Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2015

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2015 [1].

Mortimer Wheeler

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent British archaeologists of the twentieth century, who specialised in Roman Britain and in the archaeology of the Indian subcontinent. He was also an officer in the British Army and saw action in both the First and Second World Wars. The article has previously received GA status and undergone a peer review in January 2015. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Very readable. Definitely a worthy topic for a FA. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do a full source review right now, but if you're committed to using the Daily Mail source (and it's hardly of the caliber of your other sources!) you need an accessdate. Also, your Vasudevan source lacks a location. (And, a recurring comment I know, so ignore it if you prefer: I personally don't see the need to list publishers for academic journals. I can't remember ever having seen it outside of Wikipedia.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a long shot, but remember that if you have any images of him which were published before 1923 (plausible, given the fact that he seems to have been a vaguely prominent figure even back then) they will be PD under {{PD-US}}. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After mulling it over, I'm happy to support this article (with the caveat that I may have missed something). Everything looks very strong to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ssven2

Great job on the article, Midnightblueowl. Hope to see it as an FA soon. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sven. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commments Support from Hchc2009

  • Close to a support on an interesting character, but a couple of issues from me...
  • "in his personal life he was often criticised for bullying colleagues and sexually harassing young women" - the material in the main body of the article suggests that this wasn't really strictly a "personal" issue but extended to his professional life: he gave attractive women preferential treatment in the workplace, had many one night stands with his students and was allegedly responsible for groping and bullying his work colleagues. I wasn't sure that the "personal" label here or in the section title was really accurate/appropriate.
  • "The Wheelers' work for the cause of the museum has been seen as part of a wider "cultural-nationalist movement"" - I couldn't work out who the quote was from: could it be attributed in-line?
  • "Wheeler had been expecting and openly hoping for war with Nazi Germany for several years; he believed that the United Kingdom's involvement in the conflict would remedy the shame that he thought had been brought upon the country by its signing of the Munich Agreement in September 1938." - the two halves of the sentence don't quite match, as the Munich agreement was only 12 months before the outbreak of war.
  • "he was recognised as a ruthless disciplinarian" - could this simply be "he was a ruthless disciplinarian"?
    • My concern here would be that concepts such as "ruthlessness" are a little subjective, existing in the eye of the beholder and all that. Stating that he was "recognised" as such takes away the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AustralianRupert

G'day, I only had a look at the military parts. Overall, they look quite good to me, but I have a couple of points/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "promoted to the position of acting major..." --> "promoted to the rank of acting major" (major is not a position, it is a rank. Officer commanding is a position, which a person of the rank of major might fill...);
  • "Wheeler's unit was transferred to the 42nd Mobile Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment..." (is transferred right here? Or was it in fact used to form the regiment, along with a couple of other batteries?)
  • "Wheeler and three of his batteries..." this seems to jump without explanation from him commanding one battery to three. So, he had effectively become commander of an artillery regiment...do you know which one? Could it have been the 42nd as mentioned above? If so, I think it should be clarified that he was in command; I assume also that he had been promoted to lieutenant colonel at this time, so this could probably be said here, too, if your sources say so;
  • "...better understand what it was like to be against an anti-aircraft battery" (this seems a little awkward, perhaps this might be smoother: "...better understand what it was like for aircrew to be fired on by an anti-aircraft battery"?)

Image review

Support Comments from Tim riley

I'll be supporting, but a few minor quibbles first:

  • Spelling
    • "As the article is in BrEng, "enroll" (twice) should preferably be "enrol" and "panelist" should be "panellist". (In fact both the current forms are admitted by the OED, but the ones I recommend are more usual in British usage.)
  • Childhood: 1890–1907
  • First World War: 1914–18
    • "he maintained correspondence" – reads rather oddly. As there was a correspondence with his wife, another correspondence with his sister and a third correspondence with his parents it would probably be best to write "he maintained correspondences".
  • National Museum of Wales: 1919–26
    • We might allow Sir Flinders Petrie his title.
      • Do we have a policy here at Wikipedia governing this sort of thing. Something in the back of my mind is telling me that there is a policy that recommends we do not use such titles in the text, but that may of course be absolute nonsense... Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think what you have in mind is perhaps the guideline that we are sparing in our use of academic titles, such as Dr John Smith or Professor Wilfred Thyng. But for titles such as knighthoods, peerages etc we certainly do give them (and pipe them properly, for preference, as e.g. "Sir Flinders Petrie" rather than the slightly scrubby "Sir Flinders Petrie" though being careful not to give them before they were bestowed.

Many thanks for your comments Tim! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. All fine with me now. Adding support, above (but do look after the leader writer and Sir Flinders). Tim riley talk 19:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

Coordinator note: Has this had a source review? And I see an unresolved item from the image review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortimer Wheeler: I can't do anything with this until you resolve the image concern above. Please ask Nikkimaria, GermanJoe, or find guidance on Wikipedia:File copyright tags. --Laser brain (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone else has already fixed this. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikkimaria. And apparently I pinged the subject of the article instead of Midnightblueowl. --Laser brain (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – this is my first attempt at doing one, so please be indulgent. I don't think I have ever seen an FAC with so many book refs and so few web ones. Impressive, but:

  • There are more than 200 refs to Hawkes, but, I think, enough to others such as Carr, Guha, Moshenska and Pigott to make the referencing adequately wide.
  • In the list of sources I could have done with an OCLC for the 1960 Clark book (3465005, since you ask).

And that's all I can find to quibble at. – Tim riley talk 20:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So a month has now passed since I initiated this FAC, and we now have five editors expressing their support, another expressing support on prose, and none expressing opposition. That's a pretty good result, so I would like to thank everyone who offered their comments. It is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2015 [2].

Suillus luteus

Nominator(s): Sasata & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another pored mushroom...though this one has piggybacked pine plantations around the world and doesn't taste as nice as others. We liked buffing it and have scraped the bottom of the scholarly barrel. Interesting mushroom. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Is a wikicup nomination for one of us (i.e. me) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Edwininlondon

Impressive bit of research and enjoyable prose. Great choice of illustrations. Just the smallest of possible comments:

  • "The fungus grows in coniferous forests in its native range" feels repetitive; maybe drop the "coniferous forests" a the top, in the second sentence?
yep, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "naturalized, forming symbiotic ectomycorrhizal associations with ..."--> makes it a bit complicated, may I suggest to start a new sentence ("It forms .."
duly split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on the hyphens in "chestnut-, rusty, olive-, or dark brown"
agree we can lose chestnut's hyphen...however removing olives' means we're saying "olive" not "olive-brown" (which is the colour we're trying to convey) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • pleurocystidia and cheilocystidia could benefit from linking
they'd both link to the same place - Cystidium - and we'd be pinged for duplicate linking Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "microscopic examination of mushroom tissues is not possible" --> intriguing. Do you perhaps mean you can't tell them apart looking at them under microscope?
well, not if they are powdered as there are no cells...the sentence starts with "powdered" in it - do you think we need to mention "powdered" here again? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, let me see if I understand you correctly: Because it is powdered, there are no cells anymore, and therefore, yes it is possible to examine powder under a microscope, but you can't tell whether the stuff is from one species or two. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
correct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, may I suggest you rephrase to something like "a fraudulent practice that is difficult to detect by microscope because the cells are no longer in tact."? Edwininlondon (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How's this? Sasata (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clear. Thanks. I changed my status to Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM
  • "The fungus was reclassified in (and became the type species of) the genus Suillus" Is in the right word, here? Reclassified to or reclassified as, perhaps?
  • "Suillus luteus (L.:Fr.) Gray" On my screen, this was on a line-break- perhaps non-breaking spaces would be useful.
  • You don't link at your first mention of S. granulatus, but you do at the second mention.
  • "were transferred to the family Suillaceae from Boletaceae in 1997" Presumably Suillaceae was created for the genus; "transfer" suggests (though doesn't strictly imply, I admit!) that the target was already there to be transferred to.
  • "In Ecuador, Pinus radiata plantations were planted extensively around Cotopaxi National Park, and Suillus luteus boletes appear in abundance year-round, with a 1985 field study estimating 3000–6000 mushrooms per hectare—unlike the species' seasonal nature elsewhere." This sentence still doesn't quite work for me, but I'm struggling to come up with an alternative phrasing.
  • "the trait to tolerate otherwise toxic levels" I think this should be "a trait to tolerate otherwise toxic levels" or "the trait of tolerance towards otherwise toxic levels"
  • " their fungal associates—[54] are" Is there something in MOS about this? Before the dash seems much more natural, and prevents you having to add a space that would not be there otherwise.
  • Is "pest" a little colloquial? Would "parasite" not be better?
  • (I confess that it's a word I hate for various reasons, but...) I wonder whether it's appropriate to bring in this human point of view ("oh, it's damaging our crops!") in what was previously a rather simple explanation of an ecological relationship ("This thing eats this thing"). I'm certainly not going to push the matter, and leave it up to you two. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm worried about introducing a technical meaning not intended by the author. According to our article on parasitism, the host is harmed in some way. If the purpose of a fruit body is to reproduce by making and dropping spores, and insect infestation does not affect that (or at least not according to published studies I'm aware of), then is the relationship truly parasitic? I'm open to alternative wording though. Sasata (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Altered the wording and removed "pest". Sasata (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is commonly prepared and eaten in soups and stews. The slime coating, however, may cause indigestion if not removed before eating." From the lead- neither claim seems to be supported in the main article.
Some of the older guidebooks elaborate more extensively on how various species are best eaten. I will double check... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update - how they are cooked is noncontroversial, and apart from some variance of opinion on drying, most of the other is written here and there, so have left out author names as these opinions are not in any way egregious or original Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, unless something comes up I've missed. I can't see a source review turning up anything terribly problematic. Note to delegates: I am a WikiCup participant and have worked with Cas and Sasata several times before, including conominations at FAC. I was the GA reviewer of this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx. I can link nucleotide easily enough, but should be a better link somewhere... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The Smith AH, Thiers HD A Contribution Toward a Monograph source (currently cite #15) ... what makes this privately published source a reliable source?
  • Same for the Loizides M, Kyriakou T, Tziakouris A Edible and Toxic (currently cite 42)?
  • Same as above, Kuo has published several books and research papers on mushrooms, and I think citing his self-published website for this non-contentious fact is acceptable. Sasata (talk)
  • I spot checked the "Mushroom picking" Oberon Australia site, the site, and the Turkish Journal of Botany references and they all supported the information cited to them.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2015 [3].

Banded sugar ant

Nominator(s): Burklemore1 (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a common ant that is found throughout Australia, which was recently promoted to GA status in June 2015. I note that this is my first FA nomination, so I may not be completely familiar with the FA process. However, I have had a discussion prior to this nomination about FA and I was given useful feedback on the article, of which I have performed a couple of edits to further improve the article. I look forward to my first full on experience with this. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 07:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brief comment: Hi, Burklemore, this looks like a neat and tidy job which our biology readers will enjoy. I'm sure that a knowledgeable reviewer will soon pick it up; meanwhile, may I point out that the sentence: "If a nest is attacked, however, hundreds of ants will attack in force" is at present without a reference, and one should be added. Brianboulton (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Brian, thanks for the comment. I'll look around for a source which supports this claim now. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
During my vigorous search, I was unable to track a source. I have decided to remove the sentence.
In the para 2 of the lead, you've mentioned workers and soldiers in sentence 1, and then major workers (also known as soldiers), and minor workers in sentence 2. It would be good to somehow merge these. I had to pause to wonder whether we were talking 3 groups - soldiers, major workers and minor workers - or 2....
I have worked on the sentence and merged the two. Since soldiers and major workers are exactly the same, is it necessary to even mention that they are commonly known as soldiers to the general public? Burklemore1 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - not sure..possibly, I think many readers who know a little about ants would expect some clarification of soldiers as they might be familiar with them....from Antz for instance...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be relevant to keep the clarification so readers know what major workers are. Some readers would probably assume that there are two worker castes and a separate soldier caste instead. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banded sugar ants can be found at elevations ranging from 170 – 853 metres - looks funny, I'd align it with source better by saying, "Banded sugar ants have been recorded from elevations ranging from 170 to 853 metres"

Done.

The two sets of units at the end of Distribution and habitat need imperial conversions

Done.

Sugar ants may also invade meat ant nests if they are overshadowed, since the health of the colony may deteriorate - this leaves me a little mystified, any elaboration on the shade and health would be good here.

I have read the source I cited but it doesn't go into great depth, though it does cite two sources which discuss this topic. I'll track them down now so I can see what I can use from them.

Added some detail. I have also added an extra sentence of what meat ants do when the colony is declining and what the banded sugar ants do when they invade. The source doesn't explicitly mention anything about their health unfortunately.

Support Otherwise looking pretty tight and comprehensive...I think we're in striking distance of FA status....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments from jonkerz - Very well-written and well-referenced article. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around the 'Life cycle and reproduction' section and the terminology around poly-/mono-/-gyne/-gynous/-andry. Here is my understanding:
monogyne (adj. monogynous) = nest contains a single queen
polygyne (adj. polygynous) = multiple queens in the same nest
monandry = queen/queens mate only once
polyandry = queen/queens mate more than once
From the article (the bolded numbers are mine): "1) Although most banded sugar ant colonies are monogynous, some have been found to be polygynous, 2) where the queens will only mate with a single male ... 3) Banded sugar ant colonies do not have multiple queens, and will only have a single queen."
To me this reads like: "1) Most colonies have a single queen (they are monogynous), but some have multiple queens (they are polygynous), 2) polygyny means that the queens will only mate with a single male ... 3) Banded sugar ant colonies are not polygynous (they never have more than one queen), they are monogynous (always a single queen)."
2) could also be interpreted as "in the nests with multiple queens, the queens will only mate with a single male", but I could not find this in the reference (the Fraser article however states that queens in monogynous colonies mate once). Can you see my confusion? jonkerz ♠talk 19:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand. I may have misinterpreted the text and meanings (these terms do get quite confusing). I read the source again and *hopefully* corrected and fixed up the issue you have raised. Can you double check? Burklemore1 (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The issue has been resolved. jonkerz ♠talk 02:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is off in the listing of subspecies: "Several subspecies have been described: C. consobrinus perthianus, C. nigriceps, C. nigriceps obniger and C. nigriceps lividipes." The second is a species, the third and fourth are subspecies of C. nigriceps.

