and Muller make a much more ambitious argument, claiming stylistic similarities between the third- and fourth-century frescoes and panel paintings of Isis and several non-lactans images of Mary, including the sixth-century enthroned Mary of Sinai. Their argument is complicated to explain, so I haven't done it in the article, but as it's one of the more recent opinions on the subject and they apparently reiterate it in a recent book that I don't have, I thought it worth mentioning. A. Parrot (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinai icon, usually taken as pretty much the start of the surviving V&C depiction, is usually dated around 600 - "sixth or early seventh century", so that's still a fair gap. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article should mention the gap. I'll figure out an adjusted wording for the section tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Johnbod (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Switched to support; all comments sufficiently addressed. A very fine piece. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

In general the sources seem to be presented in exemplary fashion. I have not spot-checked (there's very little online that I can reach) but the range of the sources used certainly suggests comprehensive coverage. I have a few nitpicks:

• Multiple citations should be in ascending order: see Note 1

Fixed. I looked for other examples of this problem but didn't find any.

• There are several instances where "p." should b "pp." See 23, 51, 113 and check for others
• Likewise, a few "pp." should br "p.": 269, 290

I've fixed these, looked over the other refs, and found and fixed a couple more examples. I don't see any more.

• Ref. 78 returns a harv error

This is odd. My citation-checking script doesn't show any errors, and when I look at ref 78 I can follow the links through to the citation and the cited source.

• Wendrich source: ref 13 provides a link to the cited article. Refs 69 and 111 give page refs, but on examining the source it appears to have about 10 subsections, so it's not clear to me where the cited page numbers are to be found. Can you clarify?

I apologize; I thought I linked each of those articles. Links have now been added for the other two. In each case, the page numbers apply to the individual articles.

Otherwise, sources appear to be consistently formatted and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Brian. A. Parrot (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Katolophyromai

This is an excellent article; it is well-written, meticulously cited to

Excellent job; long overdue. Interesting, informative and an important Featured Article addition...Modernist (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment. Nikkimaria, Brianboulton: In response to Johnbod's suggestion of a gallery, I've added a few images to the article and rearranged some references in the iconography section. The new images are [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7], and as far as I can tell they are all appropriately licensed. The reshuffled text includes what used to be ref 78, on which Brian saw a harv error but my citation-checking script didn't; the ref is now 77, and I still don't see an error in it or in any of the other references in the article. I thought it best to notify you of these changes so you have a chance to check them. Many thanks to everyone who has reviewed this FAC. A. Parrot (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The harv error seems to have gone away – maybe it was a glitch in my checking routine. All well now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Cas Liber

Well done - nothing strikes me as desperately needing improvement Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: Ian Rose, is there anything else that needs to be done here? A. Parrot (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for the ping, I think we're good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2018 (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) 23:57, 30 June 2018 (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) 14:45, 30 June 2018 [8].

Catopsbaatar

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article about a

Very comprehensive, just a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The most completely preserved skeleton (specimen PM120/107) shown from above as preserved (left), with diagram showing individual bones—first "preserved" is redundant

Ah, yes, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The external appearance of their heads may have been similar to that of rodents. —their… those or its… that

Took "those". FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• which are thought to be the same geologic age. —no harm giving the age here too

Added, though I wonder if it will be seen as redundant since it is also stated in the first sentence of the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Djadochtatherium D. catopsaloides, with specimen ZPAL MgM – I/78—I'd prefer Djadochtatherium as D. catopsaloides,

Added comma and "as". I think it was like that before copy edit also. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Kielan-Jaworowska also assigned a damaged skull missing lower jaws (ZPAL MgM – I/79, an adult), a skull with partial lower jaws (ZPAL MgM – I/80), and a molar with a fragment of jaw (ZPAL MgM – I/159 from the Barun Goyot Formation of Khulsan, the only specimen not from Hermiin Tsav) to the species—it's a long way from Kielan-Jaworowska to …species, perhaps rejig

I tried with "Kielan-Jaworowska also assigned other specimens to the species;" which is followed by the list of specimens, still a long sentence, but at least "to the species" is moved back, and the meaning of the following is clear when the reader starts reading. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ulaanbaatar—link

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Catopsbaatar's lower pair of incisors was very strong and compressed sideways. —I'm not sure what pair of incisors… compressed sideways means. The diagram shows them leaning in to each other, is that what it's saying?

What is meant is that the entire pair (as a unit) was flattened, the source only says "The single pair of the lower incisors, characteristic of all Multituberculata, is very strong and compressed laterally in Catopsbaatar." I reworded to "Catopsbaatar had a very strong lower pair of incisors, which was compressed sideways", is it any clearer? Though the meaning is exactly the same, it may be easier to read this way... FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mammal jaws have been found in the abdomen of a specimen of the small theropod Sinosauropteryx, belonging to Zhangheotherium, which had spurs, —I first read this as saying that Sinosauropteryx belonged to Zhangheotherium perhaps rejig to avoid ambiguity?

Added "; the jaws belonged to". FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replies, all looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the review! FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Generally suggest scaling up images that include diagrams. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scaled up some of the diagrams that weren't just line drawings of the photos shown in the same images. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Jens Lallensack

Reviewing now, more to follow the next days.

Thanks, I've answered a few things below, will fix stuff later. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Late Campanian – substages are informal, and therefore are not capitalized per convention. It has to be "late Campanian".

Fixed, was also inconsistent in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It had very robust incisors, and cheek teeth with multiple cusps (for which multituberculates are named). – Multiple cusps are a typical for most mammals, including humans. I think the point is that Multis had a lot of them, which were very characteristically arranged in rows.

What distinguishes multituberculates from other mammals is mentioned under evolution, but the name itself only specially refers to the multiple cusps, not really to any other feature. Kielan-Jaworowska 2004 only says "Lat. multum—much, multus—numerous, tuberculum—tubercle, in reference to the multicusped molar teeth". FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, forgot that this is only referring to the name. Though it might be an idea to replace "multiple" with "numerous", which is the translation you cited? That would make clear that there are more than the usual handful of cusps.

Changed to "numerous". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Catopsbaatar is known from the Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav and the Barun Goyot Formation – correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Hermiin Tsav just a locality within the Barun Goyot Formation?

Hermiin Tsav is a locality, but the

Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav is a formation, as far as I can see. See for example the table of formations on page two in this paper:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok I see, though it seems that only Jaworowska is treating the unit as a separate formation, with most dinosaur people only using the locality names, listing them under "Barun Goyot Formation".

It seems the two have increasingly been considered identical, but it seems some writers still retain use of both... FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• and the name refers to its similarity to the genus Catopsalis – that was already mentioned with very similar wording in the preceding paragraph.

The first instance refers to the specific name, the second to the generic name (both refer to Catopsalis), but do you think the wording should be more different anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. What you could do is adding "as is the case for the specific name" for extra clarity, but I'm not so sure if this would really be an improvement.

Added just for good measure. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it possible to name some nodes in the cladogram?

The original it is based on only lists characters for each node (page 232 here[10]), so I wonder if it would be original synthesis to add clade names, if that's what you're asking. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I would say, the text unambiguously links the node numbers with names. According to p. 228, node 18 is Djadochtatheriidae, and node 9 is Djadochtatheria.

I'll have to ping IJReid for that then, I am pretty much analphabetic when it comes to making cladograms. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if the cladogram from 1997 is a bit aged? That is already 21 years ago.

I couldn't find any newer ones... Maybe Catopsbaatar is included in cladograms published in more recent descriptions of other genera, I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even the 2001 phylogeny paper only lists families in the cladogram, no genera, so can't really be used either. At a loss here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right and it is even better to keep the original one here, until a revision dealing specifically with this group has been published.

• because the nuchal crest at the back of the head curved inwards at the middle – I'm not sure if all readers will understand, maybe add "creating an indention at the hind margin of the skull when viewed from above" or something.

Not stated specifically in the source, but I remember we discussed this very issue some time ago, so it is probably no problem to make this extra clear. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The zygomatic arches were strongly expanded to the sides, with the skull width (across the arches) about 85 percent of the skull length – confusing, because you previously indicated that the skull is wider than long due to the nuchal crest.

The most complete, adult specimen has a skull that is longer than it is wide, are you referring to these measurements? "the skull of the juvenile holotype (ZPAL MgM−I/78) is about 53 mm (2.1 inches) long and 56 mm (2.2 inches) wide". The holotype is juvenile and incomplete, which probably explains the discrepancy, which isn't clearly stated in the source, but I think the reader would by then know that the adult, more complete specimen listed firts has the most representative measurement due to those factors (age, completeness). FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, my mistake.

Not necessarily, seems it's the source that's inconsistent, if what we concluded is correct, and that it also says that the skull is wider than long if it is measured along the midline only... FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• djadochtatheriids had a premaxillary ridge on the boundary between the two. – maybe add that this is visible in ventral aspect, otherwise a bit hard to follow.

Added something to that effect. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• With four sentences, the bits on the premaxilla seem a bit over-represented and overly detailed compared to other bones.

Removed one sentence which was probably not as necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The suture between its nasal and frontal – not immediately clear where the "its" is referring to, maybe just replace with "the".

Said "the". FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The infraorbital foramen (an opening at the lower front of the maxilla) was slit-like in some specimens and rounded in others, and varied in number from one to three – Not sure, but would "infraorbital foramen" need to be plural here?

Since the sentence also says "lower front of the maxilla" in singular, it wouldn't make sense to have foramen as plural, but I might be inconsistent with plural and singular, but I think many journal descriptions are too. But I mainly refer to paired bones as singular here, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you say that there can be one to three of these foramina per side? Can you really say "The foramen varied in number" instead of "The foramina varied in number"?

Ah, yes, I guess I got confused because the most complete specimen (which is the main focus of the cited source) only has one. Changed to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• dochtatherioids – is this a typo? Otherwise please link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the first "dja" (not sure how that happened), now added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, the I1 (first incisor) is missing? Perhaps worth mentioning just to avoid confusion?

I've added a mention of this, it seems to be a common feature of cimolodonts, and therefore not mentioned in the main source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Characteristic of multituberculates, Catopsbaatar had a very strong lower pair of incisors, which was compressed sideways. – But the source puts it slightly differently if I interpret correctly: The single pair of incisors was characteristic for the group, but their strongness and lateral compression are specific for the genus.

All I see is this: "The single pair of the lower incisors, characteristic of all Multituberculata, is very strong and compressed laterally in Catopsbaatar." How I read it is that what follows "characteristic of all Multituberculata," is what's characteristic. But I could of course be wrong, so I made the order closer to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• and the front end of the ischium was a rugose suture – I think it has to be "rugose sutural surface".

Said "formed" instead, since the source says "and the anterior end of the ischium forms a rugose suture". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• os calcaris bone – as os already means "bone", this reads somewhat repetitive.

Hmmm, but since most readers hardly know that, I thought this is more simple than saying "had a bone called os calcaris", or "had an os calcaris, a bone on the ankle" or variations of that? FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• extratarsal – any change to explain, link, or replace this technical term?

Said "on the outer side of the tarsus (cluster of foot bones)", it that is any clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• not ossified (consisting only of keratin) – this is misleading, as I don't think you can turn keratin into bone, and this is what this seems to imply. You can do that only with cartilage. Maybe simply write that it consists only of keratin, without mentioning ossification?

The source says this: "The extant monotremes do not have the ossified cornu calcaris but retain the os calcaris and the hollow, keratinous cornu calcaris". Anyhow, I changed the text to: "The cornu calcaris of the platypus consists only of keratin, and is hollow". FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rest looks very good and solid, happy to support once the above nitpicks have been addressed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should have addressed the rest above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes, supporting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Usernameunique

Lead

• "specific name" — anything that can be linked?

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "its similarity" — "its" technically refers to the specific name

Said "the animal's" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed in the following section, but not in the lead.

Ah, changed there too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Catopsbaatar, "visible hero"" — suggest "Catopsbaatar, [language] for "visible hero""

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "with a skull" — is the fact that the skeleton has a skull not implied?

"Skeleton" could also imply a complete skeleton without a skull.

• "It was a member" — what’s the it?

Added genus name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "those of rodents" — could be wrong, but should this not be "that of rodents"?

That's what I wrote first, but it was requested that I change it to the current form. I guess because "heads" is plural. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "its relatives" — its seems to refer to the skull referenced in the last sentence

Added name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "It had two" — the snout, or the genus?

Added genus name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "mandible" — link to mandible?

Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "warmblooded" — why the quotation marks?

Because that is kind of an outdated way to refer to it (scientists wouldn't use it now), though it is also what most readers would be familiar with. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "would have been" — is this debated, or would "were" work?

The keratin is not preserved, so it is only a very likely inference, so I felt it is better to be vague since the source is also, it just says "All Mesozoic mammals most probably possessed keratinous spurs covering the ossified cornu calcaris." FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Catopsbaatar is known from the Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav and the Barun Goyot Formation" — maybe belongs after the info about specimens; might be worth saying that these are in Mongolia, although it’s implied

Added "in Mongolia", but I kept the placement because I felt it mirrors the structure of the article better, where palaeoecology is last. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

• "species;" — should be a colon

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "creating the" — suggest "and created"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "its similarity" — "its" refers to the name

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "they may belong" — suggest "they may instead belong"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "consists of a complete skull" — suggest "consists of the complete skull"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "rather complete" — mostly complete?

The source says "rather", which is kind of vague, so I feel I can't make it more specific than that without interpreting... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Its pelvic ilia were stolen and destroyed" — any more details?

Added "on tour" back, which was removed during copy edit. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• [9][11][3] — same journal, so why do the first and third have linked titles, but the second a doi?

Their articles were only published with dois after a certain date, but all their articles are freely available online. So in the case of the older articles, a direct link is included to the online version, but in the newer article, the doi serves as a link to the free article, and a separate link would therefore be redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

• "their premolars" — what does "their" refer to?

Changed to "multituberculates", if that is better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could just say "Multituberculates are characterized by their premolars"

Changed to "having" instead of "their", to make it clear. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "from the Mesozoic Era (when the dinosaurs dominanted)" — suggest "from the Mesozoic Era, when the dinosaurs dominated". Also, typo (dominanted)

Fixed, typo was a leftover from when it said "were dominant"... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skull

• "41-millimetre-long" — "44-mm-long" for consistency?
• "35-millimetre-long" — same

Fixed both above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "those of rodents" — "that of rodents"?

As above, I guess it should be plural because "heads" is. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "middle than those" — suggest "middle than were those"

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "was slit-like in some specimens and rounded in others, and varied in number from one to three. One of the most characteristic features of the face" — perhaps present tense is warranted here, since you’re talking about the specimens as they are today?

Well, since the features were like that in the live animals as well, I think it is ok, but mainly for consistency... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "prominent than that" — suggest "prominent than was that"

Added, though I think it reads a bit weirdly? FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries if you want to revert to the original way.

I'll let it be unless someone else objects. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "similar to Kryptobaatar" — should probably be something like "similar to with Kryptobaatar" or "similar to Kryptobaatar's suture"

I said "similar to the condition in Kryptobaatar" if that is better. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "differed little" — you want an adverb, not an adjective (little)

Said "did not differ much" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dentition

• "By comparison, the dental formula of humans is" — what’s the fifth number, given that Catopsbaatar only has four?

I'm pretty sure this refers to the wisdom teeth, which vary in number in humans. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that confused me was the "2-3", which per your explanation below (variation) now makes sense. If you can find an appropriate source, maybe it would be worth adding a parenthetical explanation, e.g., "(two incisors, one canine, two premolars and two or three molars)"

Can't find a source that states it specifically, probably because the writers assumed the readers would figure this out anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "its I3 incisor" — "its" refers to the I3 incisor (the I3 incisor's I3 incisor, technically). "Its alveolus (tooth socket) was formed" would fix this.

Here "its" also refers to the genus, so I added the name. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "unlike Tombaatar" — should probably be "unlike Tombaatar"

Not sure what the difference is, but I added "in". FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that’s what I meant though.

• "( with their alveoli)" — extra space

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "in shape (unlike" — again, probably "in shape (unlike with"

Said "in". FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "smaller and lacking ridges" — suggest the Oxford comma, since you just used one

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The lower p3 premolar" — "lower" is redundant given the above explanation re: capitalization

Alright, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The m2 had a cusp formula of 2−3:2, with most specimens 2:2." — I don’t get this (but granted most of this section has been flying way over my head). The formula was X, but the formula for most examples was Y?

The dash refers to variation. Two to three. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Postcranial skeleton

• "was stout in side view ... was relatively wide in side view" — maybe another place for present tense

I see what you mean, and considered it myself, but I feel it might seem to inconsistent... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "and was about 40 mm" — you don’t need the "was"

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "the meaning of this discrepancy is unknown" — any theories?

That is discussed under palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "deep excavation" — depression?

The source says excavation, added "cavity" in parenthesis, which may be an acceptable translation. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "os calcaris" — anything that can be linked?

Not as far as I can see, it is not really a widespread feature. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unlike other Mesosoic mammals" — perhaps "Unlike with other Mesosoic mammals"

Added, and corrected to "Mesozoic"... FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "As the spur may have been moved from its original position" — suggest relating this to the specimen, e.g., "As PM120/107's spur may..."

Added specimen number. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "like the platypus" & "Unlike the platypus" — suggest "(un)like with the platypus" or similar

Said "in", which I think might be a bit more accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeobiology

• "
  basal
  (primitive)"?

Like "warmblooded", "primitive" isn't used by modern scientists in this context and its use is discouraged, but is still the term most layreaders would know. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "might enable" — should probably be "might have enabled" for consistency of tense

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unlike other mammals, the pelvis of multituberculates" — should probably be "Unlike with other...", and should pelvis not be plural?

Added "with", but I think it is ok to write pelvis singular here, would maybe not seem as weird if it was "skull" or similar, but I'm not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "and the newborns" — perhaps "and that the newborns"

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "fossil mammals" — is "fossil" the correct term (both as opposed to the adjective fossilized, and as opposed to another word such as "extinct" or "ancient")?

Yeah, it is commonly used. To take one random example:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding and diet

• "feeding on plants and animals" — suggest "feeding on both plants and animals"

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unique among mammals" — should be "Uniquely"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "molars began" — suggest "molars would begin"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Similar to rodents" — should be "As with rodents" or the like

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Posture and locomotion

• "supported the latter" — suggest "supported the latter theory"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "bottom (suggesting a sprawling stance)," — suggest "bottom suggesting a sprawling stance,"

Removed parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "running fast" — should be "running quickly"

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2008, they suggested" — new paragraph, so you should be clear about who "they" is

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "had the ability to jump (were saltorial)" — convention in rest of article seems to be 'technical term (lay explanation)', so suggest "were saltorial (had the ability to jump)"

Switched. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "some were fossorial" — perhaps "some others were fossorial"

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeoecology

• "considered the result" — suggest "considered to be the result"

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Might be cool to include a photo of fossils from one of the other species found in the
  Red Beds of Hermiin Tsav
  , but your call

Since there are so many free images available of this animal, I'd rather devote space to those, but I don't think the article can carry more images as is anywya... But yeah, could have been added if there was a shortage of images of the subject. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk, this looks great. Comments, almost invariably minor, are above. —Usernameunique (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, starting to fix things now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed it all now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FunkMonk. Added about five responses above; you’ll have my support after addressing the first one. —Usernameunique (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answered and fixed some of the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

The only issue I can find is with the authorship of Ref 21, where the joint authors appear to be Ryszard Gradzienski and Tomas Jerzykiewicz, not as stated. Otherwise, sources look to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure what happened there, fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2018 (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) 14:45, 30 June 2018 (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) 12:54, 30 June 2018 [12].

Lady Blue (TV series)

Nominator(s):

Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am the worst at writing and revising leads, so I appreciate the link to the policy about it. I have edited it down to two paragraphs by removing some non-essential information.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• To the best of my knowledge, all three images already have ALT text.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Chetsford (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Looks good! (Sorry I missed the ALT tags.) Chetsford (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries; I greatly appreciate your comments and support.
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Why is "kingpin" linked to Kingpin (character)?