C. nigriceps was classified as a subspecies by Wheeler in 1933, but Clark raised it as a full species a year later. This is the same case with the subspecies of C. nigriceps. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a list of taxa that was once classified as subspecies of the banded sugar ant, which makes sense, why is Camponotus consobrinus perthianus (a junior synonym of Camponotus nigriceps) listed using its original name, Camponotus nigriceps obniger (a junior synonym of Camponotus consobrinus) listed neither under its original or current name, and C. nigriceps (that was once classified as a subspecies) listed under its currently valid name? jonkerz ♠talk 14:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but I am a bit confused with the question. If I recall Camponotus consobrinus perthianus has always been the only name for this taxon, and this is the same for Camponotus nigriceps obniger. C. nigriceps was also listed under its current name when Wheeler classified it as a subspecies. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, there are currently no valid subspecies of Camponotus consobrinus -- they have all been synonymized, elevated to species or reclassified as subspecies of another species. In a list of subspecies, I'd expect to find only subspecies-names, or at least names used in a consistent manner:
  • A) the name that was used when taxon was classified as a valid subspecies of the banded sugar ant
  • B) the current name of what once a subspecies of the banded sugar ant
It doesn't really make sense to use:
  • C) other (neither a currently valid name nor the name that once was a valid subspecies of the banded sugar ant)
The current list is a mix of all these. From first to last: A, B, C, B, while I think the list should read: A, A, A, A. Agree?
"C. nigriceps was later revived as a full species in 1934", a taxa that was already at the rank of species was elevated to a species? "C. nigriceps lividipes was classified as a subspecies of [C. nigriceps].", but doesn't the trinomial name indicate exactly this already? To me this sounds like "the C. nigriceps subspecies C. nigriceps lividipes was reclassified as a subspecies of C. nigriceps, now given the name C. nigriceps lividipes". Perhaps someone watching this review can take a stab at this, just to make sure I'm not alone in this. jonkerz ♠talk 16:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, C. nigriceps lividipes went through the following:
  • 1887: Subspecies of C. nigriceps
  • 1933: Camponotus consobrinus subsp. lividipes Subspecies of C. consobrinus
  • 1934: Synonym of C. consobrinus
  • 1985: Subspecies of C. nigriceps Taylor & Brown, D.R. 1985

Well... that is some news. I may have gotten that wrong in the article which will need changing (thank you for pointing this out, btw). For C. nigriceps:

  • 1933: Camponotus consobrinus subsp. nigriceps (Smith) Subspecies of C. consobrinus

Does that answer your question by any chance? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be precise, would it make sense by incorporating those names instead of the original taxons, a long with a slight corrected update? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So what I am seeing, is that C. nigriceps lividipes should be C. consobrinus lividipes and C. nigriceps should be C. consobrinus nigriceps. Camponotus consobrinus var. perthianus was erected by Wheeler in 1933 in the same paper where the other taxons were classified as subspecies of C. consobrinus, though I think he treated it as a variant, not a subspecies. Camponotus nigriceps obniger was also treated as a variety as Camponotus consobrinus var. obniger.

Would this sentence make more sense:

"In 1933, American entomologist

C. nigriceps
, while C. consobrinus lividipes was synonymised with C. consobrinus. C. consobrinus lividipes was treated as a subspecies for C. nigriceps in 1985, now known as C. nigriceps lividipes. In 1996 C. consobrinus perthianus was synonymised with C. nigriceps, and C. consobrinus var. obniger was synonymised with C. consobrinus."

Much better! This is what I was looking for. I consider this issue to be resolved. jonkerz ♠talk 14:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I have incorporated the info (please correct anything if there is any issue with the prose.) Burklemore1 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banded sugar ants are polymorphic and sexually dimorphic, meaning that colonies have two types of workers, minor workers and major workers that have different size ranges." Sexual dimorphism = minor workers and major workers? For someone new to ants, this could be misinterpreted as "minor workers = female, major workers = male". Perhaps it is easier to leave out the part about sexual dimorphism since all ants are sexually dimorphic. jonkerz ♠talk 14:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "sexual dimorphism".

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth

In general this article is looking good. A few points that struck me: -

  • "Workers prey on insects, killing them with a spray of formic acid. It is preyed upon by other ants, echidnas, and birds."- You can't say "it" when the previous sentence had a plural subject.

Changed.

  • "The brood of this species were also consumed by Australian Aborigines." - I would argue that "brood" is a singular word.

I realised that in the "interaction with humans section" that it says eggs instead of brood. Would that mark this issue as solved if I change it to that?

I just meant that I would have said "The brood of this species was also consumed by Australian Aborigines." Also, I think brood means young, in this case larvae I presume, rather than eggs, which I would have thought were a bit small to be worth eating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read the source, and apparently the eggs of this species and several other ants were delicacies. I'm not sure if the author counted the larvae as eggs, because the eggs as you just said would be too small to be worth eating. Burklemore1 (talk 18:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll actually just change it to brood instead, it would mean the same thing and they most likely did consume larvae anyway. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The specific name is derived from the Latin word consobrina, meaning "cousin".[9] This is in reference to its similarity with the species C. herculeanus.[8]" - This seems like a non-sequitur to me.

Is this non-sequitur for only the two sentences?

  • First you state "Banded sugar ants come in a variety of colours," then you go on to describe the colouring in great detail. Can both these statements be correct?

Fixed up.

  • "the amount of malpighian tubules known based on two workers is 21." -This sentence is confusing, and anyway you mean "number" rather than "amount".

Changed to amount. What is your suggestion to make the sentence not confusing?

Your changes to the sentence are satisfactory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are found in urban areas, ..." - The previous part of the paragraph has been in the singular so you can't just say "they".

Changed.

  • "... by the similar looking Camponotus nigriceps" - this is duplication of information in the previous paragraph.

Chopped it down a bit.

  • "170 to 853 metres (557 to 2,798 ft)" this conversion factor is too precise.

This conflicts with other editors suggestions, as does the other conversation suggestion. A discussion may need to take place and see what consensus can be reached.

Took this the wrong way, changed.
  • "Nests are regularly found in a variety of sites" - Why does this happen regularly?

Removed "regularly".

  • " Instead, nests have vertical shafts at their entrance, which is smooth in appearance." - This sentence is confusing.

Rewritten.

  • "20 to 30 millimetres (0.79 to 1.18 in) in length with an arched roof that is 10 millimetres (0.39 in)." - More conversion figures that are much too precise.

See above.

"20 to 30 millimetres" is definitely an approximation, so "0.8 to 1.2 inches" is needed here in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I must have misinterpreted your comment. If this is the case, is it best to round the other conversion as 560 to 2,800 ft?
Yes, that is what I suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but are more active during the night. These ants are more active during the warmer seasons, especially summer." - Too many "more actives".

Changed.

  • "Banded sugar ants may also invade meat ant nests if they are encroached by trees or other shade, since the health of the colony may deteriorate." - neads clarification.

@Cwmhiraeth: I have rewritten the sentence and further explained that the colony deteriorates from overshadowing. Is that what you were asking for, or is there anything else that needs addressing? Also, I have some comments in relation to the interaction with humans, adoption of larvae and the etymology. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... a symbiotic relationship between them, but the results showed that these banded sugar ants attacked the leafhoppers, suggesting that there was no symbiotic relationship between the two." - Needs to be differently expressed to avoid repetition of "symbiotic relationship".

Done.

  • "Workers retrieve the honeydew from the aphid by excreting it through the anus of the aphid." No!

Changed, I guess?

  • "as the ants protect the aphid from predation and the aphid provides a nutritious liquid to the ants." - Sounds like multiple ants badgering away at one poor aphid.

Changed to aphid*s* since it would refer to many of them instead of a single aphid.

  • "Banded sugar ants are known to "rob" Hemiptera food sources consumed by meat ants at night, where meat ants will feed on these sources during the day." - This sentence is confusing.

Done.

  • Be consistent on whether you refer to Blindsnakes or Blind snakes.

Done.

  • "Nematodes are a parasite to banded sugar ant larvae, as several mermithergate larvae were described." - This needs more explanation for the uninitiated.

Expanded.

  • "... where the alates will begin to swarm" - This sentence is confusing as you have not previously been talking about a location.

Changed.

  • "The black carpenter ant (Camponotus pennsylvanicus) is known to adopt larvae and pupae from banded sugar ant colonies." - This needs more explanation for the uninitiated.

There isn't much more that can be expanded with this, unless we can explain the fact that other related Camponotus brood are adopted. See page 203, first paragraph top left.

I know that in some ant species, ants raid other ant colonies and steal the brood, which then serves as slaves to the captors. Does this happen to the banded sugar ant?
No sources suggest that either these ants raid colonies or their get colonies get raided (other than invading meat ant colonies, but they do not take any brood). Myrmecia nigrocincta is the only plausible ant I can think of that *may* enslave banded sugar ants based on their geographical distribution, but there has been zero studies if this happens. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the "Life cycle and reproduction" section is confusing. If females only mate once, how are there many patrilines, and what are these "distinct developmental pathways"?

I have removed most of the paragraph as a) it is way too confusing for myself to even understand, and b), I just realised that paragraph was most likely not talking about the banded sugar ant.

  • The "Interaction with humans" section is a bit disjointed.

May you extend your reason as to how it is a bit disjointed, and what is your suggestion to fix whatever is wrong? Content removal is not an option if there is any suggestion of that.

Read the paragraph through. It consists of about seven sentences which are bald statements, factoids about the ants. It is not ordered in a logical fashion and does not flow. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have reduced the amount of sentences a bit, but I'll be doing further improvements to the section shortly.
Rewritten, but feel free to correct any possible mistakes I may have left.
That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I must note however I will be busy with irl things for the upcoming days so my responses may be slower than usual. This won't mean I'll completely forget about the FAC, but I just won't be able to address your comments (and other comments in the future) in a quick manner. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have addressed, or attempted to address, most of the points you have raised. I may need a comment in regards to the etymology part and/or to others parts that you feel may need a bit more work before you are happy with the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the improvements made to the article and now Support it on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thorough review! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

Thanks for the image check! Burklemore1 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: I haven't abandoned this nomination or article, I have just been waiting for someone to conduct a source review. Thanks in advance, Burklemore1 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check

Coming. Going off this revision so ref numbers don't get mixed up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 7 needs publisher, date, author (if available)
I just realised reference no. 7 is actually a book, so I have made some changes (provided more details + ISBN). Thank you for initiating the source review by the way. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • material from FN 13 is faithful to source.
  • material from FN 9 is faithful to source.
  • Earwig's top score was 39.8% (not bad), but very slow. Will re-check later.

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you said material is faithful to source, does that mean the statement on the article it's closely paraphrased to the original source? Sorry, a bit noobish with this type of stuff. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant to add I didn't see paraphrasing either. So all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so that's a good thing then. Okay, makes sense now. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • material from FN 11 and 12 suggests 7-12 mm is length range for this species - FN 12 talks of genus going to 15 mm length (though page is about species (??)). I can't see where either ref calls them large compared with other ants.
The CSIRO source does confuse me a bit. I'm not sure if the the size is discussing the average size of the length of Camponotus ants or the species itself, but some Camponotus can reach 30 millimetres or more. Even nanitic workers (very first generation of workers born in a colony) are larger than 2.5 mm as the page suggests. I'm going to use the Australian Museum source instead, since it gives a size range of 5 - 15 millimetres and says they are large ants. I have also moved the Queensland Museum source to the sentence "Nests are found in a variety of sites, including holes in wood, roots of plants, twigs of trees and shrubs, between rocks, in the soil, and under paving stones." Some of the things said there are included in the source. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok all good then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentences 2 and 3 cited to FN 12 are faithful to source material without unnecessary paraphrasing.

Ok, spot check mostly in order apart from one query above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thank you (again) for initiating the review! Burklemore1 (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2015 [4].

Opisthocoelicaudia

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opisthocoelicaudia is an interesting long-necked dinosaur from Mongolia, and a recent effort of the WP:WikiProject Dinosaurs. It contains everything that has been published on the topic. Looking forward to your comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Resolved referencing comments removed to the Talk page

So, referencing looks a lot better, and I promised a prose review, because dinosaurs.

Prose review, part I
  • General comments:
  • There are quite a few duplicate links in the body. Accordingly, I'm not going to list them all here; I recommend running one of the dup link detection tools.
  • done
  • Statements supported by multiple references need to cite those in number-order, one of the MOS conceits that annoys me when I'm writing. I didn't survey systematically for this, but there's at least one ([17][16]) in the Discovery section.
  • done
  • So, in general, I don't think the structure of this article is ideal. There's a lot of repeated information - about bits of taxonomy, about details of the holotype, even about the paleoecology. A lot of the dinosaur FAs are older, but I'd consider using Ankylosaurus as something of a model.
  • I've fixed the issues you pointed out below, and did some additional minor tweaks. The structure follows that of Ankylosaurus; with the exception of the paleoecology section, which is not at the end but in the middle of the article (it has to be before the paleobiology section, especially because of the footprint discussion).
  • Lead:
  • That IPA still needs works. Currently, I believe it reads as Opithtotholicaudia
  • Description:
  • "Like other sauropods Opistocelicaudia": needs a comma after "sauropods"
  • done
  • Units should be abbreviated after first use (especially in the conversions). There's a flag you can set on the conversion templates to do that.
  • done
  • "2/3 the length": should be "two-thirds" per
    WP:MOSNUM
    .
  • done
  • "distinguishing Opisthocoelicaudia from other titanosaurs": You use a phrase very similar to this twice in two paragraphs.
  • done, reworded
  • I'm normally fond of glossed terminology, but I'd drop the parenthetical "(hand)" here. It's not strictly accurate, for one thing, and anyone who has gotten this far into the description without being familiar with anatomical terms has probably learned to click the links anyway.
  • done
  • "The foot anatomy is completely preserved in Opisthocoelicaudia – to date, only two additional complete titanosaur foot skeletons are known, which show an aberrant phalangeal formula.": I'm a little lost in this sentence. Are there only two feet with an aberrant phalangeal formula known (in which case, the clauses are misordered), or two total? I'm not at all sure what an "aberrant phalangeal formula" is, for that matter.
  • done, section was rewritten and expanded
  • In general, I'm not entirely sure that this section steps through the description in a natural order, but I don't have a concrete recommendation as to what to do about it, if anything. Since the tail is the most important physical characteristic of this dinosaur, breaking it out to a subsection might help.
  • I do not see the problem here, could you elaborate on this? The description follows the order "Skull" -> "Axial skeleton" (vertebral column and ribs) -> Appendicular skeleton (girdles and limbs). This is the standard order used to describe vertebrates. I think it is better to describe the whole vertebral column together in a single section, to allow comparisons between neck, back, and tail vertebrae.
  • Discovery and specimens:
  • Specimen numbers are fine, and standard for FA-level dinosaur articles. But is there anything to link for ZPAL MgD-Ij48?
  • done
  • "the next place that was accessible for trucks": I'd reword this to avoid "place", which seems both imprecise and a poor tonal match for the article.
  • done, section was reworded, much better now
  • "More recently, Philip Currie and colleagues (2003)": I'd reword this. Drop the date in the sentence directly and you can get rid of both the project-unfriendly "recently" and the parenthetical.
  • done
  • Does the mention of Nemegtosaurus imply that the authors were uncertain of the tail fragment attribution? As I reader, that's the sense I'm taking from this construction.
  • done
  • Age and paleoenvironment:
  • "The Nemegt Formation has been deposited": Wrong tense.
  • done
  • I know that subhumid is more humid than semiarid. But it's a surprise for the reader to see the paleosoils described as "relatively dry" immediately followed by "Thus, [it] was somewhat more humid".
  • done
  • Taphonomy
  • Again, I wouldn't parenthetically gloss here.
  • done
  • I'll reiterate here that I'm not sure the structural organization of this article is the way it needs to be. This section is the worst offender; this is all about the holotype specimen, not the dinosaur in general. It shouldn't be a top-level section. Rather, it should be included organically in the discussion of the holotype.
  • done. Its now with the section "discovery and specimens"
  • Classification:
  • You should strive to avoid parenthetical dates in prose here, too. This happens enough, it should actually be in my general comments section, frankly.
  • done. Fixed elsewhere in the text as wel.
  • "that the grouping Alamosaurus + Opisthocoelicaudia": I'd suggest reworking this to avoid using the plus sign in prose.
  • done
  • The
    Titanosaur
    article includes a cladogram based on a 2007 article by Calvo et al.; that's more recent than either of the cladograms you present, and should (after trimming it down to a sane subset) probably be the taxonomy represented here.
  • done. I removed the other cladogram, as it is not really the alternative hypothesis here (only one of many).
  • I'm not sure what to do with the mess that is taxonomic ranks named after Titanosaurus. But I think the approach here is somewhat confusing. "While the name Titanosauridae is currently considered invalid by many scientists, some use the name Lithostrotia to describe the same group." That's not my favorite sentence in the article, especially followed up with "Within the Titanosauria and Lithostrotia" ... but aren't those the same thing, like you just said?
  • No, Titanosauridae and Lithostrotia are the same thing, not Titanosauria and Lithostrotia. Its a total mess, I will see if I can formulate this more clearly.
  • I have reworked the whole section, and simplified everything I could. I hope it is clearer now.
  • "Synonym of Nemegtosaurus?" is not how to title this subsection in an encyclopediac tone. Maybe "Relationship to Nemegtosaurus"?
  • done, good idea.
  • Don't reverse-gloss synonymy. Use it where it belongs, and pipe a link to Synonym (taxonomy).
  • done, fixed the same issue elsewhere in the text as well.
  • The issues about that tail fragment I noted way up in the Discovery and specimens section are essentially repeated here. Sometimes its unavoidable for an article to cover the same ground twice, but as I read, I feel that happens more systematically here than desirable.
  • done
  • Paleobiology:
  • "withstand the forces that appear during rearing": Maybe just "the stress of rearing"? I'm not sure, but I'm not fond of "the forces that appear". Forces don't just appear.
  • done
  • Another example of covering the same material repeatedly, if differently. " According to Currie and colleagues, Opisthocoelicaudia was probably the only sauropod present in the Nemegt Formation, with Nemegtosaurus constituting a probable synonym, making it unlikely that the tracks were left by another, similar titanosaur." You devote a subsection to the question of whether these are synonymous, then just hand-wave them as "probably synonym[s]" here.
  • I'm not sure with this one. Footprints never can be attributed to any specific dinosaur based on morphology alone. The only argument that these footprints belong to Opisthocoelicaudia is the absence of other sauropods from the formation. Thats the point of the sentence. The only repetition is "with Nemegtosaurus constituting a probable synonym", but this is necessary as not everybody will remember that Currie and colleagues favored the Synonymy hypothesis.
  • "so it was probably created by an adult, which would have been larger than the type specimen": Structure of this sentence implies a contrast (that is, it implies the holotype was not an adult). But the holotype was an old specimen...
  • done