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Unfortunately, she did not provide any concrete examples.
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This quote and source was added by a separate user (though I did correct the citation format to match the rest of the article). Unfortunately, I do not have access to the actual source. I see the book on Amazon and eBay, but I cannot find a way to access online.
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Happy to support this now. :)
  talk) 11:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you!
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See the above commentary by another reviewer (Per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article of this length should have a lead of one or two paragraphs and this has a lead of three paragraphs.).
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I believe that the writer/author should be cited to emphasize that these are opinions and commentary from them and not from the publication as a whole.
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Reading through. VedantTalk 08:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

• "Rose described McNichols as similar to a character in the crime drama The Sopranos." - this would be better after the "McNichols is portrayed as fond of chili dogs and appreciative of Mahoney's more unorthodox methods of handling criminals, although he still criticizes her reliance on violence." but as the their sentence follows the first more naturally.

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• According to the source, "the people who lived there started getting restless and tired of us". I would imagine that people living in
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised. It was a television series so that was my mistake.
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The rest looks neat. VedantTalk 18:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the update. I believe that I have addressed everything.
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I can support this for promotion. Your work on short-lived niche TV shows is inspiring Aoba47! VedantTalk 17:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support and kind words!
  Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Good point! I have added it to the lead.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I replaced it with television studies, as O'Dell seems to primarily wrote about television.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I just replaced it with "Eastwood" to avoid any ambiguity.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• It is a good point; from the newspaper article, it reads like she went independently so I have revised the parts to hopefully read more clearly.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• O'Conor is a writer from The New York Times, and he is introduced in the "Premise and characters" section.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That is a good point, but I am not sure how to avoid the ambiguity. I do not have access to the episode itself, and there are multiple male guest stars so I unfortunately cannot reference the character by name.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Unfortunately, I could not find an exact date for this episode other than a generic "1986".
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised.
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is a very well put-together article. I can't imagine that writing about relatively minor shows from the '80s is easy! Josh Milburn (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Are you sure the episode is called "Beats of Prey"? Googling is throwing up the title "Beasts of Prey", but not from the best sources! (That's apparently the one Depp was in.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That was a typo on my part so I have corrected it. Thank you for bringing it up as I have kept reading over it lol.
  Aoba47 (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just so I'm clear: Have you taken a look through any newspaper archives (Nexis is the one I use, but there are others)? I don't know if there will be anything there, but I just want to make sure nothing crucial has been missed. I'm happy to help out if you don't have access to anything like that. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I unfortunately do not have access to any newspaper archives to the best of my knowledge (I no longer have access through my undergraduate or graduate universities, and I am too cheap/poor to pay for access to them myself). I do not believe there is anything else that could really be added though. Thank you for the comment though as I had not considered it.
  Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I certainly wouldn't expect you to pay for your own access. I'm getting a manageable number of hits on Nexis. I'll post to the talk page of this FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for all of the information. I greatly appreciate it! I will start reading through everything and integrating it into the article today and tomorrow. I apologize for the delay; I have been having some computer issues over the past week ><
  Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I believe that I have incorporated all of the relevant information into the article. Thank you again!
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Leaning support. I think the Aoba has done a really good job of putting this article together. While it's on the shorter side, that is to be expected given the topic. All key questions are answering. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you!
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The lead was originally three paragraphs during its GAN, but I was informed by a reviewer for this FAC that it needs to be two paragraphs according to Wikipedia's policy on the lead length in proportion to the size of the article as a while. If you feel that any information should be removed, then please let me know.
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I feel that I have used quotes where it is necessary and in instances in which the critic's own words would be better than my own, but if you feel there are certain parts (i.e. sections and/or paragraphs) that are too bogged down with quotes, please let me know.
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Also the use of "()" is not often recommended.Tintor2 (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The "()" construction was introduced during the copy-edit that I requested from WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I believe that it was added to make the sentences flow a more clearly. I have not personally heard or seen advice against the use of parenthesis before though. However, if you believe it is absolutely necessary, then I can go back in and revise and reorganize things to make it work without the parenthesis.
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Giving it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you!
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• File:LadyBlueTitleCard.jpg: License, rationale and use seem fine for me.
• File:LadyBlueKatyMahoney.jpg: Use and license seem fine, rationale is probably OK-ish although I am not sure if an image is strictly necessary to illustrate the point.
• File:Cabrini Green Housing Project.jpg: Use and license seem fine for me.

I see ALT text on all but the first image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review. The first image already has ALT text.
  Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Information in episode tables are typically sourced through the episode itself.
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Plot details, absolutely. However, IME air dates are not typically included in the episode itself, and writers only sometimes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Episode credits always (to the best of my knowledge) include the individual writer and director (it would not make any sense for them not to include the names of the primary creators). I could add sources though for the air date if absolutely necessary, but I never had to do that in my previous FACs for television show articles.
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have removed the publisher. I do not have access to the sources for the page numbers. @
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Only some of the sources I provided had page numbers, sadly. This is a problem with Nexis; recent articles almost invariably have page numbers, older ones often don't. The Washington Post articles I posted have page numbers (H1 and B3) but the Globe and Mail ones don't. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the clarification. I have added the page numbers where appropriate.
  Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• NewNowNext is a website for the channel
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What is the background of the author? What is the editorial policy of the site? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a page that suggest the site uses editors in some capacity. The list of editors for the site (i.e. the masthead) can be found here with this link. Here is a link to all of the articles that were written by the author cited in the article. Since the website has an editorial staff listed, I am assuming that everything (including material written by this person) must go through them in some capacity.
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Edition statements shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know what you mean by "edition statements".
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Things like "2d ed". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the clarification (and your help overall). I will get to this later tonight, and hopefully, it should be a quick and easy fix.
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Revised. For some reason, I thought that I would have more trouble with it.
  Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

RSN for other opinions. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thank you for the response; I greatly appreciate all of your help with this. I have posted a question about the NewNowNext source on the RSN, though I think the link to the "About Us" page showing that it has editorial oversight should clear it as acceptable (that is just in my opinion though, but it is always good to get other people's opinions). I will research and include citations for the air dates later this weekend if that is okay with you.
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Added the references for the airdates; it took less time to find appropriate sources than I thought.
  Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think I've added permalinks. I assume the content won't be visible to you (give it a try!) so {{
  subscription needed}} might be a good addition. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I added the tags to the references as the content is not visible to me. Thank you for the help!
  Aoba47 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I wouldn't comment as a coordinator, but if you're looking for a second opinion from a reviewer standpoint I'd be happy to recuse and offer one. Frankly there's not much about that site that screams "reliable" and seems to be a blog likely repeating things the author googled. I'd look for the actual source of information and cite that. If watchdog groups were critical of the show, find that information and use it to expand on that point, because it's more important than one phrase. The "featuring a drum machine" just strikes me as extraneous and can be removed. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2018 (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) 12:54, 30 June 2018 (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) 12:42, 30 June 2018 [13].

Death of Ms Dhu

Nominator(s):

talk) 06:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hi
  talk) 22:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hi again
  talk) 03:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, each time I think we might be ready to close someone else has stopped by, and of course I'm glad to see as much commentary as possible -- I may not be able to run through it till the weekend but in the meantime you're welcome to post a new nom if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the protest image. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Television/radio channels should not be italicized, though programs should
• Commissions/courts also shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your reviews. I've made these three changes.
  talk) 23:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You are still italicising "ABC News" via "work=" in the template. ABC News is not a "work"; you should use "publisher=". Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed now.
  talk) 11:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

First impressions: exceptionally well written and source quality is fine (newspapers but the incident happened in 2014 so still very recent). Ceoil (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The headings dont work for me; "Background" "Julieka Dhu" (I don't like using this name in a header at all) "Incarceration in Western Australia" "Arrest" "Death" lacks flow, in particular the balance between 2nd and 3rd levels is a bit jarring. The material in "Incarceration in Western Australia" is good but its heading is misplaced, jolting, and indicates an editorial POV. I would absorb this into the Background sect instead. Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil. Thanks for reviewing this. You say you don't like the heading "Death". Well, I don't particularly like it either. I preferred 'Deterioration and death', which was my choice of wording, though I note you changed it to Death instead. If you don't like the headings 'Arrest' and 'Death', can you suggest an alternative? I don't see a problem with them regarding flow, therefore I don't know what change would be an improvement.

Why don't you like the heading "Julieka Dhu"? It was her name. I'll change it to "Ms dhu" if you prefer, I don't particularly mind one way or the other, but you haven't said what you'd like it changed to.

Specifically for reasons of flow, I think it's appropriate to break up the background section between the information on Dhu and the information on Western Australian incarceration, both of which the reader needs a background knowledge of to understand the rest of the article. I thought the best way to do this would be with sub-headers. I think the section will read awkwardly if it goes from straight talking about Dhu to talking about fines. If 'Incarceration in Western Australia' is an editorial POV (can you also explain why this heading is POV? I am assuming good faith but I don't see the problem, I accept that my judgement may be impaired because I've been following this case for some time though) can you suggest a more neutral alternative? Thanks.

talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Freikorp, all this just struck me as reading, so I just threw it out for discussion. For sure "Ms dhu" is better, given the opening sentence. Have reverted to Deterioration and death. My issue with "Incarceration in Western Australia" is that from a scan of the TOC, it might seem pointed, and there is a break in the logical flow which otherwise is around her story. Will mull it over, but not a deal beaker.

That said, this a gripping and compelling article, I read it in one sitting and per my initial comment, the writing is first class, and as someone familiar with your other work and form, I'm inclined to trust you on the above. On that basis its a Support from me. Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Freikorp,

• times, 12:30pm and 8pm - insert space before pm
• "... practise of jailing people..." - Auseng noun 'practice'
• the 2 paras starting "In October 2017..." and "In September 2017..." - swap order to be chronological? (If so, will need to move Quigley wlink and his AG title and wlink up to the September para.)

• Lol, can't believe I missed that. Cheers for pointing it out.

• "...whereas in all other Australia states and territories..." - Australian?
• "In October 2017, the Australian federal government was reported to be urging states and territories to implement a CNS" - but NSW and ACT had already done so after the royal commission. Maybe insert 'the other' or 'the rest of'?
• Consider adding - In ref 18 (ABC Gartry 23 Nov 2015),
  Deaths In Custody Watch Committee (WA) Inc
  at the coronial inquiry.
• Add category 1991 births
• Refs from The Guardian - should the 'work' link to Aust online edition ie Guardian Australia?
• Ref 6 needs AAP added?