Neutral on promotion at this time. I think there's the core of an FA-level article here, and I'm not quite willing to explicitly oppose promotion, but neither can I offer support as it stands at the time of this review. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comprehensive review. I will work my way through, and will ask you to have a second look when I'm done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Squeamish Ossifrage, many thanks again, your review has greatly improved the article! I have addressed everything now. Would you mind taking a second look? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A second look it is, then! In general, I think this article is much-improved. I have a handful of remaining quibbles after a second pass:

  • "digit bones (phalanges)": Still not fond of parenthetical glossing. Your mileage may vary.
  • done
  • "Foot skeletons of titanosaurs are rarely found.": I realize that this introduces the following sentences, but it's jarring to read, because, until you get to those sentences, it comes across as a non sequiteur. Perhaps there's a way to reword this without the full stop? I don't have an immediate suggestion.
  • done
  • Pipe a link for "derived" to
    derived trait
    , near the end of Description (you link it in the lead, but lead links don't count against body links for link duplication, and it's probably nice to have here; this section will be dense to a lay reader).
  • done
  • "Osteoderms have been found with 10 of the over 40 known titanosaur genera, bony plates covering the bodies of these animals.": Dangling modifier. Move the gloss adjacent to the term being glossed. Also, the word osteoderms appears four times in three sentences.
  • done
  • "10th and 23 June, 1965": Mismatched date formats.
  • done
  • I'd pipe a link to Valid name (zoology), probably from the first use of "invalid" at the top of Classifaction.
  • done
  • I'm still not happy with the "probably synonym" phrase as currently used in the Footprints section. I think a more robust rewording word help, making it clear that we're reporting on the researchers' opinion of synonymy here; it's far to easy to read that phrase in the encyclopedia's voice (basically, as reminder text, rather than attribution). Also, while I'm at it, "Currie and colleagues" is used twice in a paragraph, so there's probably a better way to format that in general.
  • done, reworded
  • I'm dubious about citing the pronunciation to a Youtube video. The IPA for most, if not all, FA-level dinosaur articles is uncited, so that's clearly been taken as acceptable. And the source provided doesn't appear to satisfy
    WP:RS
    .
  • done, moved it to "external links" (for the readers not familiar with IPA)

Moving to conditional support. I have full confidence that this will be ready for the bronze star by final evaluation time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all your comments, and your support! All fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Edwininlondon

Well-written interesting article. Just a few comments:

  • Taphonomy is only mentioned as a header, and linking headers is bad, but I bet we leave the average reader wondering what this means. Anything that can be done in the first sentence?
  • Done
  • "Footprints were unknown from the Nemegt Formation until 2003," may I suggest -> "Footprints were unknown until 2003,"
  • Done
  • Image selection is great. Ideally an image of the footprints to conclude. If they exist and have no rights issues.

Edwininlondon (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Edwininlondon! When we started with the article a year ago, we barely had any images at all, so we were quite lucky to get that many! We asked Commons user Adrian Grycuk to visit the museum to take pictures of the mount, and he did a fantastic job. FunkMonk drew a high-quality life reconstruction and found an additional pic on the internet. IJReid got OTRS permission for the professional skeletal drawing. And I did the posture diagram. We unfortunately cannot use images of the footprints because of copyright. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted professor Currie and he kindly sent me some of his own photos and granted permission to put in the public domain. I just uploaded the best one. If you like it, use it. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opisthocoelicaudia_footprint.JPG Edwininlondon (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, this is a really great addition to the article! I just added it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

... the possession of a neck of medium length of roughly five meters - any reason why this is not written abbreviated with imperial unit conversion?
  • done
I tweaked some stuff, just check if you're ok with it (rationales in edit summaries)
  • Great, thank you!

looking on-target. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas Liber, thanks for taking a look, let me know if you have any more comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am supporting now on comprehensivenessa and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images check: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The footprint image uploaded by Edwininlondon would need an OTRS[5] permission, though... FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think an OTRS is different than a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. That appears to be what he allowed it to be published under via email. LittleJerry (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS is just to prove that a given image has been released under any license, it is not a license itself. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm on it. LittleJerry (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Currie won't be at his email until Sep 21. LittleJerry (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image for now. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curries has confirmed the license via email. I have forwarded it to wikicommons. LittleJerry (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check from Cas Liber

Watch this space.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 8 should say what language it is in.

Otherwise refs look all consistently formatted.

Spot checking...

  • I can't see where in this reference it supports "While unique in titanosaurs, this feature can be found in several other unrelated sauropods, including Diplodocus and Euhelopus, where it evolved independently."
This is based on this part of the text: "In some sauropods, the cervical neural spines are bifid (i.e., having separate left and right metapophyses and a trough between them). This morphology appears to have evolved at least five times (in Mamenchisaurus, flagellicaudatans, Camarasaurus Cope, 1877, Euhelopodidae sensu D’Emic (2012) and Opisthocoelicaudia Borsuk-Bialynicka, 1977) with no apparent reversals." No question that Diplodocus is a flagellicaudatan, and Euhelopus is obviously a member of the Euhalopodidae. Is this to much interpretation? If so, we can just use Apatosaurus and Camarasaurus instead, which are explicitly mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, my bad. I was looking for the wrong keywords. all in order then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • material sourced to FN 16 faithful to source and not paraphrased (both cites checked).
  • FN 5 (and all the sentences it supports) checked - material faithful to source and no unnecessary paraphrasing remains (I tweaked one word..)

Thus, spot-checking of three sources (including one that was used 18 times) passes muster. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2015 [6].

Clinton Engineer Works

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Clinton Engineer Works, the Manhattan Project's largest facility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, noting that I've reviewed this previously (at ACR I think). One minor point is that I think the capitalisation is off slightly on the bibliography; I think the MOS would have "Oak Ridge National Laboratory: the first fifty years" as " Oak Ridge National Laboratory: The First Fifty Years". Hchc2009 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Comment: though I performed a copy edit, I do think the article cries out for further characterization of what life was like to live there both during and after the war. What were the community's secrecy standards? How compartmentalized were jobs and responsibilities? What percentage of workers were professional scientists vs. "worker bees", as well as women and minorities? And the big question: if they didn't know specifically the project they were working on before the atomic blast at Hiroshima, what did they believe they were involved in? And what was their reaction to that? Pride? Concern over radiation effects (hushed up after Hiroshima)? Much is unanswered.

I notice that the adjunct Oak Ridge, Tennessee article gives more space to the racial segregation issue, also to the notion that workers were in the dark before Hiroshima. We also get hints of a more democratic and/or autonomous community spirit arriving after the war. But here it gets short shrift: was there a resident-driven movement to break from socialism and government controls and heavy-handedness? How did these changes come about? Also, what kind of salaries and budgets did these households have, were they "captive spenders" in the government-constructed businesses, beholden to local health authorities, and why was life in general there fulfilling and/or wanting? The education question seems open, more unanswered than answered particularly given that at least some working there were highly-educated scientific types. Above all, I read this article mouth agape at the relatively-crude early nuclear technology, constantly wondering about long-term public health and nuclear contamination issues, wondering if there are statistical references (even anecdotes) which could be cited. The article seems a bit long-winded, particularly on the construction details, in light of these various social omissions—won't other readers have the same questions I do?

My copy edit didn't find big problems, but a couple of sentences seem cumbersome, e.g.: "In September 1942, Compton asked a physicist, Martin D. Whitaker, to form the nucleus of an operating staff for X-10." I'd avoid words like "nucleus" (and "core") to describe such groups, since they seem confusing in light of the overall scientific context.

I DO like the article, and if I sound over-critical it is in fact because I'm thoroughly intrigued. Just wish it were sprinkled with a little more humanity, for lack of a better word: a sense that people lived, worked, and grew up in a very odd and rarefied environment. From the sources, can we generate a little bit more of that? Thanks for all the good work — Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review.

  1. I'll see if I can dig up some statistics on the make up of the workplace. I can tell you that the majority were construction workers.
  2. The amount of information that workers had varied greatly, but most knew very little. The WACs at Los Alamos even had a song about it:
    We're on a secret mission / And secret work we do / We're not to tell folks what we know / But I don't know, do you?
    All I can do is give a description of the security, and provide anecdotes. There are some good ones in the article already; I particularly like the girl scout one.
  3. The major safety issues were not radioactivity, but the handling of toxic chemicals and high voltages. The Project actually compiled a good safety record, far in excess of that of private firms of the day. Radioactive hazards were generally taken lightly. Partly this was due to ignorance, but there was also a different concept of risk with a war on. The really scary stuff did not happen until after the war, but this is beyond the scope of the article. The concept of what was acceptable evolved. In the beginning, for example, the scientists assumed that no one would mind if a nuclear power station emitted less radioactivity that an equivalent coal-fired station. This proved to be not the case.
  4. I'm looking for another word beyond "nucleus" and "core". As a military type, "cadre" comes to mind, but I'm not sure how widely understood that is. For the record, "hutment" is used in many articles; the most significant is shanty town.
  5. The adjunct article does devote more space to the racial segregation issue, with some interesting stuff (mostly unsourced). I thought it would be enough to note that the township was segregated, as was customary in this period. I can add some more material.
  6. Finally, as to self-government, if the residents had had their way, Oak Ridge would still be a gated community run at the Federal government's expense. The motivation for forcing self government on Oak ridge, Hanford and Los Alamos was ideological, as it was seen as socialist, which was anathema to many American politicians, and became increasingly so as the Cold War set in. There was also a financial dimension, reducing costs, but this was also ideological in motivation, as vast sums were spent by the AEC through the 1950s.

I'll see what I can do. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Vesuvius Dogg: I have tried to address your concerns with new sections on "Personnel" and "The war ends", and have expanded the "post-war" section. Bear in mind that this article is about the installation during World War II, and is not a history of the city. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VERY happy with that! Your additions deftly reinforce a sense of community and give depth to the social/community contract. That memo, by the way, is fascinating! Good work and many thanks Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a small section on electric power. I had to remove the bit about 14% of the US's electric power. This comes from Nichol's autobiography (ghost-written), which embarrassed me on the Manhattan Project article. The claim has been refuted by recent scholarship. See [7] and [8]. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. (Note to self: I'm going to credit myself with a review for Milhist on this one, since there were a lot of additions.) These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like a co-nominator credit on an article, let me know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Has there been a source review for formatting and reliability? If not, please request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. --Laser brain (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or I'll do it. --Laser brain (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source check All sources appear reliable. I note the following with respect to formatting:

  • You are not consistent on D.C. vs. DC in the bibliography.
  • I didn't mind you not giving a state name for Knoxville or Urbana as the state name followed in the name of the publisher (U of X Press). However, even though the reader has just spent an article hearing about it, I think you should put a state name with Oak Ridge.
  • Thats it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review. I have implemented the suggested changes. I'm never sure about D.C. vs DC. We use the latter in Australian English. The former used to be mandated in U.S. (US?) English, but that is now dying, and Americans are switching over. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2015 [9].

Russian battleship Potemkin

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this nomination is famous for a film about a mutiny that took place aboard her in 1905, part of the Russian Revolution of that year. Sergei Eisenstein made his movie twenty years after the mutiny and it has been acclaimed as one of the greatest movies of all time, but the ship itself had an interesting history during World War I in the Black Sea. The article had a MilHist A-class review two years ago and that review pointed out that I needed to expand coverage of the ship in Eisenstein's film. I've finally done that and I've also taken the opportunity to tweak the article in response to comments that I received recently from some informal reviews in preparation for this FAC. But experience has shown me that something is always overlooked and I trust that reviewers will find any such infelicities as well as points that need to be clarified for non specialists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Panteleimon,_1906.jpg: when was this image first published and what is the author's date of death? Same with File:Panteleimon1906-1910.jpg
    • Place and date of publication unknown as is the name of the photographer. In McLaughlin's book the first one is credited to naval historian Boris Lemachko, but he didn't take the photo, just provided it. Will try to hunt down, but have added US tags.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Potemkin_mutiny_le_kniaz_potemkine-tauritchesski_a_constantza.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Given the publication date it is quite possible they did not. Also needs US PD tag
    • Tags updated.
  • File:Vintage_Potemkin.jpg: which of the listed criteria applies to this work? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: G'day, I reviewed at ACR a few years back and see that quite a bit of work has been done since then. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest cropping a couple of the images to remove the captions from the images themselves: "File:Leader of Potemkin revolt.jpg" and "File:Potemkin mutiny le kniaz potemkine-tauritchesski a constantza.jpg";
  • inconsistent: "She also mounted six 47-millimetre" (body) v. "6 × single 37 mm (1.5 in) guns" (infobox)
  • "On 13 April 1917 the ship was renamed Potemkin-Tavricheski (Russian: Потёмкин-Таврический) and then to Borets za svobodu (Russian: Борец за свободу – Freedom Fighter) on 11 May 1917": do we know why?
  • it looks like the article uses British English variation. As such, "theater" should be "theatre". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments looks pretty good. I wonder about the last section, it's not really the ship's legacy, but the mutiny's, but I guess you have to have it to satisfy the reader.