Thanks for all your work on this article, JennyOz (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks so much for your comments
  talk) 12:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks again Freikorp, very happy to sign support, JennyOz (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from FunkMonk

• I'll review soon. At first glance, as is customary, her full name should be spelled out in thge first section about her, as it is in the intro. I realise the circumstances with the Aboriginal naming conventions, but I think you should instead remove her full name from the caption to the infobox image, where it is less needed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The diseases could be linked in the infobox.

• Thanks for your comments so far. I've made both these changes. :)
  talk) 23:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Hey that's a really good point. Several sources describe her as
  talk) 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Perhaps add an external link to the videos of her in custody? I looked it up[14] after reading the article, horrible stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea
  talk) 05:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support - the article looks good to me, and my points were very minor anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Do you think that you should include Ms. Dhu’s full name on the first instance in the body of the article? The full name is currently only present in the lead, and not in the body of the article.
• For this sentence (according to her family, after leaving school she seemed to associate "with a bad crowd" and was a "wild child”.), I would add a comma between “school” and “she”.
• For this part (when they woke her she appeared to be intoxicated), I would add a comma between “her” and “she”.
• For this part (On one of the occasions she kicked a female police officer), I would add a comma between “occasions” and “she”.

• The above four issues have been fixed.

• Could you explain the placement of reference 11 after this part (One of its 339 recommendations)? It awkwardly cuts the sentence apart, and I was wondering if there is a way to move it to improve readability.

• I've moved the citation placement.

• For this sentence (On the anniversary of her death, multiple protests were held around Australia demanding an investigation into the matter.), do you think that you should specify the year of the anniversary (i.e. one-year anniversary, etc.)? I just think that it needs to be made clearer when these protests took place on a timeline.
• For this part (on the first day it heard that Dhu's cause of death was), please add a comma between “day” and “it”.
• For this part (The inquest heard that eleven police offers had received), please use “11” instead of “eleven”. I would also recommend that the numeral be used in this part (and ten police officers were interviewed as part of the inquest) instead of spelling it out.
• For this part (rejected a suggestion that if Dhu had been white she), please add a comma between “white” and “she”.

• The above four issues have been fixed.

• I have a question about this sentence (Joe Francis, then Minister for Corrective Services, opposed any plans to end jailing people for unpaid fines.) Did Francis provide any reasons for his opposition?

• I've added some sources from earlier that year that should explain the kind of human being he is.

Wonderful work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate help with my current

Thanks so much for your review

talk) 07:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thank you for addressing everything. You have done a wonderful job with this! I support this for promotion based on prose.
  Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Lead

• I doubt it's "solvable" but I see from the link that aboriginal custom also deprecates the dissemination of photos of the dead. You'll get the cultural sensitivities better than I but I wonder if there's any guidance on infobox images in such cases?

• I'm not sure if there is any policy on this, but being a neutral encyclopaedia I would assume we do not have to respect cultural sensitivity (obviously I didn't upload her image to be intentionally disrespectful though). For example, it's against the Muslim faith to depict Muhammad, but the Wikipedia article on Muhammad has many depictions of him. Also I note Aboriginal people protesting her death could often be seeing carrying her image, and the official facebook site set up by her family (Facebook site:[15] Reference that her family set it up: [16]) has this image on it. I am not Aboriginal but I am aware that not all Aboriginal people are offended by depictions of the dead; I may be mistaken in this but it's also my understanding that some entire tribes do not have a problem with it, though others clearly do.

I'm sure you're right, and the article, and its readers, certainly benefit from the image. KJP1 (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Upon arriving at their address, the officers arrested Dhu and her partner" - perhaps, "Upon arriving at their address, the officers arrested both Dhu and her partner", given that her arrest is the surprising element?
• "Police officers, who later accused her of faking her condition, carried her to the back of their van and returned her to the hospital; she was pronounced dead shortly after arrival" - I got confused here. When did they later accuse her, in that she died on this, the last, hospital visit? Is it actually "who had earlier accused her"?
• "A coronial inquest" - quite correct but unusual terminology in England, where it would be "coroner's inquest", which you use later. Perhaps not unusual in Australia?

• Honestly I'm not sure which version should be used. I wouldn't protest anyone changing it.

I think it's fine and it's certainly correct. It just threw me the first time I read it! KJP1 (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "she had suffered "unprofessional and inhumane" treatment by police and "deficient" treatment from hospital staff" - to avoid the close doubling, perhaps something like, "she had suffered "unprofessional and inhumane" handling by police and "deficient" treatment from hospital staff"? There may well be something better.

Background - Ms Dhu

• "By late December that year, Dhu's mother reported her daughter had become withdrawn" - was this an official "report" to somebody, or would something like noted be better?

Coroner's inquest

• "These calls were supported by Greens MP Robin Chapple" - at first reading, I thought Greens was the Dhu family's constituency. Is it possible to clarify it's his party?
• "multiple protests were held around Australia demanding an investigation into the matter" - given that you've used "the matter" in the sentence before, I think you could probably drop it here.

Aftermath

• "At the time, a reform package to end jailing people for unpaid fines was expected to be heard in the WA state parliament later that year" - not sure one "hears" a package? Perhaps, a reform proposal...was expected to be debated/introduced"? And is it "is expected...this year"?

A sad chapter indeed, and a moving article, for which many thanks. No reciprocal reviewing required, but I shall certainly bear the offer in mind. KJP1 (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments and support. I've addressed all concerns, with the exception of the two I've replied to above instead.

talk) 11:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi there. Thanks for your comment. Searching through my universities library catalogue with the search field "Ms Dhu" and the parameter of 'peer reviewed journals' gets me four hits. One is a false positive, of the other three, one is the 'Klippmark' source you added to the article as further reading. My university does not have access to the Ethan Blue article, though I've managed to obtain a copy via the

talk) 05:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I have also found a recent government report into Indigenous incarceration rates which discusses Ms Dhu on a page and uses the inquest several times as a reference. Perhaps the report is more suited to the Indigenous Australians and crime article, but I thought I should present it anyway as it may provide useful background for the incarceration section. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished making use of the Klippmark source and the other two I found myself (one didn't have anything worth using). Let me know if you have any concerns about these changes so far. Hopefully I can integrate the Blue source into the article tomorrow. :)

talk) 15:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, the edits look good, I'm glad it's been a simple fix. The listing of the activist movements looks a bit overly summarised, perhaps, but maybe further commentary from the Blue article can be used there. I've added in a bit about female fine defaulters in WA over the decade 2006-2016 from

The Conversation Australia. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I've finished expanding the article with academic sources. Thanks again for finding these. :)

talk) 12:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Are any of the additional further readings I've found useful to the article? For a nitpick: could more wikilinks be made to this article from other articles? (e.g. Black Lives Matter has an Australia section) Currently there are only four that link here, and two redirects. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know whether the new WA government implemented any findings from the inquest? 122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit. About three weeks ago the WA state government announced a CNS would be introduced by the end of 2018! I thought such an announcement would get nationwide coverage (I keep up to date with Australian news) but looks like only a couple smaller time sources reported on the matter. As of today though, the CNS is not up and running. I've updated the article accordingly. As of today, there's no update on the end to jailing people for unpaid fines beyond what's already in the article. I'll try and address your concerns about wikilinks and the further reading sources tomorrow.

talk) 14:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It's Western Australia: the eastern states are catered to, but WA has to threaten to secede to be heard. Glad it's in there now. For an additional nitpick on wikilinks, are there any

red links that could be added to the article? (Like for the coroner's name?) 122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I've added wikilinks to this article at

talk) 00:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks again for this. Could a brief summary of the forthcoming CNS, and its connection with Ms Dhu, be mirrored onto the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia article? 122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes I suppose it could. I'll consider doing that when I get a chance but this isn't the place to discuss improvements to other articles, this is just a review to access whether the current article meets the

talk) 00:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The ALS of WA is another place where this article could be linked to, and this article was very almost an orphan. On a close reading of the criteria, there's no explicit recommendation that 'articles should not be orphans', but when I think about 'Wikipedia's best work', I think it should be linked to from relevant other articles. I do appreciate your patience with my suggestions. Thank you for the work you've put into addressing them. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation :), and thanks for expanding those other articles to have links to this one. I've looked through those three further reading sources now. I saw some good information to add in one and integrated it into the body, and furthermore one of the internal links at that article led me to a new source which I have also added to the article. I'm finished adding the information that I think is appropriate. :)

talk) 11:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

What should be done with the FRs that you don't regard as being useful? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm as far as I'm concerned they're not hurting anyone, and while I didn't find anything in them that I thought would improve the article they may very well be of interest to readers, so I was just going to leave them there. You're most welcome to remove them though if you like. :)

talk) 08:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Otherwise, this is engaging and fascinating to read. Support on 1a. ceranthor 14:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments. I've made all the recommended changes.

talk) 08:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I think the reference to the family calling for money going to communities rather than prisons is important (and reasonably clear at least in a WA context) - I think this should stay in, as a direct quote if necessary. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added back with direct quote. Feel free to reword it if you like. :)

talk) 09:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Is anything known about the "apprehended violence order" – particularly when it was taken out? It could be that a mention would be beneficial at the end of the Ms Dhu section so it's not sprung as a surprise at the start of the arrest section.

I leave that to your discretion, however. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comment and support. Unfortunately the source that mentions the apprehended violence order (AVO) doesn't state when it was taken out, and the inquest into her death doesn't mention it at all. Upon re-reading the source given it doesn't actually explicitly state the AVO was taken out by Dhu. Theoretically, it could have been taken out by a former partner. I've reworded the article accordingly.

talk) 14:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks for checking for the further details. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2018 (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) 12:42, 30 June 2018 (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) 12:04, 30 June 2018 [17].