Lede
  • "which later came to be viewed as an initial step towards the Russian Revolution of 1917." I would strike "later". After all, logically, at least 12 years would have had to pass before it could be viewed as such.
  • "shortly after Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire in late 1914 during World War I" All these clauses! Surely they can be compacted. And, I note if you are using British English as set forth in review comments above, it is "the First World War".
  • Not necessarily, the Brits do use WWI, etc. so it's not a national usage thing.
  • " Turkish battlecruiser Yavuz Sultan Selim; Panteleimon" I would change the semicolon to a dash.
  • "before she could inflict any serious damage on the Russian ships" I don't think "on the Russian ships" adds anything.
Design
  • "an improved version of Tri Sviatitelia instead." I had to click to figure out that was a ship's name and a Russian one at that. Could you clue in the reader in-line?
Power
  • Was the output of the engines as stated per engine or for the pair?
  • The pair, that's why I used the phrase "total horsepower"
Armament
  • " other four were positioned at a corner of the superstructure" Not the same corner, surely.
  • I think I saw that arrangement in a cartoon once.
Protection
  • "citadel" link?
Mutiny
  • " the mutineers refused to land armed sailors that would bolster the striking revolutionaries' attempt to take over the city" perhaps simplify as "the mutineers refused to land armed sailors to help the striking revolutionaries take over the city"
  • The description of Potemkin meeting the other ships doesn't read clearly. For example, the ships turned away. Why? "ordered the ships back to Odessa" which ships? The only ship I am aware of that had been to Odessa recently was Potemkin. The others, it is at least implied, came from elsewhere.
  • No responsibility is assigned in the sources for the first three ships turning away.
  • You are inconsistent in your usage of the funny Romanian t in "Constanta"
WWI (see my comment about British usage)

Support - a nice piece of work, with only minor comments from me:

  • "On 27 June 1905, Potemkin was at gunnery practice near Tendra Island off the Ukrainian coast when many enlisted men refused to eat the borscht made from rotten meat partially infested with maggots when it was delivered to the warship by the Potemkin‍ '​s escort, the torpedo boat Ismail (No. 627)." - is there any chance of an extra comma for this sentence - it felt like quite a hard read.
    • Decided that the way that the meat got there really wasn't important.
  • "The battleship was easily refloated, "- who refloated it...?
  • "Ismail‍ '​s crew decided the following morning to return to Sevastopol and turn themselves in. Before the crew disembarked, " - I couldn't work out from this where the crew was disembarking or scuttling the ship (I'd assumed Sevatopol, but then the ship has to be towed there later).
  • "Panteleimon, flagship of the 1st Battleship Brigade, accompanied by the pre-dreadnoughts Evstafi, Ioann Zlatoust, and Tri Sviatitelia, covered the pre-dreadnought Rostislav while she bombarded Trebizond on the morning of 17 November 1914 after Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire. " - quite a long sentence - could it break somewhere in the middle? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk

  • Just watched the film, but wanted to wait until some more history-savvy reviewers had taken a look before I added any comments. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a date and location be added to the infobox picture? Likewise, could a date be added to the photo caption under mutiny?
  • "built for the Imperial Russian Navy's" only mentioned in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    • You're getting really far down into the weeds here. The Russian Black Sea Fleet is mentioned in the lede and the first para of the planning section; no reader will fail to make the connection.
  • "was a pre-dreadnought battleship" Likewise, should probably be mentioned early in the article outside the intro as well?
    • This one's quite a bit trickier as pre-dreadnought is a categorization applied after the fact as Dreadnought herself wasn't even designed until the year of the mutiny. She was only slightly obsolescent until more modern dreadnought-type battleships/battlecruisers were introduced into the Black Sea in 1914–15. I'm really not sure how to respond to your comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make more chronological sense to switch the position of the Panteleimon photo and the one next to the "later service" section?
  • "At some point during the war, her 75 mm guns were also removed." During what war? No war is mentioned until that point. I assume WW1?
    • Fair enough.
  • "and captured Ismail." Which is what? Not presented before this point (seems to be further down, but should be at first mention).
  • "to help the striking revolutionaries take over the city" Until this point, the article (outside the intro) has not mentioned that there was a revolution in Russia outside the mutiny. Could warrant a mention before for context.
  • There generally seems to be very little context for the 1905 mutiny placing it within the wider revolution, is it possible to add a bit more? Especially since there is no separate article about the mutiny, this one should give as much detail about it as possible (by this I mainly mean lacking in context).
    • There's not much more to add, really. The armed forces were mostly neutral during the 1905 revolution, with the exception of multiple mutinies in the Black Sea Fleet. As stated, these were organized by the Central Committee, although they were after Potemkin's, if memory served. So I'm not sure how much more I can add without losing focus on the ship.
  • Constanța is not linked at first mention in the article body, and it is not mentioned what country it is in either. Also, there is inconsistency in whether you spell it Constanța or Constanta.
    • Yeah, this goes back to which spelling to use, the English version or the Romanian. Generally I prefer to use the former, but I get people changing them to the native spelling. And wiki itself is schizophrenic about the topic, Cologne vs Köln, Munich vs München, but many other places use the native name rather than the perfectly acceptable English name. Good catch, though, on the inconsistency. And the country in which it lies is mentioned in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in what came to be known as the Battle of Cape Sarych" Against who?
  • "and several ships of the Turkish navy raided" Ottoman rather than Turkish by this point? There was no Turkish state.
  • "that destroyed 39 Turkish sailing ships." Likewise.
  • "The ship was renamed Panteleimon" Why, to disassociate it with the mutiny?
    • presumably, but my sources don't give a reason
  • "the ship was renamed Potemkin-Tavricheski" Why, to re-associate it with the mutiny? And what does the latter part mean?
  • "was scrapped beginning in 1923" Why, was it damaged or obsolete?
  • "The ship was relegated to secondary roles after the first dreadnought battleship entered service in late 1915. She was now obsolete and was reduced to reserve in 1918 in Sevastopol." Little of this detail is mentioned outside the intro.
  • "and cared nothing for Communism" Wording seems a bit too informal.
  • You there, Sturmvogel 66? FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose while waiting for reponses - I think a few of my suggestions are pretty serious, so would like some kind of response before this is passed. I have bolded the most important issues. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: @Sturmvogel 66: Outstanding remarks here for almost a week and you've been active on-wiki without responding—can you please respond with your status/intent? --Laser brain (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/spot check by Cas Liber

One book (Friedman) has 13 digit ISBN and all others have 10 digit ones...any reason...?
Books published before about '07 only have 10-digit ISBNs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The External Links all look good in that they add extra information and colour not available directly in the article, but should they be properly laid out with information like references maybe (rather than just title/links)?
In my experience, they're generally not handled that way, even at FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to the delegates then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, I sort of see you point, but not really. I slightly de-editorialised them, and they look fine? Ceoil (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you made look good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't view any of the books on googlebooks and all material is from offline. Will look at some web pages later.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2015 [10].

United States v. Washington

Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the U.S. District Court decision on American Indian treaty fishing rights in the state of Washington. Although a lower court decision, it is a landmark case that has been litigated for decades. I think that the article has been improved to feature status. GregJackP Boomer! 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Drip fed and at a snail's pace I'm afraid because of RL.

History of tribal fishing
  • There seems to be a bit of over linking with Great Britain and New York. I would think it reasonable to assume most people visiting the page would've heard of these.
  • "Other treaties with area tribes included the Treaty of Medicine Creek, the Treaty of Point Elliott, the Treaty of Neah Bay, and the Treaty of Point No Point. All of the treaties had similar language on the rights of the Indians to fish outside of the reservation. While the tribes were willing to part with their land, but all of the tribes insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout Washington and Oregon." -- Wow, that's a lot of use of the word "treaty". Would it not be better to pipe the links which would make for some smoother reading?
Post-treaty history
  • "The whites also began to use new techniques that prevented the majority of the salmon from reaching the tribal fishing areas." -- we use "majority" which would suggest we would know to the dot how many fish there were; do we? If not, maybe use "a lot" or an intensifier of some kind.
  • "In 1889, when Washington Territory, became a state, the legislature began to pass "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries." -- we wrap the "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries" in inverted commas, but omit to say who said this or who we are quoting?
  • "Within ten years, another case arose, this one dealing with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location." → "Within ten years, another case arose, which dealt with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location."
  • "These wheels prevented any significant number of salmon to pass the location." → "The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon to pass the location."
  • As nice as the images are, the text is very much sandwiched between the two. Can one be moved beneath the other?
  • "The local U.S. Attorney then filed suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe." → "The local U.S. Attorney then filed a suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe."
State attempts to regulate Indian fishing
  • "The United States immediately filed for a writ of habeas corpus" → We've said it was the Supreme Court now, so I'd stick to that rather than use "Untied States".
  • "Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion which said that the treaty did not prevent state..." If it's "the opinion", whose opinion was it? I'd say: "Justice William Douglas delivered his opinion that the treaty did not prevent state..."
  • "Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion..." → Was it usual to write an opinion rather than give it? Also, "the". Whose opinion?
U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
  • "...the states continued to arrest Indians for violations of state law... ." The states being United States? I would think a capitalisation is needed here if so. Also, seeing as it is a new section, I'd give the full name of the country.

I don't see any further issues; this, despite being a subject I know very little about, was very interesting. CassiantoTalk 18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


More soonest... CassiantoTalk 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cassianto
History of tribal fishing
  • There seems to be a bit of over linking with Great Britain and New York. I would think it reasonable to assume most people visiting the page would've heard of these.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other treaties with area tribes included the Treaty of Medicine Creek, the Treaty of Point Elliott, the Treaty of Neah Bay, and the Treaty of Point No Point. All of the treaties had similar language on the rights of the Indians to fish outside of the reservation. While the tribes were willing to part with their land, but all of the tribes insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout Washington and Oregon." -- Wow, that's a lot of use of the word "treaty". Would it not be better to pipe the links which would make for some smoother reading?
Done. Reworded, but take a look please, sometimes I don't get it right on reworking it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but I removed the definite articles which, I hope you agree, reads better. --CassiantoTalk 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. GregJackP Boomer! 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-treaty history
  • "The whites also began to use new techniques that prevented the majority of the salmon from reaching the tribal fishing areas." -- we use "majority" which would suggest we would know to the dot how many fish there were; do we? If not, maybe use "a lot" or an intensifier of some kind.
Done. Added parenthetical quote to cite. GregJackP Boomer! 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1889, when Washington Territory, became a state, the legislature began to pass "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries." -- we wrap the "laws to curtail tribal fishing in the name of 'conservation' but what some scholars described as being designed to protect white fisheries" in inverted commas, but omit to say who said this or who we are quoting?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within ten years, another case arose, this one dealing with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location." → "Within ten years, another case arose, which dealt with fishing rights at Celilo Falls, a traditional Indian fishing location."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These wheels prevented any significant number of salmon to pass the location." → "The wheels prevented a significant number of salmon to pass the location."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nice as the images are, the text is very much sandwiched between the two. Can one be moved beneath the other?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The local U.S. Attorney then filed suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe." → "The local U.S. Attorney then filed a suit to enforce the treaty rights of the tribe."
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
State attempts to regulate Indian fishing
  • "The United States immediately filed for a writ of habeas corpus" → We've said it was the Supreme Court now, so I'd stick to that rather than use "Untied States".
Not done. The United States government, as a party to the litigation, filed for the habeas. Clarified the language some, but left it as United States. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Justice William Douglas delivered the opinion which said that the treaty did not prevent state..." If it's "the opinion", whose opinion was it? I'd say: "Justice William Douglas delivered his opinion that the treaty did not prevent state..."
Not done. "Opinion" is a term of art, meaning the opinion of the Court as a whole. Clarified. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification is better, thanks. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Again, Justice Douglas wrote the opinion..." → Was it usual to write an opinion rather than give it? Also, "the". Whose opinion?
Clarified as the Court's opinion. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
  • "...the states continued to arrest Indians for violations of state law... ." The states being United States? I would think a capitalisation is needed here if so. Also, seeing as it is a new section, I'd give the full name of the country.
No, the states being Oregon and Washington. Clarified. GregJackP Boomer! 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, I think that addresses all of your issues. Thank you for reviewing the article and let me know if I missed something. GregJackP Boomer! 15:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support nomination to FA. Counter arguments are satisfactory and not enough to oppose. A nice article. CassiantoTalk 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceradon

I'll review this, but likely not before tomorrow. --ceradon 20:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court largely endorsed the decision in Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, which was a collateral attack on the decision." -- I have no idea what this is meant to say. It seems a bit contradictory. Could you clarify please?
Done, wikilinked collateral attack, explanatory footnote added, reworded prose. GregJackP Boomer! 18:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
History of tribal fishing
  • The tensage in this section alternates quite freely. "The American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest have long depended" -- "have" or "had"; "which allowed" -- "allowed" or "allows" (if it is "allows" the rest of the sentence would also need tweaking); "The salmon harvest for the Columbia River basin is estimated" -- "is estimated" or "was estimated"; "not only provided" -- "provided" or "provides"? See if I missed any.
Done, fixed, I think. GregJackP Boomer! 18:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
United States v. Taylor
  • "Frank Taylor" -- who is Frank Taylor? Preferably, something more than just "plaintiff" or "defendant".
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holding
  • "in common with" as the United States described it to the Tribes" -- I don't quite understand this. If "as the United States described it" is an
    appositive phrase
    , than I should be able to remove in with the remaining parts of the sentence making sense, but: "in common with" to the Tribes" makes no sense. Am I missing an important legal term or am I just way off. Please clarify.
Done. Wikilinked to tenancy in common section of Concurrent estate article, added explanatory footnote.GregJackP Boomer! 18:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Direct appeals
  • I moved fn 76 to the end of the sentence rather than leave it mid-sentence, with no cite at the end of the sentence. See if this is okay.
OK with me. GregJackP Boomer! 18:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Public response
  • "The decision caused an immediate reaction from the public." -- this is quite vague and could be tidied up, methinks. Was the immediate reaction positive or negative? Does "the public" constitute only citizens of Washington, or the entire country?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tribal developments
  • "but within ten years (1984)" -- I think this is unneededly repetitive. I think either: "but by 1984" or "but within ten years" should do.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 18:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

logical quotation punctuation, rather than American or British punctuation, to be used, in quotes. I corrected a few instances, but I think another search for ," and ." should be done to make sure none have slipped through. Cheers! --ceradon 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ceradon, I think everything has been addressed. Let me know if I missed something. I appreciate the review. GregJackP Boomer! 18:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sportsguy17

Same thing as Ceradon, but hopefully, I should be able to review this starting tomorrow. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Notecardforfree

Overall, this is an excellent article! I have no doubt that it is well on its way to achieving FA status. I went ahead and made a few copy edits to the article, and I have included some comments and suggestions here, most of which are fairly minor:

Citations to Case Names
  • Starting with the section for Tulee v. Washington, you include a footnote after the first mention of a case’s name in the article text. However, you don’t do this earlier in the article. In the section for United States v. Winans, for example, you write “another case arose, which dealt with . . .” and you don’t include a full citation after the comma. I would be consistent and always include a full citation to the case after the first mention of it in the article, even if you just call the case “another case” or if you write “the United States sued again.” I believe the Bluebook convention is to always include a full citation to a case name after it is first mentioned, so I would be sure to do that here as well.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • You write, “cases provided the Indians a right of easement through private property . . . .” In property law, we usually just say “provided an easement” rather than “provided a right of easement.” Therefore, I would change the sentence to say something like: “cases provided the Indians an easement through private property . . . .” or “cases provided the Indians a right of access through private property . . . .”
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • I would increase the size of images in this article (it looks like they are all set as “thumbs” right now). It is particularly difficult to discern the detail in the map of Washington State in the beginning of the article.
    MOS:IMAGES
    says that "Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart) may need larger sizes than usual to make them readable." Some of the other images (e.g. the picture of the fish wheel) have details that could be identified more easily if the pictures were larger.
Done. Increased to 300px. GregJackP Boomer! 21:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – the pictures look great! How would you feel about making the map of Washington a little bigger? I don't have the best eyesight, but it's hard for me to make out the details in the map. But you have definitely done a great job finding images that give the reader a good feel for the issued involved in the case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post-treaty history
  • You write, “as more and more white settlers came into the area, things began to change.” The phrase “things began to change” strikes me as a bit vague. Maybe you can say something like: “as more and more white settlers came into the area, the settlers began to infringe upon the fishing rights of the native tribes.”
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 22:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tulee v. Washington
  • When discussing the writ of habeas corpus, you said it was denied “on procedural grounds until Tulee had been tried in state court and exhausted his appeals.” However, I think it would be more accurate to say the writ was denied “because” (rather than “until”) he did not exhaust his state court remedies.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 22:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Puyallup cases
  • When you write out the case names in the text of the article, you need to spell out “department” in the case titles. Per BB R10.2, you only use T6 abbreviations in citation sentences or footnotes. Also, for your discussion of the third case (Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of Washington), I added a few details about why the case came about in the first place.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. District Court (Boldt decision)
  • You say the court heard “about fifty witnesses.” Do we know exactly how many? Also, in the section about the holding, can you include one more sentence that describes the formula Judge Boldt used to allocate 43% of the harvest (the “equitable adjustment”)? A reader who is unfamiliar with the opinion will likely be surprised to see the tribes didn’t receive 50% of the harvest.
I don't know exactly how many witnesses were heard and could not find any source that stated the number, other than the vague "about fifty" comment. I could probably find out if I did research on the records, but I'm not really inclined to do so due to time and costs involved. I added an explanatory footnote on the formula. GregJackP Boomer! 21:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. My hope was that the information would be easily accessible, but it's not worth going through so much trouble to find the answer to such an esoteric question. It's fine as it is written now. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Court Supervision
  • You write, “at least one Coast Guardsman was shot.” Should “Coast Guardsman” be capitalized? You also mention the “Boalt decision.” Do you mean the “Boldt” decision? I would also suggest moving the sentences about scholarly reaction to the following section about “public response.”
Done, reworded to "one member of the Coast Guard. . ." Fixed typo, moved sentences. GregJackP Boomer! 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any questions or if any of my comments don't make sense. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum -- Coverage of the Ninth Circuit Opinion
  • As other editors have stated, I think this article should include a section about the Ninth Circuit's opinion. At the moment, you mention in the "subsequent developments" section that there was a direct appeal. However, I think that this article should include an additional section devoted to discussing the Ninth Circuit's opinion. I would also recommend changing the infobox at the top of the article to the infobox for Ninth Circuit opinion, because that was the highest court to rule in this case. If you would like help adding a summary of of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, I am happy to offer assistance. Let me know what I can do! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree on the COA infobox. J. Choy's opinion was important, but the important issues were all decided at the district court level, and the case continued to have the district court to issue orders, as late as May 29th (United States v. Washington, No. C70-9213, Subproceding 89-3-09, 2015 WL 3451316 (W.D. Wash. May 29, 2015). The key in this case was the initial decision by J. Boldt, IMO. I'm willing to go with consensus of course. (I've put a copy of the COA infobox on the talkpage here). GregJackP Boomer! 03:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this case is one of those rare examples where the District Court opinion seems to be the focus of scholarship. I think the article makes that very clear by devoting almost all of the discussion to developments in the District Court. Nevertheless, I still think that the article should devote a paragraph or two to the direct appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and it is probably worth mentioning that the case continues to be litigated forty years later. The Ninth Circuit decision gave the case circuit-wide precedential effect, and the Ninth Circuit also did some not-insignificant fine-tuning of Judge Boldt's decision. For example, the Ninth Circuit clarified that equitable adjustment "should not take account of fish caught by non-Washington citizens outside the state's jurisdiction." 520 F.2d 676, 693 (9th Cir. 1975). I would be happy to write a paragraph or two about the Ninth Circuit's decision if that would be helpful or useful.
I also think that you should use the Ninth Circuit infobox that is currently on the talk page. It seems to be standard practice at Wikipedia to use the infobox of the highest court to consider a case, even if a lower court decision was more "significant" or "important" in the long term. One example that comes to mind is LACFCD v. NRDC, where the Ninth Circuit's opinion was much more important than the SCOTUS decision. Also, if you kept the District Court infobox, casual readers may incorrectly assume that the case only has precedential value in the Western District of Washington, when in reality the Ninth Circuit held the case has circuit-wide precedential effect. However, I definitely think you should leave the description of the case as the "Boldt decision" (in bold) in the lead, because that seems to be a common term that scholars use to describe the case. In any event, let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do some on it later, and I would really appreciate any help, such as you offered above. GregJackP Boomer! 16:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your flexibility with this. I will go ahead and type up a summary of the Ninth Circuit's opinion (in the direct appeal) and place it on the talk page of this FA review -- feel free to include or discard what you think may be useful. Best -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregJackP, I added a summary of the Ninth Circuit opinion (for the direct appeal) on this talk page. Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know what you think. GregJackP Boomer! 04:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks fantastic! You have my full support for promotion to FA status. Once again, you have helped improve our collective knowledge and understanding of an important moment in American legal history. If I could still change one thing, I still think you may want to experiment with picture size a bit. You may want to make the 300px pictures a little smaller and then make the map of Washington a little bigger. However, this is a very minor point for what is otherwise an excellent article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Anythingyouwant

I cannot recall offhand any other court decision that is named after the judge (as in "Boldt decision"). Does the Ninth Circuit's decision in this case fall within the title of this Wikipedia article but not within the term "Boldt decision"? See 520 F.2d at 693. If so, then I question whether "Boldt decision" should be in bold. If not, then I question whether it might be better for this article to be about the whole case rather than just the initial trial-stage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search of law review articles that cite to this case, and it looks like many scholars refer to the case as "the Boldt decision." See, e.g.:
  • "The tribes were not players until the Boldt decision, and the decisions that followed in its wake." You Win Some, You Lose Some: The Costs and Benefits of Litigation in Fishery Management, 7 Ocean & Coastal L.J. 5, 33 (2001).
  • "In the well known fishing rights litigation commonly known as the 'Boldt decision' (after the U.S. District Judge issuing the initial decision), the District Court for the Western District of Washington held that usual and accustomed fishing places of the tribes signing treaties with the United States in the 1850s were fishing locations where the tribes reserved, and their members currently possessed, the right to take fish." Rob Roy Smith, At a Complex Crossroads: Animal Law in Indian Country, 14 Animal L. 109, 122 (2007).
  • "The famous 'Boldt Decision' of 1974, was a major victory for the treaty tribes of Washington state" Matthew Deisen, State v. Jim: A New Era in Washington's Treatment of the Tribes?, 38 Am. Indian L. Rev. 101, 120 (2013-2014).
The Ninth Circuit also mentioned that the case is "commonly referred to as the "Boldt" decision." Anderson v. Evans, 371 F.3d 475, 499 (9th Cir. 2004). I do think, however, that the article should focus more on the appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Also, it might be worth including a reference in the lead to some of the sources that "commonly refer" to the case as the "Boldt decision." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Scope, "limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible. Since the primary purpose of the Wikipedia is to be a useful reference work, narrow article scopes are to be avoided." So I think this article should be about the whole case, not just the lowest court decision in the case. The cite to the Ninth Circuit decision ought to be right up there in the lead sentence.
Reliable sources often refer to "Kepler's Second Law" but there is not a separate Wikipedia article on that subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant, I agree that the Ninth Circuit's opinion deserves a more prominent place in this article. In fact, in my most recent comments (above), I suggested changing the infobox to the Ninth Circuit's infobox. Nevertheless, it appears that scholars refer to case (and it's subsequent appeal) as the "Boldt decision." Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the the Ninth Circuit affirmed the "Boldt decision," but I don't there is anything wrong with referring to the case as the "Boldt decision" in the lead. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to saying in the lead that the trial court decision is often called the "Boldt decision". But I don't think it should be in bold, because the article ought to be about the whole case, not just about the part of the case at the trial court.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason it is bolded is that the article focuses on primarily on the trial level decision, which is where the landmark part of the matter lies. As of Sept. 4, 2015, Westlaw shows a history of 143 decisions in this case, the latest on May 29, 2015. Almost all of those were at the district court level. Almost none of the law reviews focus on the appellate decisions, while they all mention those, they inevitably focus on the actions in J. Boldt's court. This is one of the very few decisions where the district court ruling was much more important than the appellate court rulings, IMO. I will, of course, go with what the consensus decides. GregJackP Boomer! 03:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by "Westlaw shows a history of 143 decisions in this case". You mean that the district court decision was cited in over a hundred other cases? That would not change the fact that this case included both a district court decision and an appeals court decision. Having the scope of this article cover both does not imply that one was more important than the other. Instead, it simply ensures that this Wikipedia article has a broad scope rather than a narrow scope. Feel free to say in the lead that other court cases have cited the district court decision in this case more than the appeals court decision in this case, if in fact that is true and supported by reliable sources. Is it true?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support changing the infobox at the top of the article to the infobox for Ninth Circuit opinion, because that was the highest court to rule in this case.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are 143 reported decisions in this one case, according to Westlaw. The original case (384 F.Supp. 312) has been cited by other cases, journals, etc., 979 times. The 143 reported decisions in this one matter is due to the on-going nature of the dispute and the fact that the state of Washington has not been able or willing to fully comply with the court's orders. It is sort of like how the desegregation cases in the south have lasted for decades. The latest decision, on clams, still uses the original cause number.
I'm very aware that the Ninth Circuit was the highest court to rule on this on direct appeal, but their opinion is not cited as often as the district court decision (only 804 times), and is almost always cited as a sidenote, like the SCOTUS declination of cert. in the case.
The notability, where the attention of the sources focus is on the District Court decision, not the COA. Like I said, I'll go with consensus, but this is really the exception to the rule that the important decision is at the COA, not the Dist. Ct. GregJackP Boomer! 04:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need a section on the Ninth Circuit decision. All you say is, "On June 4, 1975, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Boldt's decision and remanded it to his court for continuing jurisdiction." You don't say who wrote the opinion, who the other judges were, whether the decision was unanimous, whether the rationale was the same as the district court's, et cetera. Such information is absolutely needed. Moreover, making this article's scope about both the district court decision and the appeals court decision says absolutely nothing about which is more important; it simply broadens the scope. So, you need to put the appeals court cite in the opening sentence along with the district court cite. I also recommend this link. Here's a quote: "Although the tribes and the state developed a working relationship and cooperated on many aspects of fisheries management, salmon populations continued to decline in the 1990s. The primary reason for this, habitat degradation, had been addressed by Phase II of U.S. v. Washington, when Judge William H. Orrick, Jr. (1915-2003), ruled in 1980 that the treaty rights include the right to protect fisheries habitat." So how about a cite to Phase II, and a mention for Judge Orrick? The broader the scope of this Wikipedia article the better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll add some more info on it later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very close to supporting. But see section I in the article by Blumm and Swift. The whole section is about "Phase II" of this case, decided by Judge Orrick. So, I think Phase II ought to be mentioned somewhere here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Anythingyouwant, let me know if I need to do something more. GregJackP Boomer! 21:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent article, thanks for the edits. But please take another look at this sentence in the lead: "The case was decided by Judge Boldt of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington." At least the wikilink is redundant, and maybe other parts of that sentence too. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Atsme

The article is well on its way to meeting FA criteria with the adjustments mentioned above and a few more tweaks here and there.

The 3rd para in the lead is a bit confusing: On July 2, 1979, the Supreme Court largely endorsed the decision in Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass'n, which was a collateral attack on the decision. What was the decision? What was a collateral attack and on what decision?
Done. Explanatory footnote added, wikilinked, and reworded. GregJackP Boomer! 03:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the post treaty history could use a bit more information. There actually were conservation efforts in place by the late 1870s prior to Washington achieving statehood. See pg 415, [11]. There were seasonal closures and prohibitions for fishing gear that obstructed the upstream spawning migration of salmon.
Weirs which were customarily used by Indians were banned. -- Atsme📞📧 04:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion - maybe it's just me, but the terminology but as more and more white settlers came into the area, just doesn't seem as encyclopedic as but with the ever increasing movement of white settlers into the area, or possibly as the numbers of white settlers increased exponentially. Atsme📞📧 13:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, GregJackP. Atsme📞📧 06:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Jim

Fine article, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • right of easement—link at first occurence
  • half of the fish harvest… All of these had similar language—I don't know if it's an AE thing, but I'd omit "of" in these
  • The American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest have long depended on the salmon harvest, a resource which allowed these tribes to become the wealthiest North American tribes—Three "tribes" in one sentence, and two more in the next two sentences
  • In one of the first of these enforcement cases—either "first" if it is or "one of the earliest" if not
  • such as Sam Williams—"including", not "such as"
  • on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed the state to impose —replace second "state" by"it"
  • the states continued to arrest Indians—which states?
  • Gillneters—"Gillnetters"
  • Some, but not all, of your references have the author or title or both in small caps. I don't think this is consistent in your references or in accordance with MOS
Response
  • right of easement—link at first occurence
Done, verbiage changed to right of access (per comments above) and easement linked at (now) only occurrence. GregJackP Boomer! 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • half of the fish harvest… All of these had similar language—I don't know if it's an AE thing, but I'd omit "of" in these
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American Indian tribes of the Pacific Northwest have long depended on the salmon harvest, a resource which allowed these tribes to become the wealthiest North American tribes—Three "tribes" in one sentence, and two more in the next two sentences
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one of the first of these enforcement cases—either "first" if it is or "one of the earliest" if not
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as Sam Williams—"including", not "such as"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the grounds that the state's sovereignty allowed the state to impose —replace second "state" by"it"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the states continued to arrest Indians—which states?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gillneters—"Gillnetters"
Can you clarify? I think that this may have been changed before I got to your comment here. GregJackP Boomer! 04:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some, but not all, of your references have the author or title or both in small caps. I don't think this is consistent in your references or in accordance with MOS
I went back through the refs to double check, all of the book authors are in smallcaps, per
WP:CITEVAR. Do you have any footnotes that I can address specifically? GregJackP Boomer! 03:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You'll get no argument from me that Bluebook is an abomination, nor, for that matter, will most lawyers disagree. The problem I have is that I like Chicago and the rest even less. I would prefer (somewhat like Judge Posner) even less information, but until then I use Bluebook. Thank you for reviewing this and your support—I really appreciate it. GregJackP Boomer! 16:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

Comments leaning support, the usual nitpicks:

Lede
  • Can the first sentence be split?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may do well to combine the mentions of Boldt and Boldt decision in some way. Thus known as, or similar. I understand if this would move bold text too far down for you.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "While the tribes were willing to part with their land" Hmm. Were they actually willing? Maybe "While the tribes agreed to part with their land"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-treaty
  • How did the canneries infringe their fishing rights beyond what is later stated, preventing the catch from reaching them? The treaty said the tribes have the right to take fish, but so do non-Indian citizens.
I'm not sure what you are getting at here, all the canneries show is the growth of commercial fishing by whites. GregJackP Boomer! 21:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" they insisted on protecting their fishing rights throughout Washington and Oregon." time for me to be real picky here. At the time all these treaties were signed, neither Washington nor Oregon existed. In fact, both Washington Territory and Oregon Territory were at that time larger than the present-day states (I checked the relevant articles). So the link's a bit awkward. All four treaties mentioned involve Washington Territory. See comment below.
Done, reworded from the states to read Washington Territory. GregJackP Boomer! 01:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "obtained licenses from the state " I gather that at that location there are two. I'm not just being picky here, the whole subsection doesn't make it clear if it's Washington or Oregon, and you talked about protection of fishing rights before, so it's plausible it could be Oregon. The next section should also be clearer as to which court they sued in, as this happens in Oregon. Did the Washington treaties cover Oregon, or were there Oregon treaties at issue that you haven't mentioned? The bare mention in a footnote that the Oregon territorial governor negotiated treaties, and the Washington/Oregon matter mentioned above, might cause the reader to conclude there were analogous Oregon treaties. Maybe.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After being remanded to determine if the regulations were not discriminatory" strike "not"
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Puyallup I Possibly designate in parens following the case name which Puyallup this is, rather than the footnote.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to use a footnote to explain why the US Attorney is always suing people in these cases.
Done. Included statute and Handbook for Fed Indian law cites. GregJackP Boomer! 16:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Continuing jurisdiction" is going to need an explanation in some way, and we don't have an article.
Done. Added explanatory fn with definition from Black's. GregJackP Boomer! 16:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boldt
  • Can it be explained briefly what were the disputed points that the witnesses were testifying about? That Boldt found more credible.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 17:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subsequent
  • "Washington Attorney General Slade Gorton supported the position of the private concerns and opposed the position of the United States and the tribes" Do you mean he was their legal representative in court?
Done. Clarified. GregJackP Boomer! 21:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Court supervision
  • The only court order you've spoken of has no provisions cited that private persons could break. It's not clear what is causing all the ruckus. It is not clear what provisions are being so strongly enforced.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've clarified this area, as well as addressing all of the concerns, Wehwalt. Let me know if I need to add more or do something else. I appreciate your review on this article. GregJackP Boomer! 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this is ready to close. Is everyone happy with the rather odd-looking source formatting? Graham Beards (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,
WP:CITEVAR. In fact, it is the preferred citation style among legal scholars. One thing I recently discovered is that there is a United States Supreme Court case called United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181 (1977). At the moment, no article exists for the 1977 SCOTUS case, but we may want to rename this article (at some time in the future) to something like United States v. Washington (9th Cir. Case), United States v. Washington (W.D. Wash. 1974), or United States v. Washington (9th Cir. 1975). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes - see the following diff. It's a response from Nikkimaria to my question about this particular source formatting. Nikkimaria is one of WP's highly respected citation experts, [12]. Atsme📞📧 19:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2015 [13].

Diamonds Are Forever (novel)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds Are Forever was Ian Fleming's fourth novel, following Casino Royale, Live and Let Die and Moonraker, the last of which had not been published at the time he wrote this story. This nom follows a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I reviewed this article at PR a few weeks ago, and it was very well-written and presented then. Having re-read the article today I see that's even tighter now. I tried to dig up a few nit-picks, but I couldn't find anything except super minor stuff that probably comes down to preference anyway. I still think the "china eyes" quote is off-putting, and I'm not sure what value it brings to the article, but I accept that I might be misreading that as culturally insensitive when it really isn't. Nicely done, SchroCat! Keep up the great work! RO(talk) 21:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was always one of my favourite Bond books. Just a few quibbles:
Plot
  • I might mention that Sierra Leone was then a British colony.
  • It might well be mentioned that Bond won heavily while disobeying his instructions. It was his way of goading the other side into action, as I recall. I doubt they would have cared as much had he lost.
  • It is unclear what Franks has earned a fee for.
"Plot Inspirations" lower case the I, I think
Characters
  • "and realign her to a more honest lifestyle" I would cut the "re" in "realign"
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Suggest citing pagecount just so it's clear which edition this refers to, as pagination is quite variable
  • I don't think Goodreads could be considered a high-quality RS given that it's user-generated - is another source available?
  • Since AuthorHouse is a
    self-publisher, what makes that book a high-quality RS?. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A gentle reminder that you signed off on the source in a previous review. – SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I check a lot of sources and don't always remember responses - in those cases just a link to the previous review is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki – all sorted now. – SchroCat (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Another happy peer reviewer checking in. Little to quibble at then; nothing now (and Heaven knows I've tried) except for the infinitesimally minor point that there's a lot of tripping in the second sentence of "Plot inspirations". Sorry if I failed to spot that at PR. – Tim riley talk 16:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I didn't get to the PR, so this is my review – mainly prose trivia, but also a few issues relating to the plot (perhaps if I'd read the book I'd be clearer). I have made a few minor prose/punc changes myself. I don't see any problem in dealing with the following issues, and look forward to supporting in due course:

Lead
  • "the non-fiction book" → "his non-fiction book"
  • I have a pedant's aversion to "firstly" except i a sequence, e.g. firstly this, secondly that. thirdly the other, etc. Could you drop the "-ly"?
Plot
  • "Bond must travel as far as possible up the pipeline of smugglers..." has an inelegant, vaguely obscene feel. Think about it: perhaps "Bond must infiltrate the smugglers' pipeline" as an alternative?
  • Tiffany is described as a "go-between". Between who and who?
  • Second paragraph: some further clarification necessary. I assume that Bond is "earning his fee" by collecting his winnings after betting on a rigged horse race, but this is not immediately clear. Presumably Bond was complicit in Leiter's scheme to de-rig the race? Is "bribe" the right word to use in this context? Is it significant in any way that the thugs Wint and Hill are described as homosexual?
  • Sort of. It's one of the characterisations that made it through to the film (and is fairly well known because of it), and gives a bit of background for the information later on about the Boofy Gore naming. – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he disobeys his orders" – orders from whom?
  • "Bond re-routes the train to a side line..." Quite difficult to do, I'd have thought, when on board the train. And how did a crash result from this manouevre?
  • "for precaution" would be better as "as a precaution", but I'd be inclined to drop this phrase altogether.
  • Final paragraph: I'm a bit bemused as to why Tiffany has waited until now to tell Bond what's going on, as she's been assisting him for quite a while now.
  • Recommend rephrase to replace all the "woulds". Thus: "It begins in Africa where a dentist pays miners to smuggle diamonds to him in their mouths; he extracts the gems ... From there, the dentist takes the diamonds [to a] rendezvous with a German helicopter pilot. Eventually the diamonds go to Paris and then on to London. There ... Tiffany then meest a person to explain how to smuggle the diamonds to New York City".
  • Finally, what happens to the Bond-Tiffany relationship? Does it simply fizzle out?
Background and writing history
  • "he read a story in The Sunday Times..." followed by "He used the idea as a basis for the story..." It would be more accurate, I think, to rephrase the second part: "He considered this story as the possible basis for a new novel".
  • "New York state" – I think "state" should be "State", but ask an American.
  • There is a pipelink available for Books and Bookmen if you want it.
  • "Although Fleming provided no dates..." Suggest "provides"
Characters
  • " Bond falls in love with her, the first time he has done so since Vesper Lynd in Casino Royale" Delete "with her", or the sentence is ambiguous. Incidentally, you don't mention Bond and Tiffany falling in love in your plot summary, which is perhaps an omission.
  • "According to the literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek, Diamonds Are Forever, along with Goldfinger and The Man with the Golden Gun, has gangsters as antagonists, rather than as spies." Surely, this is a fact, not an opinion, which "according to" implies. You could say: "The literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek observes that..." or a similar formulation
  • "The writer Kingsley Amis, who later wrote a Bond novel..." You don't need "The writer" since you immediately cover this with "who later wrote"
Style
  • Confirm "interesting and musing" (not "amusing"?)
  • "Amis considers that while some of the changes in location are implausible, the novel is very tense in places." The two propositions (implausible locations and tension in places) are insufficiently connected to warrant a "while". Put another way, the degrees of tension in the novel are not related to the plausibility of the locations. I'd rephrase – or omit, as it adds very little.
Themes
  • The last part of the final quotation: "he, the American, takes orders from Bond, the Britisher, and that Bond is constantly doing better than he" does not parse properly.
Publication history
  • Aren't books "published" rather than "released", which applies more to films?

That's it! Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - leaning support, giving last read through tonight. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The main theme of Diamonds Are Forever is contained in the title and, according to Benson, used to contrast other, less permanent aspects, especially love and life I know I c/e'd this, but I'm still not getting it - the word permenent doest sit right, and it seems vague and shallow somehow.
    Let me have a think on this. I wasn't happy about the wording when I wrote (and re-wrote) it in the first place, but I'll see if I can do something more suitable. – SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Benson analyses Fleming's writing style and identified what he describes as the "Fleming Sweep": a stylistic point that sweeps the reader from one chapter to another using 'hooks' at the end of chapters to heighten tension and pull the reader into the next - sweeps seems to overstate; and I have read the novel, and yes it is a page turner; I just think this quote somehow understates the widespread prevelance of using hooks to move from chapter to chaper.
    The problem is that I've not seen any of the sources talking about hooks, but we do have Benson talking about the sweep. I actually think that Benson's "sweep" probably is talking about the use of hooks, but he's just described it differently! – SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It think its a bit ill informed and light weight honestly; maybe cut. Ceoil (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think I'll leave it in, but in a re-written form. – SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me, though I expetct the above to be adressed, and will be revistting on minor issues. Ceoil (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:28, 20 September 2015 [14].

Jeannette Expedition

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sad story of a failed expedition to find the North Pole by ship, following a supposed warm-water current through the polar ice cap. The current proved to be a fiction; the ship was crushed and sunk after nearly two years of largely aimless drifting in the pack ice, and only a third of the 33-man complement eventually reached safety. The discovery, years later, of relics from the Jeannette, floating on the ice thousands of miles from the sinking, inspired Fritdjof Nansen to undertake his famous Fram expedition. It's a while since I was engaged with polar history, so I hope the prose isn't too rusty; I am indebted to a stellar team of peer reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions, and especially to User:Finetooth for providing the map. Brianboulton (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had my say at the peer review, I'm satisfied with what took place there. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I struggled to find something to quibble at during the peer review, and can't find anything now. Brian B's temporary espousal of AmEng seems to my inexpert eye to be impeccable (and has the Wehwalt seal of approval). The article is beautifully written, widely cited, balanced and well illustrated. Clearly of FA quality – and strangely moving too. – Tim riley talk 21:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I took part in the peer review, and all my concerns were addressed. In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I made the linear expedition map using a base map and data tracked down and provided to me by Brian. Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Minor comments addressed at the peer review and the other reviews by my colleagues above have only strengthened the article further. Wonderful stuff! CassiantoTalk 23:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As above, found little fault with it during the peer review. A fine article and an enjoyable read.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere thanks to all the above for their contributions at peer review, which were particularly helpful. In the introductory blurb, above, I ought to have made a special mention of Wehwalt's guidance in the yankification of the prose (if that word is allowed). I hope it reads OK to transatlantic eyes. I am further grateful for the support and generous comments given above. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • As the PR was well-attended I tweaked a few of the references to bring them into line (all minor stuff) and I've added a subsequent tweak or two around the dates since then. The only addition I spotted on re-scanning this morning is that the incredibly minor point that you have "Hartford, CONN", but all the other states are written as "Boston, Mass" in lover case. The only additional thing I'd suggest is that the weblinks for the few websites you have are all archived to stop link rot - I'll get round to that shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be most grateful if you would do this, even more if you left a brief note on my talk page telling me how to go about it, so that in future I don't have to rely on others to do this useful task. Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done. - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

As noted by SchroCat above, the state abbreviation in the DeLong and Newcomb source needs to be restyled to match that in the other referenced works. Additionally, I do not believe Numismaster.com (citation #176) constitutes a reliable source. However, that's not really a problem, because it can be entirely replaced with:

"Medals for the Jeannette Expediton". The Army and Navy Journal. 30 (8): 117. October 15, 1892.

I find nothing else wrong with the referencing, and a cursory prose review was entirely satisfactory. No problems with image licensing and attribution (it helps when they're almost all PD-old!), although I do note that no alt text is provided. Conditional support on correction of those reference issues, but there's no reason this shouldn't get its bronze star. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information on the medals was added by another editor, more knowledgeable than me about numismatics. and I took his judgement that the Numismaster source was reliable. Yours is undoubtedly better, and I have changed to it. I have also standardised the US state abbreviations, as requested by SchroCat. Many thanks for your comments and for taking time to check out the images, and for your intention to support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose etc. A fine piece, interesting and informative. - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment: anything using PD-old also needs an indication of why the image is PD in the US - there are a few images that don't have this yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks: I have acted as follows:
  • Barentz map: I have replaced this with a much more useful one – Mercator's 1606 North Pole map, which is licenced by PD-Art
  • Petermann: The image was published in Illustrirte Zeitung in 1868. I have added the PD-US licence tag
  • St Michaels: This image was for decorative purposes only. Looking at it now, it doesn't appear to be all that decorative. I'm sure it is PD, but it's not worth the trouble of searching out the correct licencing tag, so I have deleted it from the article.

Please let me know if you think there are other licencing issues. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2015 [15].