The Bill (Inside No. 9)

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In "The Bill", four men argue over who is going to pay a restaurant bill. Things go from eccentric to shocking when some knives are brought out from the kitchen, and then shocking to bizarre when a "corpse" lets out a yelp. And the final scene, in the eyes of some viewers if not the episode's writers, is incomprehensible. As a whole, "The Bill" is very witty, though a good bit of the humour relies on understanding the

• "21 February 2017, being shown on BBC Two." — do you need the "being shown"?
  • Removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Callum Coates also appeared in the episode." — Who? Relevance? That he does not have a Wikipedia article makes it hard to figure out who he is or why this matters.
  • I'm keen to mention all the named guest stars in the lead. I've provided a little more context. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Production

• "and a third series was confirmed by the BBC in October 2015'" — how about "and in October a third series was confirmed by the BBC."
  • I've changed it to "and in October the BBC confirmed a third series" to avoid passive voice. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "the first of a run of five episodes" — what does this mean? If it's part of a season, of course it's part of a run, so how is this run different from the season's run?
  • The first episode of the series was a Christmas special; the remaining five started the following year and ran weekly as is more standard. I'm not sure I understand the worry, but maybe I'm being obtuse. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "also on BBC Two" — is this needed, i.e., is there a reason to expect that all episodes of a season would not be aired by the same network?
  • I suppose not! Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and filming

• "[10][11][12][13][14]" — 3 or 4 sentences without a citation, and then this. Do any of these only support content in the previous 3–4 sentences, and if so, could you move any of them?
  • Yes; the previous sentences are drawn from these sources. I could possibly remove some of the citations if you feel there are too many, but I would rather keep these together. I could repeat them, perhaps? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "House of Games, meanwhile, was identified as sharing an "intensity" with the more violent moments of "The Bill"." — this feels more like criticism/ex post facto analysis than writing/filming.
  • It's from Shearsmith, which is why I've put it here. I've clarified that point. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "one of Shearsmith's favourite from the series" — should favourite be plural?
  • Maybe. I've changed it as suggested. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "the quip that" — "a quip that" might be better, since "the" seems to imply the reader familiarity with the episode.
  • Yes, good point. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "the episode was particularly claustrophobic" — the episode was afraid of confines spaces? Not sure what you're trying to say here.
  • claustrophobic can be used as an adjective meaning (to quote the OED) "confined, restricting; inducing claustrophobia". That's what I'm doing here. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still not sure what this actually means. Was the episode filmed in a small space, making it seem confined? Was the "darkness" of the episode so enveloping as to create a palpable sense of claustrophobia?
      • I think the point is about the way that the characters feel trapped at the table and in the situation (plus, potentially, the locked door), but I'm moving beyond what's explicitly in the source. It's a little less literal than the claustrophobia of the other mentioned episodes, which were set mostly in a wardrobe and entirely in a sleeper carriage. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "later in the working day, otherwise daylight would be visible on-screen." — suggest "later in the day when daylight would not be visible on-screen."
  • Tweaked, thanks. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, is there a reason they couldn't just shoot at night?
      • Don't know. They aim to film over a relatively short period, so I suspect it's just a timing thing. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

• "Callum Coates as Tim" — we now know who everyone else is (group/waitress), but not who Tim is.
  • It's now in the lead. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "though the pair generally have a rule" — perhaps "though the pair say they generally have a rule"
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "one of the highlights of series" — missing "the".
  • Fixed, thanks. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "For Pemberton, working with Watkins again was one of the highlights" — generally speaking, there's a fair amount of saying what people think in this article; technically we can't know what they think, we can only know what they say they think.
  • I understand the concern. I've fixed this instance; I'll have a more general look shortly. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

• "but Kevin claims to be the poorest. Archie, Malcolm, and Craig thrust cards at Anya until Kevin offers to pay" — so Kevin says he's too broke to pay and then offers to pay?
  • Yes- it's a shocking moment! He then counts out coins and tries to use a voucher. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "the four men wrestle" — as in physically trying to grab the physical bill, or as in verbally wrestling?
  • Physical. It looks something like this. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Love it!

Analysis

• "takes that familiar scenario and pushes it to impressively baroque extremes" — says who? Why are there two citations for a direct quotation?
  • I've reworked this a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "are close" — how about "are similar"?
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Anya ... faces criticism for taking her characterisation too far" — do you mean the character, or the actress? If the latter, it should be explained (how did she take it too far?), and "faces" should be "faced".
  • The character. One of the other hustlers criticises her for an over-the-top accent. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "faces criticism from [name of character] for..." to make this clear? Also, in what way does this allow the writer's to have their cake and eat it to?
      • Clarified. They can have their cake and eat it because they can have silly characterisation and it be realistic - because it's the character's over-the-top character, not the writers'. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "to the work of the director Quentin Tarantino—including the 1992 film Reservoir Dogs—and to Roald Dahl's" — suggest adding the bolded "to"s.
  • Ok, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• "20th best episode (of 24)" — are the parentheses needed?
  • Tweaked. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "for the title of the best episode ever." — suggest "for the distinction of the best Inside No. 9 episode ever." Title sounds a bit like you're talking about the name of the episode.
  • Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "four men sat at a table" — suggest "sitting".
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts

• Is it usual to have some information (editor, executive producer) contained only in the infobox?

  They're common to the programme as a whole, and generally aren't mentioned too much in the sources. I'm not convinced that the information is all that essential to the article, but, given that there's an infobox parameter... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason Pemberton/Shearsmith aren't linked in the infobox?
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Watkins was attracted to Inside No. 9 by the chance to work with Pemberton and Shearsmith again." — said/thought
  • Sure. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• "Malcolm leaves the table only to return furious; Archie was lying." — does he discovery Archie was lying while away from the table? Or does he leave furious because Archie is lying, and then return furious for the same reason?
  • Complicated. He claims to have found out Archie is lying as he has made a phonecall, but, of course, this is all later revealed to be a charade. I've changed this to "A distressed Malcolm leaves the table only to return furious"; hopefully this makes clear the change in emotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, comments above. Nothing major, although as mentioned there's a tendency to state what people think, not what they say they think. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, J Milburn. A few responses are above. Want to do one final read-through before supporting. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, final thoughts are above ("Further thoughts"), in addition to the comments mentioned earlier. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll get to the last few comments soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got to them, thanks again! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this J Milburn, looks good. Adding my support. Two minor things you might consider are 1) adding a semicolon and an explanation after "to have their cake and eat it", as I think your explanation above is clearer than in the article, and 2) adding that great screenshot as a fair-use image. It's a great image, as it gives a sense of what the characters look like, highlights the tension of the episode, and is just flat-out funny; in other words, it significantly adds to the commentary and a reader's understanding in a way that would justify its use. Totally up to you though. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! I've done both things suggested. I can't add a second non-free image, but I can replace the episode poster with a publicity photo, so I've done that. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• For this sentence (Craig, the visiting southerner, is wealthier than the other three, and unfamiliar with some of their terminology), would “slang” be a more appropriate word choice rather than “terminology”.
  • I don't think it's slang as such; just dialect. I could use "colloquialisms"? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In the first paragraph of the “Writing and filming”, there is a part with five references. Would it better to stagger the references through the first part of the first paragraph or bundling them together to avoid potential comments on excessive citations?
  • You're not the first to mention this, so I've trimmed a little. There's now only three notes there. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For this sentence (Pemberton explained that he and Shearsmith work hard to make roles attractive to accomplished actors, claiming that Glenister had hoped he would not like the script, looking for an excuse to turn down a week's work in his busy schedule.), please put the references in the correct order.
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For this part (Watkins had previously starred in Shearsmith and Pemberton's Psychoville), I would include a short descriptive phrase in front of Psychoville.
  • Done. Not at all easy to classify, but I've gone with "black comedy television programme". Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For this part (they pair say that though they generally have a), I think you mean “the pair” instead of “they pair”.
  • Well spotted. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For this part (they broke it "because [Watkins is] brilliant”), please put the references in the correct order.
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For this part (a number of critics commented on his striking hairpiece.), please put the references in the correct order. There are also a lot of references here so I would consider bundling them together to avoid potential comments on excessive citations.
  • I've reordered them. I can't really bundle them as they're all used elsewhere; the fact that there are so many references is actually part of what justifies the claim I make, of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There are several parts in the article where the references are not in the correct order (in numeric order). Please check throughout the entire article to fix this as I do not want to take up space by listing everything.
  • I'll look into this now. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would expand on the ALT text for the Quentin Tarantino and Roald Dahl images as simply using their names is not that particularly helpful.
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with this article! Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Aoba47: I wonder if you might like to take another look? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Thank you for the message. I looked through it again, and I do not see anything that requires further improvement.
  Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I reviewed this article for GA in April 2017, and all of my concerns were addressed at that time. Reviewing the changes since then, I find the article has only improved and I have no additional concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to have a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

• Ref 10: How do you locate the source article from the Pressreader?
  • When I click the link, I see a range of possible articles to read, but the middle one (i.e., one click away) is the one in question. Where are you accessing this from? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm in the UK. I can't make sense of the above info, from what I see. Where is this range of possible articles? Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a Javascript thing, I think; the link takes me to a page with several articles (some current ones and the one I'm citing) and I can then click to go to the article. The URL is the same for the "landing page" and the actual article, though, so I don't think I can give a clearer link. Are other editors seeing what I'm seeing? @
      Aoba47: What are you seeing, if you have a second? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • When I click the link, I am sent to a landing page with several columns. The article cited can be found in the middle column (which can be opened further by clicking on it). I do not have any issues accessing it, though I can see how the layout can be confusing for someone clicking the link for the first time.
        Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Thanks; I think you and I are seeing the same thing. Brian, I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're seeing! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 13: Does the DVD have an identfying number?
  • I have a barcode number of 5051561041235 or a catalogue number of BBCDVD4123. Would one of those suit? How would I cite it? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I sometimes add the catalogue number tro the title, but this is an option - you don't need to do it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood; happy to do that. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 20: Evening Standard; ref 25: London Evening Standard
  • Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 23: What makes BeyondtheJoke.co.uk a high quality reliable so sourceurce?
  • It's the personal website of Bruce Dessau, who is a critic who has written for a range of broadsheets, has published a number of books on television comedy, and has a regular column in the London Evening Standard. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 24: Ditto Dan's Media Digest.
  • Its author, Dan Owen, is a freelance journalist/critic. He's not as well-known as Bruce Dessau, so I try to use the site relatively judiciously, but Owen has been commissioned by reliable sources to write about Inside No. 9 at least once. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 27: For clarity, I would give the publisher as "i (newspaper") rather than just "i" which might confuse
  • I understand the thought, but I'm worried about inconsistency with the way I cite other periodicals. I could call it The i, but I'm not sure that's strictly correct. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'd personally prefer the slight inconsistency in favour of clarity. Readers who've never heard of the "i" newspaper may well wonder what "i2 means, and the link is hardly visible. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 30: Publisher should be The Guardian per ref 8
  • Changed both to Theguardian.com; some of the stuff on their website isn't published in the paper. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 33: needs a page no.
  • I agree. Frustratingly,
    Nexis doesn't provide page numbers for the Liverpool Echo. I can remove the quote if preferred. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Subject to the above, the sources look in good order and of ÷e appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to have a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Coordinator note: J Milburn, this seems to have stalled in the last few weeks. I've added it to the urgents list but I'm afraid it will have to be archived soon if it doesn't attract some more support. --Laser brain (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: A lot has happened at once, but I now count support from Usernameunique, Aoba47, Argento Surfer, and SchroCat. There's been a source review from Brianboulton. No one else has commented, and no one has opposed. I don't think we're in too bad a place, but I of course leave the decision about how/if/when to close the review up to you! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see an image review but, having checked things myself, I think the licensing is satisfactory and we can safely close this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nicely put together and meets the FA criteria. Two very minor points for you to address: FNs 8 and 30 point to the Guardian website, but you need to make the capitals consistent; FNs 28, 34 and 37 are all for Daily Telegraph: this should be The Daily Telegraph. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done both. Thanks a lot for taking the time to have a look. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2018 (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) 12:04, 30 June 2018 (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) 10:55, 30 June 2018 [18].