The Triumph of Cleopatra

Nominator(s):  ‑ 
iridescent 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

iridescent 23:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Brief comment Article looks very nice, though I most likely won't conduct a detailed review because I am in no way familiar with the arts. However, I have noticed that your ISBN numbers need to be hyphened. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added hyphens since I have no strong opinions either way, but where has this "ISBN numbers need to be hyphened" idea that has recently started doing the rounds come from? This is not and never has been a requirement of anything—clicking through to
iridescent 09:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Not sure to be honest.... I have been noticing it a lot myself. I have been told to hyphen mine as well in the past, and I have seen a few editors here suggesting others to hyphen them. If it's not a requirement then my comment should be more of a suggestion. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a strong proponent of properly-hyphenated ISBNs, I'll weigh in here. Yes, Special:BookSources strips the hyphenation. No, that doesn't make the hyphenation irrelevant. Each grouping of numbers in an ISBN-13 conveys different information: prefix, registration group, registrant/publisher, title, check digit. It's more or less impossible to do this manually, because most of these components don't contain a fixed number of digits. In any case, it's very simple to pass ISBNs through conversion utilities to restore the proper hyphenation; it is not, strictly speaking, a FACR requirement, but there's very little reason not to implement the standard (and for some people, it can actually be useful). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a few very minor comments:

  • Lead
    • I suppose Port Sunlight is near Liverpool as the crow flies, but to us Scousers the Wirral is a far-off country of which we know nothing. It would feel more comfortable as "the Lady Lever Art Gallery, Merseyside".
      • I don't have any particularly strong opinions either way. I went with the "near Liverpool" formulation as something more likely to be understood by non-British readers—thanks to the Beatles and football, many people have at least a vague knowledge of where Liverpool is, whereas Merseyside or Wirral are likely to be fairly meaningless to the typical American, Australian etc reader. (The LLAG obviously don't object to being described as "Liverpool", given the prominent "Liverpool" branding on their website.) ‑ 
        iridescent 20:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]
Yes, they are part of "National Museums Liverpool", and are really pretty close as the Mondeo drives. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its elevation. – Tim riley talk 13:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first image does not appear to have relevance to the section. The caption does, but the image itself is not a reference to the caption being used, it is purely decorative to use the image if it is not linked specifically to the caption. The image used is just an example of the artists flesh tone work. Also many of the images interfere with formatting causing the section titles to severely off on my monitor at 1920x1080. I suggest loosing the first image: Male Nude with Staff (1814–16). " and checking placement for formatting.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Up to the usual high standards. No quibbles except another forlorn protest against false titles, which aren't compulsory even in American, and are not part of correct British English. Also I don't like & don't trust taking RPI or CPI back that far - from the same sources 500gn was almost 10x "Average Annual Nominal Earnings" in 1880, which would give an equivalent value today over £200,000, rather than the £47K given. That would be a more realistic figure I think. Unless my mental arithmatic is wrong. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did think long and hard about whether CPI was an appropriate measure for this series. My thinking was that yes, it is—I see the key element as "did picture sales provide Etty with enough income to eat?", for which I consider CPI the most relevant of the indices. Once I've used CPI for Etty's own sales, it would look jarring to switch to RPI or average earnings for the later resales. The figures are all intentionally rounded to prevent them being too accurate. (I consider Average Nominal Earnings a meaningless measure when it comes to the early 19th century; Britain contained so many apprentices, indentured servants and sharecroppers who were to all practical purposes unpaid, that "average pay" is a meaningless term. The only other way of giving meaningful relative values while avoiding CPI/RPI is to give the price of comparable things—"£100, the cost of a two-bedroomed house in Manchester" or similar.) ‑ 
    iridescent 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2015 [16].

Coinage Act of 1873

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a seemingly innocuous piece of rather specialized legislation that turned into a major political controversy (think as divisive as say, abortion, today) that divided the nation through much of the rest of the 19th century. I'd like to express my appreciation to Godot13 for supplying wonderful images and to Brianboulton, the peer reviewer.Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

That's fixed. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP

Comments, leaning support.

Disambiguation
  • Greenbacks, in Background section is wikilinked to dab page.
External links
  • No bad links.

I'll do more later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fixed. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • You end the lead at 1900 and the gold standard. I'm not a currency or coinage guy, but haven't we abandoned the gold standard too? That should be addressed if we are going past the 1873 act to the 1900 act, etc.
We have. The reason for going past the 1873 act was to address the controversy it caused. The 1900 act, and McKinley's re-election that year, ended the controversy, politically. I'm hesitant to discuss a century or so of economic history here. It seemed a reasonable end point for context.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just a comment on the "U.S. abandoned the gold standard in 19xx..." or something? As it stands, it appears that we are still on the gold standard. GregJackP Boomer! 20:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Silver dollar should be wikilinked here, rather than further down in the article.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • I'm not clear on the use of the Cross of Gold speech (1896) in the background section, it seems to me to be better suited later in the article, as the speech was a response to the gold standard of the 1873 act. I would think that it would be more appropriate in the Aftermath section.
I often link it to the Background section of that article, where there's a discussion of monetary standards. That's the purpose in linking it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. GregJackP Boomer! 20:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half dollar should be wikilinked here, rather than further down in the article.
  • You repeatedly mention the bimetalic standard, but it's not really explained. A couple of lines will help readers, such as myself, who don't understand the difference.
I've added something. The problem is, it's not within people's common experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inception
  • Transition between the first and second paragraph is rough, seemingly jumping from one subject to another. In addition, they seem to be out of chronological order.
I've reversed those paragraphs.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consideration and passage
  • Dime and quarter should be wikilinked here, rather than further down in the article.

More later. GregJackP Boomer! 03:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intent of the bill's authors
  • No comment, other than to reiterate the above comment on bimetalism.
Provisions
Bureau of the Mint; duties of officers (§§1–12)
  • Awkwardly worded first sentence. "Although there had been a Director of the Mint since its origin, his office was at the Philadelphia Mint, with the other mints and assay offices governed by superintendents subordinate to the Mint Director." Maybe: "The Director of the Mint's office had always been at the Philadelphia Mint, with the other mints and assay offices governed by superintendents subordinate to the Director." Or something. I know I'm not the best wordsmith here, so feel free to change my suggestion.
Adopted with very slight modification.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coins and deposit of bullion (§§13–39)
  • Is there a reason that the two images of the 2-cent and 3-cent coins do not have a border? All the rest of the images have borders.
Limitations of the image software that won't take several crops in a stack.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Testing and the Assay Commission (§§40–50)
  • No comment.
Criminal offenses and miscellaneous provisions (§§51–67)
  • No comment.

More later. GregJackP Boomer! 19:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath
Later reaction
  • No comment.
"Crime of '73"
  • No comment.
Notes
  • Note "a" needs a period at the end of the sentence.
It's not a sentence, so no period. At least that's how I do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done article. GregJackP Boomer! 20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think I've hit everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great article, and I've moved to support the promotion to FA. GregJackP Boomer! 16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks indeed for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the bit about the gold standard, GregJackP. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Coemgenus

I made some comments at peer review that were resolved there, but I'll give it a second reading and see if anything else jumps out at me. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background
  • I'm not sure you need the hatnote. The explanation here is as good as the one you did at that article.
Axed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be good to mention that the reason base metal coins aren't hoarded is that, lacking in precious metal, they only had value because the government says so. After so many years of fiat money, many readers may not grasp that point without explanation.
Inserted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the greenbacks sentence, it might help to add that they were needed to finance the war because of the unprecedented outlays required then. That would help readers understand why they became unnecessary at the war's end.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "pursuant to Gresham's Law", I'd say "as predicted by Gresham's Law".
This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inception
  • First sentence of the last paragraph: I think where you say supersede, you might be more accurate to say "repeal". Supersede overlaps with "rewrite" otherwise, doesn't it?
This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
  • Do any of your sources explain why the San Francisco mint didn't coin pennies or nickels? That seems like an odd practice, considering the long-standing shortages there.
They would likely not have been accepted until the turn of the century because of the hard-money prejudice. The mints that weren't Philadelphia were, prior to this, limited by statute to coining silver and gold, since that is really why they were set up, to turn hard-to-deal with bullion into money. Knox in his report and the 1873 act keep the prohibition but go about it a different way: require that the metal for the minor coinage be paid for by an annual appropriation and only give it to Philadelphia. So there was no money to strike minor coinage anyplace else but Philadelphia. The limitation to Philadelphia really isn't discussed in his report, what they are doing is tightening up on the Mint's pursestrings, which were very lax at one time. The bullion fund was the source of repeated complaints by Mint Directors and Congress kept increasing it. They started complaining in the 1890s I think about the limitation to Philadelphia, now that base metal coins were more accepted and there were things like the penny arcade, yet coins had to be shipped across the continent. Congress repealed the limitation in 1906. I think it would be tedious to tell the reader any subset of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. Yes, I think that is beyond the scope of this article. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that starts "Although some, known as Greenbackers..." is kind of awkward. Since greenbacks became a fringe issue after resumption, I'd focus on the silver-gold debate and truncate the first part of that sentence up to the word "support".
This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crime of '73
  • Instead of "long-lived", "accepted as fact" or "an article of faith" might read better.
This is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco

  • The gold standard was explicitly enacted into law in 1900, and was finally completely abandoned in 1971. - Why "finally"? I don't see what it adds.
  • Having a dollar be defined in terms of two different metals is called bimetallism. - This strikes me as jarring. Perhaps it could be worked into the flow of the article a bit better (also, and this is nitpicking, having the value of any monetary unit determined by two different metals would be bimetallism, rather than just the dollar)
Virtually everyone alive has never experienced anything but some form of fiat money system. It's difficult to describe a standard-based system, and it's difficult to comprehend. I've taken another shot at it.
  • The 1873 act moved his office to Washington, where he supervised the new Bureau of the Mint. - Why use the male pronoun here?
At the time, there had not been a female Mint Director. If you feel some other phrasing would be wiser, feel free to propose it.
Looks fine to me. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mint of the United States had originally reported directly to the president but over time legislation had made it subject to control by the Treasury Secretary. - perhaps specify that this is de facto subject to control
Full control in the areas specified by legislation, so it was at least somewhat de jure.
  • an Assayer, a Melter and Refiner, and a Coiner; - if these are used as general nouns, why the capitals?
They are titles of office, and if lower cased, they could lead to confusion.
I've taken another stab at it.
I'm afraid I'll never be able to think about Congressman Bland the same way. Thanks for the review. I will work through your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks again. All done or responded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

I've tried and failed to find something to grumble at. The best I can manage is to say that in my view "millions of dollars worth of silver bullion" could do with a possessive apostrophe after "dollars", though I know that some grammarians admit the construction without one. Trying even harder, I see both "demonitization" and "demonetization", but the former is within a quotation, and is no doubt what the original author wrote. I'm throwing in the towel and supporting. – Tim riley talk 12:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed. The quotation is accurate, I just checked it. And I think the apostrophe is to be avoided there, personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sturvogel_66

  • Fair number of duplicate links.
  • Mint Director James Pollard submitted the bill to Congress on April 25, 1870. What does this mean? AFAIK, only Congressmen and Senators can introduce bills.
    • I kinda figured that Sherman was acting for the Administration in introducing the bill, but I just wanted clarification.
  • Why did Sherman vote against his own bill?
  • That's all I've got, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using
this script which shows them in Consideration and passage, Coins and deposit of bullion (§§13–39), Testing and the Assay Commission (§§40–50) sections. The script doesn't test duplicate links in the infobox or lede, only in the main body. Pity about no info on Sherman, though; would have been nice to get into the nitty-gritty of the politics of the period even more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The sources are probably looking at the same congressional documents I did. I've delinked. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Reviewed in detail at peer review. Above comments and fixes noted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Requested a source review—please let me know if there's one I've missed. --Laser brain (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources review: The Friedman article should be removed from "Further reading", as it is a cited source. Otherwise, all sources are of appropriate quality and reliability, and all citations are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that ... I've made that cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2015 [17].

Typhoon Omar

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a power typhoon that most people haven't heard of or care about, but it was interesting to write about! Read about the damage on Guam (which is part of the US) and how people coped from such a big disaster. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jason Rees

  • It was the 15th tropical depression, the 15th named storm, and the 9th typhoon of the 1992 Pacific typhoon season. – Not a fan of including the tropical depression stage since we are missing JMA TDs from the season and even if you are to include it does TS Ekeka not count as a tropical depression and a named storm of the 1992 season?
  • It formed on August 23 from the monsoon trough across the western Pacific Ocean while several other storms were active – I thought systems formed within the monsoon trough?
  • Basically synonymous. I can change if you want though. 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference 1 does not contain the name Luming and I wonder why its needed since the name Luming is mentioned and referenced below?
  • The policy says Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. There was a problem recently with one of the WPTC editors questioning about the PAGASA names, so I thought I'd put it up top first and foremost. It was an editor decision. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Reference 2 a reference and not a note?
  • The first paragraph is either cited back to the JMA BT or not cited at all.
  • You state: The origin of Typhoon Omar was from a tropical disturbance exhibiting persistent thunderstorm activity, that was first noted east of Kiribati on August 20. The JTWC BT available here shows the first position as 6.6N, 173.3E or just east of the Marshall Islands not Kiribati.
  • Although it was fostered in conditions suitable for tropical cyclogenesis, - The word fostered does not sit well with me, would suggest situated.
  • However, the two storms spread farther apart, allowing a ridge to develop between them. – whats a ridge?
  • At 0600 UTC on August 27, the JTWC designated the system as a typhoon, - I don’t agree that it was designated a typhoon more classified.
  • developing an eye – Random.
  • You mention JTWC upgrading to a typhoon but not JMA
  • Omar began to rapidly intensify on August 28. – did it really per both JMA and JTWC?
  • Anything in the Darwin Diagnostic statements for Omar in the August and September 1992? And what about the Mariners Weather Log Volume 37 (1993) Issue 1 Pg 40
  • Nothing major about the Darwin statements. The current MH is approachable without being too difficult to understand, and I feel anything that's not there from the Darwin statement is gonna make it more confusing. I don't have access to the Mariners Weather Log, but I doubt it would have much extra. That's mostly useful when a storm becomes extratropical and it affects Alaska. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two days later, the storm came close enough to the Philippines to warrant monitoring activities from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, who assigned the storm with the local name Lusing – I do not like the wording you use here and would prefer something along the lines of PAGASA named the storm Lusing
  • Over land, Omar quickly degenerated into a tropical depression before turning to the west-southwest. It moved through southern China as a weak system, dissipating entirely on September 9 over northern Vietnam – Can you not combine these sentences since the JMA classified it as a tropical depression right up till dissipation.
  • Your references need some consistency in particular
  • Reference 3 and 4 the author of both is the RSMC Tokyo – Typhoon Center, you state 1 was published in February 2001 and the other was published on 1992-12-25. For Reference 4, I would prefer you to be specific and cite exactly which system it is that you are referencing or change the date of publication since the BT for 1995 etc was not published before it happened.
  • But Omar's BT was done as of 12-25 in 1992, per the best track. That is useful information to the audience, when the information was actually created. The other is just a generic reference saying JMA is the RSMC that I could've gotten from any time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 5 and 6 – Either the author is the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre or the publisher is, while you could state that the website is the National Oceanography Portal I don’t think its worth it.
  • While im here isn’t Ref 1 and Ref 21 the same and it would be good to see some of the links webcited imo.
  • Ref 30 looks like it should be a book citation and not a report citation.

Comments by Edwininlondon

Interesting article and readable prose. Just a few things:

  • in the impact session, I'd rather see the information about casulties come sooner. It now comes as an afterthought that 11 people dies in the Philippines. Same for the other countries. People before dollars damage.
  • I totally agree with what you said, only I thought about it in a different way. I put the casualties at the end to cap off the impact section. Typically, with tropical cyclone articles, we begin with meteorological statistics, then move onto their effects. Most meteorology papers are similar, where they save the summary for the end. I moved the Philippine deaths earlier in the paragraph though. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the area, the typhoon destroyed 393 houses and damaged another 145, affecting 171,603 people,[19] leaving 1,965 people homeless" this puzzled me. The 171,603 seems excessively high as a consequence of 538 homes damaged/destroyed.