Oxenfree

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a video game that's a personal favorite of mine. It's got an excellent audiovisual presentation and a story that is ripped out of the 80s/90s Spielberg/high school drama tableau. Article has been through a GA and PR and looking to get this a bronze star. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Support

I suppose, since it's a video game, I go into it expecting lots of garish imags; ironic, then, that it only has one small screenshot! I do understand that's due to its

Also, isn't self sent hyphenated? audiovisual too? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into finding additional free images. "self sent" in this instance is a different parsing, not "self-sent", and "audiovisual" is generally one word in style guides I've seen, e.g. [19] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Apologies I never came back to you. I think that extra image makes all the difference, while still being of relevance to the topic and adding a human touch to it. The only thing is—again regarding the breaking-up of text—perhas make them slightly bigger? Changing the upright (which should really be used in any case, for the purpose of maintaining scales) to 1.5x its original size gives you this. What do you think? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong opinion on it, so that sounds fine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support this nomination's candidature. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 06:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

I absolutely love this game, so I will try my best to help with this nomination. Great work with this overall! My comments are below:

• Please add ALT text for the infobox image/logo.
• I have comment about this portion (This was expanded to the) from the lead’s first paragraph. I would avoid starting a sentence with “This”.
• For this part (later in 2016, iOS, Android, and the Nintendo Switch in 2017.), I would replace the comma after “2016” with “and”.
• I think that the following sentence (There, seemingly supernatural events occur and Alex and her friends must unravel the secrets of the island.) can be better worded. I am not sure about starting a sentence with “There”. Maybe something like (Alex and her friends must unravel the island’s secrets while seemingly supernatural events occur.).
• For this part (Influenced by classic teen movies and), I would link “teen movies” to the appropriate article.
• Something about the tone for this sentence (The game's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with sharp, distorted, and digital ones.) seems strange to me. It reads a little too editorial for my taste, and seems more appropriate for a review/article. I would revise it to make it more appropriate and clearer on how it fits in Wikipedia.
• In the reference titles, avoid putting words in all caps. Examples of this in the article are references 19, 21, and 22, but I would look over all of the references to check for this.
• Please add ALT text to the screenshot. Make sure that all of the images in the body of the article have ALT text.
• For this part (built around the "walk and talk" mechanic), do you think that a link to “walk and talk” would be helpful?
• For this part (suggesting that the player's choice may have had an effect on the characters' relationship.), I would cut “may have had an effect” to “had an effect” as the ambiguity is already established through the previous word “suggesting”.
• For this part (Oxenfree does not have any "game over" loss conditions), is the word “loss” really necessary here?
• This may just be a personal preference, but I think that the person’s name should be before the quote. For instance, in this section, ("We thought, why not let you move freely while communicating, interacting, and exploring a branching narrative?" Krankel recalled.), I would putt Krankel recalled before the quote. I think that it would make it clearer to the reader who is saying this rather than having to go through the entire quote to find out, and something about the tone of this sentence structure strikes me as something use more in a fictional work, like a novel, instead of something like Wikipedia. This is up to you, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
• For this part (The developers were influenced by other coming-of-age stories like Stand By Me), I would make it clear that Stand By Me is a film and include the year in which it was released. I would also make it clear in the prose that Freaks and Geeks is a television series.
• For this part (Youtuber Jesse Cox posted), do you think that “Youtuber” should be linked?
• For this part (reviewers also felt that the naturalistic dialogue of Oxenfree was a strength, while IGN’s), I think that “though” would be a better word choice than “while” as it would be better fit the contrast of ideas present in the sentence.
• Please link IGN on its first use in the body of the article. The same comment applies for Destructoid.
• When you first mention Playstation 4 and link it, I would put PS4 in parenthesis after it since you use the acronym for the rest of the article.
• I have a comment for this part (fans playing the ARG discovered). The acronym for ARG has not been established in the article so this could be confusing for some readers.

I hope you find this helpful. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night!

Hey Aoba, thanks for the review. I'd addressed or adjusted per most of your comments. A few responses: for the game over/loss bit, I included the loss in case there are readers unfamiliar with the term "game over". The references all use OXENFREE in their titles, I'm not sure if the MoS recommends removing them even in those instances? I wasn't really sure what you meant by the sentence being "too editorial" for Wikipedia; it's paraphrasing the Gamasutra reference. I swapped the quotation order on one of the passages in the development section, but I left the other where it was because it bridges the two quotations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I am still honestly not sure about the "The game's visual presentation marries dark, organic, and analog elements with bright, geometric, and digital ones." sentence. What I mean by "too editorial" is that I find that this sentence seems more appropriate for a review on the game rather an encyclopedic entry on it. It raises some questions on POV, especially since it is right in the lead, as it reads a little bit too much like fan language/praise for the game for my personal taste. I was always told to keep the tone as objective as possible, and I am not sure how that sentence works with that in mind. However, I will leave that issue to other reviewers, as I may just be overthinking it. I support this for promotion based on prose.
  Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• speech bubbles appear over Alex's head giving the player a choice between two or three dialogue options - I'd add a comma after "head".
• Players can select dialogue options at any time during conversations, choosing to wait for other characters to finish, to interrupt, or to remain silent. Certain dialogue options cause a thought bubble with Alex inside it to appear over characters' heads, suggesting that the player's choice had an effect on the characters' relationship. - Just a question, do these dialogue options affect the subsequent movements of the characters at all, or do you just pick an option and the other characters respond? Like if I chose an option to be rude, would the other character respond in kind?
  • I don't think they affect the characters in such a direct way. If you cut in you can stop some dialogue options and fail to cultivate enough of a relationship for certain endings, but I'm not aware of any source that details this more clearly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • All right, then. I guess my curiosity on this is satisfied. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oxenfree does not have any "game over" loss conditions; the player's choices and relationships with the characters determine which of several possible endings the player receives - How many endings would there be? (Five are mentioned below, but I think it would be helpful here as well.) And if I'm understanding correctly, it's not possible to lose the game, since you're just going through the storyline.
  • I haven't found a source that gives an express number of endings; counting variations in the ending characters there's more than five. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should be clarified, in that case. I was assuming from this - In an epilogue, Alex reveals the fate of the characters, with Nona's picture of the group shown and the outcomes dependent on actions made during the game - that there were only five examples. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plot:

• Clarissa (Avital Ash), Alex's late brother Michael's ex-girlfriend - Are they the same person? (Just to clarify, I've never played this game, so if I'm asking a question, it's because I really don't know.)
• time looping repeatedly - I guess you can link time loop at this point.
• In a small cavern, Alex tunes her radio and unexpectedly forms a rift - like a physical rift, or a metaphysical rift? This is a bit confusing.
  • The exact nature of the rifts is never elaborated on; I can't really give you any more detail than it's a rift (possibly to another dimension, but exactly where the crew are blasted is also never really made clear.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What is Harden Tower?
• Not a criticism of the article, but this entire "Plot" section is a bit confusing to me personally. It seems like significant choices can't really be made until the end, and that all you really do is move around and click on speech bubbles. But then again, I'm more familiar with playing games that don't specifically have storylines.
  • As the article states, it's a walk-and-talk game. You don't see the effects of your choices until the end (aside from variations in character moments.) The more mundane differences aren't covered in the plot because it'd start getting excessively long. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the game is basically asking you to select dialogue and walk around? I suppose it's not my type of game, then. :( epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endings:

• Is Game+ a trademarked, unique technology that really needs the parentheses? If not, you can just link New Game Plus within the prose itself, like this: "If the player starts another game with the same save file", or just explain what Game+ does.

Developments:

• Krankel had previously met or worked with many Night School members at Disney - do you know which part of Disney? Theme parks? Animation? Video games? Additionally, Night School didn't exist yet when these members worked at Disney, so I'd change it to "future Night School members".
• Rather than developing the gameplay and attaching a story to it, Night School focused on developing gameplay that would support the story they wanted to tell - How I'm understanding this sentence is that Night School wanted to develop the gameplay around the story itself, not add the story as an afterthought to the game.
  • This is the correct intention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This meant making sure branching dialogue trees never became too sprawling - so would this be like having too many options?
  • Yep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess you can clarify that Backstage is a magazine, because I was confused the first time I read it.
• prior to actors being cast and lines recorded - To be consistent with the previous sentences, I would suggest, "prior to casting actors and recording lines".
• Oxenfree was developed primarily using the Unity game engine, Adobe Photoshop, and Autodesk Maya - these pieces of software cover three different things. Unity powers the game play itself, while Autodesk Maya is for the graphics, and Adobe Photoshop is for graphical touch-ups. Am I correct in that analysis?
  • Yep. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The team's need to show multiple characters, dialogue bubbles, and places to explore in the environment on the screen simultaneously directly influenced the game's camera distance from the player characters and two-dimensional look - "need" can be confused as a verb, and this sentence is in need of an extra comma. How about "The team wanted to show multiple characters, dialogue bubbles, and places to explore in the environment on the screen, which simultaneously directly influenced the game's camera distance from the player characters and two-dimensional look"?
• but found that it helped organize their story better in the process - I suggest "but they found..." since, as currently written, the subject for this phrase is "The unique animation, art, and effects required for the game's major plot developments".

More later. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC) OK, continuing. epicgenius (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Audio:

• Initially, Night School Studio did not know exactly what they wanted the music of Oxenfree to sound like. - I'm guessing that this is the case for any company that is creating a video game for the first time, because you can't get it exactly right on your first try. It's more probable that they are simply unsure. How about this? "Initially, Night School Studio was unsure about what they wanted the music of Oxenfree to sound like."
• American film, TV, and game music composer and sound designer Andrew Rohrmann, known under his alias scntfc, composed the music and sound design of the game; Krankel knew Rohrmann through a friend of a friend and had not known of his game music pedigree. - I personally think this should be 2 sentences because it's pretty long. I particularly find American film, TV, and game music composer and sound designer awkward. It's clear that "film, TV, and game music composer" and "sound designer" are two different things. Would it be OK if you just said "American sound designer and film, TV, and game music composer"?
• What is "John Carpenter meets Boards of Canada", compared to the music they got in response? I am genuinely confused about this.
• The soundtrack was released on January 15, 2016 to accompany the game, with a vinyl release on May 25 - there should probably be a comma after "2016". I don't think "with" is the best conjunction; I'd personally phrase it similarly to this: "...and the vinyl record was released on May 25."

Promotion and release:

• The game's January 2016 release announcement in October 2015 coincided with a second teaser from the game - Grammatically, the first part of the sentence is unwieldy, there are two dates here and I think it would be better if they were separated more. There also seems to be two separate ideas here, and I'd suggest phrasing them like this: "In October 2015, it was announced that the game would be released in January 2016; this announcement coincided with a second teaser from the game."
• Writer Robert Kirkman is planning to help adapt Oxenfree into a film and a web-series via Skybound - So what's the status of this now? If there were no updates, could you describe when this plan was made?
• which featured items like - I'd forgo "like" in favor of "such as", only because in context, this is awkward.
• Alternate reality game - should this be lowercase?
• This phone number led players to the Twitter account @xray9169363733 - how was this connection made?
  • It's not explicitly stated in the source. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Fort Ward, WA - I would spell out "Washington" completely. I would also suggest a link to Fort Ward (Washington), unless this is the wrong link. By the way, why was this location chosen?
  • Presumably the location served as an inspiration for the Fort Milner location in the game, however I have seen no info detailing why. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception:

• Destructoid's Nic Rowen praised the game for taking inspiration from old movies but still being "anything but generic"; "It dials into its own style and mood, tapping into something very heartfelt and special. It might just be the best 'horror' game I've played in years," he wrote - It looks weird with two separate quotes juxtaposed. I'd say, "Destructoid's Nic Rowen praised the game for taking inspiration from old movies but still being "anything but generic", writing: "It dials into its own style and mood, tapping into something very heartfelt and special. It might just be the best 'horror' game I've played in years." "
• A less enthusiastic review was offered by Allegra Frank for Polygon, who wrote that - this too clashes with the overall style of the paragraph, but this time it's because of this sentence using passive voice rather than active voice. "Allegra Frank of Polygon offered a less enthusiastic review: she wrote that..."
• "The studio’s choice to completely split the art styles between the normal world and the mystical is a massive success." said Buchholtz - The period in the quote should be a comma.
• In contrast, Corriea appreciated - You have never mentioned Corriea before, but you don't put her first name like you do with the other authors.

I think that's all my comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Epicgenius for your comments. I've taken a stab at addressing these, and left inline comments with some responses to certain points. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I'll wait until you finish with your edits, or you can just tell me if you didn't want to take up some of the suggestions. I appreciate your answers to my questions. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all actionable elements. Some I'd like to provide more context on, but I don't think there's the sourcing available to do so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good, and I now support this nomination. Again, thank you for responding to my comments. epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ProtoDrake

Support: A great read, and a well constructed article overall. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Salvidrim

I think Epicgenius did a good job of going through the text, so I'll focus my thoughts on other aspects:

• I can't find where in the MOS I saw this recommendation but I believe we try to avoid pseudonyms in infoboxes? Could the composer's full name be used in the infobox (wikilinked to his article of course)? The mention of real name + pseudonym then referenced with lastname in the Audio section is fine.
• I feel like the article ends super abruptly with a single EL.... could we add links to Further Reading, more ELs, a navbox, a portal bar, something?
• The part about the ARG I feel is strongly lacking in links, such as wikilinking Jesse Cox, a link to the Twitter account (or its archived posts which are mentioned), links to an archive of the URL written in plaintext, etc. I know the in-line ref at the end of the whole bit covers every little aspect.
• The accolades section is just a table with no prose, was there no critical coverage of their award nominations and win? Just asking.
• Backstage magazine's name should be italicized, no?
• Could more thematic categories be added? Going off of words already in the article, some suggestions: Time travel video games, Mystery adventure games, 2010s interactive fiction, Alternate reality games (since one if mentioned as a companion to the main title), Supernatural in fiction, Paranormal fiction, Ghost video games, Fictional submarines, Nuclear-powered submarines; note I haven't individually checked the criterias for all of these, just throwing ideas.

Feel free to respond in-line :)

Hey Salvidrim: I've italicized Backstage and tweaked the infobox link. There's no prose for the accolades section because it would be redundant with the table; we're covering everything already there and I haven't seen any incidental coverage that adds much beyond the awards themselves. I've added a few more categories and links for the ARG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Than, looks great. I whole-heartedly support FA. Awesome work!

✉ 15:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Coordinator note: Hey David Fuchs, this hasn't received any attention in almost a month—we'll have to archive it soon unless you can scare up some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I commented at the peer review, and I felt then that the article was close to FA quality, but that the reception section needed some work. I think that's still the case; the reception section has the "A said B" problem in places; see

Oppose. As this FAC is getting close to decision-time, I think I'd better make my oppose explicit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately I'm at a bit of an impasse as to what can be done to address your points. The "A said B" format is in there because it's not like there's a lot of definitive sources that describe Oxenfree's reception, and I can't really combine sentiments without attributing them as I don't have sources for generalized reception beyond the Metacritic scores and that's not good for anything other than a snapshot of overall reception. It's great and all for

WP:RECEPTION to suggest avoiding them, but I don't see any way around at least the attribution aspect, if not the quotes. Reviews said X is not really an improvement and readers would understandably want to know who these nebulous "reviewers" are. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think it's synthesis to assemble opinions. Attribute inline if there's a reason to (e.g. prominent sources). An example from

WP:RECEPTION

is "The characterization received mixed reviews: Cohle's speeches, described by HuffPost as "mesmerizing monologues", and by Vanity Fair as dense and interesting material, were criticized by the New York Post as "'70s-era psycho-babble" which slowed down the story." If there's no particular reason to mention a reviewer or the website/newspaper they write for, then don't: "Other reviewers were more positive: comments ranged from "as frighteningly nervy and furious in its delivery and intent as prime David Lynch", to "one of the most riveting and provocative series I've ever seen"." So long as the citations make it clear who said what, the reader can check the footnotes if they're interested.

The problem with A said B is that it's not interesting to read. The last paragraph before the reception section, about the ARG, is interesting: it starts with a topic, and leads the reader through a tiny narrative explaining what happened. Or look at the last paragraph of the Audio section; again, a clear opening statement, followed by illustrative information, finishing with the facts about the release, which also fits the mini-timeline in the reader's head: goal, composition, recording, release. A very natural sequence. Reception sections are harder to write but that's not a reason to give them a pass.

I'd be willing to try to help improve this section, but unfortunately I'm leaving on a week's vacation in the morning. If I have time while I'm in Canada, or if the coordinators are willing to let this sit beyond another week, I can try my hand at it and see if I can put my money where my mouth is, if you would like me to. And I should probably add that I don't think this section is terrible; it's better than many that come to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that although I have net access here in Canada I won't be able to work on this. If this is still open by the weekend of the 22nd of June I will try to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response Mike. I've taken a stab at working off your feedback with the section, if you can take a look when you're able to let me know if I'm on the right path. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement; I've struck my oppose. I think more could be done but this is easier to read than it was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

I'm not the best person to assess the quality/reliability of video game sources, but given the venerable character of the nominator I'm inclined to accept that they meet FACR requirements. I've checked all the links and they all work, but I have a few queries:

• 10 carries a message: "Our website is currently unavailable in most European countries". This might be a temporary glitch, but might be worth noting.
• 14 states "This listing has expired", but I'm not sure whether this actually affects the cited content.
• 15 and 16 are TouTube sources. Should they have an "event occurs..." reference?
• 17: it's not obvious to me where this source supports the cited statement.

Subject to the above queries and caveats, I'm happy to sign off the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brian, thanks for the review. 10 seems to be a GPDR thing, I assume, but it shouldn't affect the archive. 14 just means the original casting call is expired, but the listing remains. I added a time locator on 15 and the same on 16 (thus splitting it into two separate citations.) Thanks for the catch on 17—the URL had a specific date but it doesn't look like it's live now or cached specifically via Wayback, so I've tweaked the wording to align with the ref (and added a separate citation for the digital release.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Oppose on prose at the moment.

• I have a problem with the following, as it doesn't flow, and you end up with what looks like a two-word sentence with "Krankel recalled." (Better to add that before the quote to line it up).

"Krankel and Hines looked at other story-focused games, and felt that they either were linear stories driven by set pieces, or branching, player choice-influenced stories told through cut scenes. "We thought, why not let you move freely while communicating, interacting, and exploring a branching narrative?" Krankel recalled.[11] "The first thing we wanted to do..."" (The second quote also hangs without support, and should either run from the first one or have some other text connected to it. If it's the same quote as the first one, use them together as a block quote.

• "had to figure out a scope": "figure out" is too informal for an encyclopaedia
• "that would not be unmanageable": what's wrong with "that would be manageable"?
• "branching dialogue trees never became too sprawling". Again, unencyclopaedic. I've never heard of a 'dialogue tree' (and I won't be alone in that), so it needs either replacing or explaining.
• "more [...] Spielberg-ian" See
  WP:ELLIPSIS: "more ... Spielberg-ian
  " is the correct way.
• "Casting call": pipe to Casting (performing arts)
• "on-the-fly" is another piece of unencyclopaedic wording that needs to be replaced.
• "The team's wanted" -> "The team wanted"
• "The unique animation, art, and effects required" Strike unique - peacocky and pointless: all games are unique to some extent

None of these are insoluble, but the prose does need a further brush up before it hits FA level. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SchroCat, thanks for your comments. I've taken a stab at the above (I've just shortened the quoted section for the first bit and paraphrased part so there's less of a long quote taking up space.) In regards to one specific point, dialogue trees are a pretty common term even outside of strictly video games, and I'm not sure there's a better term. I've wikilinked it in the prose and tried to add a bit more to contextualize it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I must have had a sheltered life never to have heard of dialogue trees, but the link works nicely for those of us still in the dark about them! The rest of the tweaks you've made are all good, and it runs much more smoothly now, with nothing that jars when I read it. My (possibly harsh) oppose is now struck, and I'm moving to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte

Another game I keep telling myself to play. Perhaps I'll pick it up during the Steam sale... Anyway, that aside, here are some comments:

• Hines looked at other story. How about "examined" instead of "looked at"?
• Development uses the word "like" often. How about changing this one: coming-of-age stories like the film Stand By Me when. This can be changed to "such as the film".
• "their story better in the process". Remove "better".
• Is it necessary to say "Game Developers Conference 2015" when the article already mentions the year and that it was announced four days afterwards? I'd change it to "four days later at the Games Developers Conference".
• What is the New Game+ mode? Mention the most important differences between it and a normal play-through.
• Should IGN be in italics?

Once these are resolved, I'll support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David, these should have been taken care of by now but I'm going to promote because the consensus is with that and I'm not going to see another month tick over with this nom open -- pls action ASAP; any discussion necessary can talk place on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2018 (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) 10:55, 30 June 2018 (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) 19:37, 19 June 2018 [20].

Ham Wall

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an example of building with bacon, but an important nature reserve in Somerset. Thanks to Rodw, Wikipedia's expert on the county, for help with the local history and geography Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Peat_stacks_and_cutting.JPG: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Tholme, as uploader, are you able to help with the query above? I assume that Nikkimaria is querying whether the diapositive counts as publication Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I'm not the original uploader, Mokopuna is. I do not know. Tholme (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikkimaria, Mokopuna hasn't edited here for five years, so I've removed that image, shuffled the others around a bit and added File:Grey heron ham wall.jpg Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

A very nice and comprehensive article, and what a beautiful bird the bittern is. Nothing to stand in the way of support, but a few comments below:

Infobox

• Any reason we can't reFill the site's url? It looks a bit untidy.

Lead

• "The reserve is open year-round, and has nature trails, hides and viewing point" - multiple viewing points or a single one?
• "It lies within the Somerset Levels NNR and the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar and Special Area of Conservation site" - not knowing what a Ramsar was, I got a little confused, thinking it was part of a place name. Reading more closely, I think Ramsar and the SAC "belong" to "Somerset Levels and Moors". Can it be clarified in some way?

Landscape

• "When the plants died in an oxygen-poor environment" - perhaps, "When the plants died in the oxygen-poor environment"?

History

• "The Somerset Levels have been occupied since the Neolithic" - perhaps, "The Somerset Levels have been occupied since the Neolithic period"?

Reserve creation

• "and the ditches weere deepened and widened" - typo.
• "provide habitat for fish" - plural "habitats", or "a habitat"?
• "Initial funding for the recovery scheme was £60,000 form English Nature in 1994" - "from".

Birds

• "The reserve has attracted three other heron species that are attempting to colonise the UK". Perhaps it's a technical term, but this reads slightly oddly to me. They're not the Romans or the Saxons! "Attempting to breed in"?
• "a blue-winged teal in 2012 and asquacco heron in 2011" - needs a space.

References

• Any reason why Steve Hughes's work isn't listed in the cited texts? Ignore me if, as I suspect from Sources 17/35, British Birds is a magazine?
• Source 7 - there's a missing closing bracket after the date.

Cited texts

• You've got a mix of 10 and 13-digit isbns. Not my strong point, but I think MoS suggests consistency?

External links

• This is blank, other than the Commons link? Either remove, or add the websites from some of the linked areas/organisations, e.g. RSPB, Somerset Wildlife Trust?

A very interesting read and a fine article, for which many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• KJP1, thanks for your support, thorough review and kind words. I think I've fixed all the concernss above including the isbns which I hadn't even noticed. British Birds is a magazine, and I think the only other point to mention is that I've linked to Colonisation (biology) Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

• Looks interesting, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• At first glance, I wonder why you use photos of animals from elsewhere? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use photos that are actually from the site? There are some nice free ones of birds here[21][22][23][24][25], and of insects here.[26][27][28] The watermarks in some of them can be dealt with...
• Glastonbury and Somerset Wildlife Trust are overlinked.

• Thanks. Since the reserve was created for the bittern, I think there has to be an image, even if it's from elsewhere. If the problem with the peat image can't be resolved, I'll use one of the images you suggest, probably the heron instead. Of the insects, only the scarlet tiger is mentioned in the text, I'll upload that when I get the chance. I've removed the overlinks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "to the RSPB" Link and spell out at first occurrence outside intro.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Did all bitterns and other animals arrive naturally by themselves, or were some brought there?

• It's all natural colonisation, it would be mentioned if that were not the case. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "The formerly rare great white egret" Link.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "garganeys (typically two to three pairs) marsh harriers" comma needed?

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The images linked above indicate that some interesting birds have visited there in addition to the ones listed (cormorant, Canada geese, crested grebe), I wonder if any sources mention them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Those three species are common and widespread through UK wetlands and lakes (the introduced goose being virtually a pest), and it would be surprising were they not recorded in any suitable site. Many common birds occur on the reserve, and in deciding what merits a mention I've followed the "Key species" section of Hughes, my main source. Even grey heron only gets a mention because of its unusual choice of nest site in reeds. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - that's it from me, looks good. Would be nice to get a photo of a bittern from the actual site... FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks. I agree about a bittern image, but getting a good image of this elusive species is a lot easier said than done. Seeing them is tricky enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and subsequent support

Only two comments, one very minor, and one a bit less so:

• The minor one first: I was a bit confused by ref 30 which refers to pp. 556–625 of an issue of British Birds but provides a download of a document from this site. I'm sure they're the same text in two different manifestations, but that could be clearer.

• Not even very different manifestations. Your linked page has "BBRC British Birds Rarity Committee" as its heading, and is closely associated with the eponymous magazine, which publishes all its reports (I have the print versions of the British Bird volumes listed) Each page of the report has British Birds 105 • October 2012 • 556–625 at the bottom. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• More major: references 4a to 4k refer us to a magazine article running to 59 pages. Anybody wishing to follow up any of these eleven references is therefore asked to read from page 181 to page 240 of the magazine. I don't object to this method of citing journal articles when they're only a few pages long (I often use it myself), and I don't boggle at the hefty page ranges for refs 26–30, as there is only one reference to each. But 59 pages and 11 different references to them! That is effectively asking the reader to read up to 649 pages in search of the cited information. In such a case I think we ought to cite specific pages or page-ranges within the article, just as we would for a book.

• Mea culpa, I seem to inadvertently entered the page range for the entire volume, not just that article. It should be 211–225 (now fixed), a more manageable range, especially as images make up nearly half the content. An easy beginning-to-end read. The BB references for annual reports are actually in taxonomic order, so anyone interested enough can rapidly find the entry anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, no problems. The sources seem to me to meet the criteria for quality, reliability and verifiability, and are consistently and logically cited. Tim riley talk 08:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, many thanks for the review, sorry I lead you astray with a fake page range. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's splendid. Source review satisfactorily concluded. And while I'm here, I add my support for the promotion of the article. A pleasure to read, and meets all the FA criteria, to my mind. – Tim riley talk 15:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Support Most interesting and very well done. Just a couple of comments.

• "The nearest bus access is in Ashcott, 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) away, and the railway station in Bridgwater is 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) distant.[18][19]" what about Glastonbury? Is there no public transport?

• There is no railway station in Glastonbury, so no contradiction there. I guess that although there isn't much difference regarding distances from Glastonbury and Ashcott bus stops as the bittern flies, the RSPB selected the latter as nearest since it's a straight walk up a proper road to the reserve entrance. From Glastonbury you need to use footpaths and you are approaching from the opposite side of the reserve to the main entrance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Dogs on leads are allowed on the Ham Wall loop (which includes public rights of way),[19] but only assistance dogs elsewhere.[21]" Possibly a verb in the latter portion of the sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess it depends whether you consider that "allowed" carries through the sentence, but added a verb for clarity anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 1 June 2018 (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) 19:37, 19 June 2018 (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) 23:27, 18 June 2018 [29].

Jørgen Jensen (soldier)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen is the first South Australian Victoria Cross recipient I've brought to FAC, part of a long-term project I'm working on to get all the SA VC recipients to FA. He was a Danish-born immigrant to Australia who was awarded the Victoria Cross for his actions at Noreuil, France in April 1917 while serving with the 50th Battalion. His citation for the award mentions that he pulled a grenade from his pocket and pulled out the pin with his teeth! I believe I've gathered up all the material regarding him that is available. This article went through GAN and Milhist A-Class review recently. Thanks in advance to all those who take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ian

More of a placeholder for the moment, I'll try and make time for a full review (recusing as coord obviously) in due course. For now:

• I recall George MacDonald Fraser pointing out in a non-fiction work that pulling grenade pins with the teeth was a hoary old movie cliche and that anyone trying it for real would likely find themselves requiring a set of dentures. Is it attested to anywhere apart from the Gazette?

• It is repeated in the online AWM profile of Jensen, but the citation surely pre-dates the idea becoming a hoary old movie cliche? I thought that was more associated with The Rat Patrol etc, WWII TV shows made after that war? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I think it was a movie (and TV) cliche when Fraser made his observation, and it's more just idle curiosity from me about whether anyone else mentioned it. I think you've done the right thing by leaving it to the Gazette citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As it was pretty common for people to have all their teeth removed at adolescence in this era, he may already have had a full set of dentures. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]