Edwininlondon (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yea, that's kind of a useless statistic. I'm still not sure exactly what "affected" means when reports say the storm affected X people. Perhaps it's the population across the typhoon's wind field, I'm not sure. Either way, I removed it, to focus more on the damaged/destroyed houses and homeless. Thanks for reviewing, btw :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cyclonebiskit

Resolved comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another very well written article, Hink. An engaging read for sure, but I have concerns over some of the content in the meteorological history (which I know was written by TheAustinMan), as well as some other comments. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments – I've made a few tweaks here and there and added alt text to the images. Please double check these to make sure they jive with the article appropriately.
  • General note about the usage of "damages" – Although the root word "damage" implies impact or harm, the plural noun "damages" is generally used in reference to legal compensation. I would have changed it myself, but I notice it often in your writing and felt it best to try and break this habit ;)
  • In the lead you mention the JTWC, written out, and mention the acronym used for it; however, you do the same in the meteorological history alongside adding a note explaining what the agency is. Wouldn't the note better served at the first mention of the agency overall? Additionally, since the acronym is already mentioned, it doesn't need to be written out again in the met. history.
  • Good call, I moved the note to the lead. As for writing it out, I'm not sure - I opted on the side of caution, as it is a pretty important part of the article, and it's possible someone might miss it in the lead. I know I don't always read the lead of an article first (sometimes I skim it). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In lead: On Guam, Omar caused $457 million in damage (1992 USD) and one death. – Is the (1992 USD) necessary given that there's a note immediately following since sentence stating all currencies are in 1992 values? If you opt to keep it, I'd suggest moving it to right after "million".
  • In the met. history: ...and thus provide favorable atmospheric conditions over the disturbance. – The report doesn't actually indicate that atmospheric conditions were favorable over the disturbance. It states that a "major synoptic pattern readjustment" (p. 80) took place and the disturbance became more organized.
  • In the met. history: Although it was fostered in conditions suitable for tropical cyclogenesis, outflow from nearby Tropical Storm Polly sheared the system and slowed intensification. – The first part of this sentence contradicts the second part and as with the above comment, is not stated in the report. The JTWC report states, "After Omar was upgraded to a tropical storm on the warning at 250000Z, the rate of intensification decreased due to upper tropospheric wind shear from the extensive outflow of Polly (16W), which was also intensifying." It would also be helpful to note what direction Polly was from Omar (west-northwest).
  • In the met. history: However, the two storms spread farther apart, allowing a ridge to develop between them. – This is not included in Omar's report (which is the citation used to source this statement). I did find it in Polly's report on page 89, however, so a new citation is necessary to accurately source the content.
  • In the met. history: At 0600 UTC on August 27, the JTWC designated the system as a typhoon, as the storm developed an eye. – The JTWC Best Track (which oddly is not used throughout the article) shows that Omar reached typhoon intensity at 00:00 UTC. Additionally, the report (p. 80) states, "Gale force sustained winds began to buffet Guam at 272300Z about the time that a visible eye appeared on satellite imagery." This indicates the storm was upgraded before an eye formed, not as it formed. The NCDC citation used to source the eye formation also states, "A small 'eye' was discernible by the evening of the 27th". At best (but breaching
    WP:OR
    ), this would indicate formation of an eye around 06:00 UTC as Guam is 10 hours ahead of UTC. It's best to clearly state that the upgrade to typhoon came before clear formation of an eye and then add when the eye was noted per the ATCR.
  • Note for met. history: the JTWC report indicates the size of the eye as it passed over Guam on page 84, useful information that should be added into the article.
  • In the met. history: The storm crossed the body of water and made a final landfall near Xiamen, Fujian – Technically not the final landfall according to the JMA (and CMA). The system briefly emerged over the Gulf of Tonkin on September 8 and moved back inland southeast of Hanoi, Vietnam later that day.
  • OK, I changed it to "another landfall". Do you think it's worth adding the Gulf of Tonkin bit? It was a minimal disturbance at that point, and I don't want to extend the MH unnecessarily (the important part was when it dissipated). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Guam section: The highest rainfall was 460 mm (18 in) in Taguac. – The tropical cyclone point maxima list by David Roth indicates a peak of 20.44 inches at the Guam WSMO.
  • In the Elsewhere section: The highest wind gust was 72 km/h (45 mph) on Yonaguni. – The prose reads as if you're referring to the island of Yonaguni but the link directs you to the town of Yonaguni which is on the island. Which one is it?
  • Pending on how the above comment is addressed, references to the Japanese islands should either be "[Island Name]-jima" or "[Island name] Island". The articles are haphazard as to whether or not "-jima" is included in their title so it's easy to have this happen by accident.
  • In the Aftermath section: After the storm, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) opened up Disaster Assistance Centers... – any particular reason "Disaster Assistance Centers" is capitalized?

Comments from Hylian Auree

Some comments - Fairly good. I am currently giving the article a quick copy-edit to resolve prose-related issues. Below are some concerns I ran into during the process:

  • In the second paragraph of the lead, you mention Omar was a "large typhoon" when describing its impact. However, this is never mentioned in either the first paragraph or the met history, which is supposed to discuss its meteorological characteristics.
  • That's loosely based off the quote in the impact section - "more powerful than Polly and it can induce monsoon rains over a wide area". It's a bit of a stretch, I admit, so I removed the "large" bit and rejiggered that bit to "While passing well to the north of the Philippines". Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Minor, but what does mentioning that other storms were active when it formed add to the lead? Seems borderline trivial. You mention its interaction with a "nearby system" (vague terminology), but IMO you could drop the first part and just explicate that the nearby system was indeed another tropical cyclone.
  • I thought it made it more engaging, especially how the various storms set up the general pattern. However, I changed it per your suggestion. Things I find interesting definitely don't apply to the outside reader :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why an "unofficial" super typhoon? There's a hat note but it doesn't make it clearer at all—in fact, as a layman to West Pacific typhoons, it further confuses me.
  • The JMA doesn't use super typhoon status, only the JTWC does. Over the years, I've gotten enough harping from some users (*cough* Jason Rees *cough*) to de-emphasize JTWC in favor of the other warning centers. I moved where the hat note is to explain the bit about sustained winds over 1 or 10 minutes. Should I add a note that the JTWC is American-based and the JMA is the official RSMC earlier? I say that in the MH, but I could do it earlier. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)#[reply]
  • It's not so much the distinction between the 1- and 10-min winds that's unclear, rather the usage of the word "unofficial". Unofficial in what sense? Is a super typhoon designation something that is unique to the JTWC, not recognized by other agencies? If so, consider something more explicit along the lines of "making it a super typhoon according to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center" (for a lack of better wording atm). Auree ★★ 20:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "west Pacific basin" pipe-linked to "Pacific typhoon" (which further redirects to simply "Typhoon")??? Moreover, "the basin saw the dissipation" is distinctly odd phrasing.
  • The basin's article used to be at "Pacific typhoon", similarly that the parent article for Atlantic hurricanes is at Atlantic hurricane. However, as the WPAC is the only basin to use "typhoon", it redirects there. That article covers climatology related to the basin, as well as general statistics. I thought the writing was clever there, not that odd, but I changed it to something simpler. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe briefly explain what the monsoon trough is, to clarify why it would be able to realign to a climatologically more appropriate position.
  • You give a location estimate for where it became a depression according to the JTWC; is there any estimate from the JMA?
  • Prose-related, but a major one: "Tracking generally westward, the JTWC upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Omar on August 25,[2] with the JMA indicating such a change the day after.[4] Omar began to slow as it tracked westward." - dangling particle and redundancy. Not what I'd expect from a FAC. I amended the first part, but the redundancy remains to be solved.
  • I'm not happy with the introduction of the term convection without a wiki-link in the second paragraph, while "thunderstorm activity" is pipe-linked to the article on convection earlier when the two are not synonymous weather phenomena.
  • Maybe briefly explain what PAGASA is? I get that the full name is rather lengthy, but I don't think dumping in a new acronym suffices, even with its wikilink.

This is it for now. I read and copy-edited up till the preparations and impact section. Auree ★★ 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from the impact section...

  • You mention all but two US Navy ships were sortied at the COR 2, but later mention that at COR 1, "ships" were either evacuated or secured. Were these different, non Navy ships? It's not very clear at the moment.
  • "
    United States civil defense
    " isn't a department but is currently used as such (ordered). Is this supposed to be the Department of Defense (which is mentioned earlier)?
  • I'm not sure about this one, but "tourism areas" → "tourist areas"? Google prefers the latter.

Overall not as much to nitpick here. Auree ★★ 10:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, style and comprehensiveness, with the caveat that I am currently cleaning up the citation formatting. All my above comments have been adequately addressed. Well done, Hurricanehink! (One more minor quibble in Aftermath: "although water access was expected to be restored within a few days of the storm." Was it?) Auree ★★ 00:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2015 [18].

Pitfour estate

Nominator(s):
SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

In its hey-day, the Pitfour estate stretched across 50 square miles of northeast

SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments Support from edwininlondon

Happy with revisions. Thank you. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Interesting article. Generally good prose and good illustrations. A few comments:[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Support An excellent article which meets FA criteria. Just some minor points:

♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support Comments from Tim riley

This is a most pleasing piece, and it seems to me to have the makings of a Featured Article. A few comments before I sign on the dotted line:

Nothing earth-shattering there. I'll look in again in a few days to see how matters progress. Tim riley talk 21:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2015 [19].

Too Much Too Soon (album)

Nominator(s):
talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

This article is about the second album by American rock band the

talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Cassianto

Resolved comments from Cassianto (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "Although it was praised by critics, the band was not satisfied" – were all the members dissatisfied? If so, the plural would be better here.
Done.
talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The first subsequently here is redundant and clashes with the second subsequently (also a bit pointless) later on.
Removed.
talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • WP:OVERLINK
    of NYC.
Unlinked in the body.
talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Recording and production

  • "The New York Dolls recorded Too Much Too Soon with Morton at A&R Studios in New York City. The album was later mastered at Sterling Sound and Masterdisk. During the sessions, he had Johansen..." – whose he?
Morton. Added.
talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Up to here. I've been copy editing as I've gone, feel free to disagree with any of it. CassiantoTalk 07:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm fine with your changes, just "earlier records" because those were songs they either only demoed or played live, not put on record yet; I don't know if a demo would qualify as a "record", so I changed it to the general "earlier songs".
talk) 08:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Release and promotion

  • Looks good.

Critical reception

  • Looks good

Legacy and influence

  • Looks good

Support this to FA. It is well researched, nicely written and comprehensive. CassiantoTalk 07:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fru1tbat

Track listing
  • On my (wide) screen, the track listings for the two album sides render at very different widths (due to the rating box in the previous section overflowing into this section and limiting the width of the "side one" table). It looks untidy like this - the Writer and Length columns don't line up at all. Can something be done to address this (and maintain portability)?

Nothing else jumped out at me, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @
talk) 17:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review
I fixed the first issue. The second has to do with how the citation templates are formatted. For some reason,
talk) 02:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that's by-design, as the |issue= parameter expects an issue number, not a date, but you could ask at Help talk:Citation Style 1 - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A thought occurs: putting the full date in the |date=parameter (instead of splitting it between |year= and |issue=) would resolve the formatting discrepancy - Evad37 [talk] 03:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Not all the sources have known month and days, only years, and all the references are author-year. I was kind of advised to do it this way in past FACs, like
talk) 05:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

No other issues that I can see - Evad37 [talk] 02:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added locations and expanded the publisher name.
talk) 03:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

Resolved comments from Wikipedian Penguin (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional oppose—I am finding basic grammatical errors in the prose. In addition, there is redundancy and awkward phrasing. With that said, I am willing to withdraw my oppose once all my concerns have been addressed.

Lead

  • "The group was dissatisfied with the sound of their 1973 self-titled debut album, which led frontman David Johansen to enlist veteran producer Shadow Morton for Too Much Too Soon."—awkward use of "which", which is strictly used to refer to the noun preceding the comma, but not here. Perhaps "The group's dissatisfaction with the sound of their 1973 self-titled debut album led frontman...".
That seems like a mouthful though. How about "so" instead of "which", as in "The group was dissatisfied with the sound of their 1973 self-titled debut album, so frontman David Johansen enlisted..."
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The word "enthused" is far too inaccessible to be considered plain, elegant English. How about "motivated"?
Sure. Done.
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "...as a personal challenge" is vague and unclear.
I disagree. The music industry wasn't satisfying him anymore, so he wanted to challenge himself.
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I think removing the word "personal" removes some of the vagueness as "personal challenge" can often mean illness, injury, etc. What do you think? Feel free to argue otherwise. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that makes sense. Done @
talk) 23:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "... while Morton incorporated a large amount of studio sound effects and female backing vocals in his production."—"amount" should be "number", but the entire phrase can be condensed to "many".
Done.
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "acclaimed" comes off as too strong a word when there were a few noteworthy negative reviews of the album.
How about "Acclaimed by most critics"?
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough, though I would have used "praised" or "favoured", although they may be too mild for this album's reception in particular. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "He was also more familiar with New York City..."—I don't understand the importance of this point.
Understood. Removed it.
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "... and wanted to challenge himself with the band"—awkward, unprofessional wording.
Would this be better: "...wanted to challenge himself by producing the band's second album"
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Perfect. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production

  • "... incorporated sounds effects such as gongs, gunshots, and feminine choruses to the songs."—should be "in the songs".
Done.
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "... journalist Lenny Kaye wrote at the time that "they're [were] taking more time [than they had on their debut album], bringing in occasional strings and horns"—removals are in strikes and additions are in italics
revised it to "...wrote that they were taking more time than they had on their first record, 'bringing in...'"
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "... while Johansen was fond of Morton and the 'looser' feel he provided their music on Too Much Too Soon"—need "for" after "provided". And I don't think "on Too Much Too Soon" is necessary here.
Done.
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "... and had to record both cover songs and re-record some of the band's earlier songs in order to complete Too Much Too Soon"—the placement of "both" here indicates that it is modifying "record", so "re-record" is unneeded and incorrect.
Understood, removed.
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "They also recorded demos of two songs written by guitarist Sylvain Sylvain, 'Teenage News' and 'Too Much Too Soon', before working with Morton..."—since this was before their work with Morton, it should be "They had also recorded".
Done.
talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
More coming. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

  • "album of hard rock" -> "hard rock album"?
Done.
talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Music journalist Nina Antonia critiqued that because of the band's 'untamable wildness'..."—use of "critiqued" here is awkward. How about "wrote" or "commented"?
Sure.
talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "...the songs still sounded eccentric in spite of attempts by Morton to 'polish' their sound..."—"in spite of" can be condensed down to "despite".
Okay.
talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "...such as subduing their otherwise unrefined guitar playing."—missing "by" before "subduing".
Done.
talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "...Archie Bell's 1969 hit 'There's Gonna Be a Showdown'..."—if it were a hit wouldn't it have a Wikipedia article. Was it really a "hit"?
It's a 50 year old single by a soul singer, so doubtful lol. According to the book by Gimarc cited here it was, as well as All Music Guide to Soul
talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "On the novelty cover songs, Johansen impersonates different characters such as the high-stepper in 'Showdown' and Charlie Chan in 'Bad Detective', whose nonsensical narrative is set in China."—removal in strikes; furthermore, I'd say it's best to use the full song name for "Showdown" here, since it's the first instance the track is mentioned.
Done.
talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "'Stranded in the Jungle' suggested a theme of 'clashing cultures and the dilemma of preserving one's uniqueness while reaching out to others'."—"suggested" should be present tense.
Done.
talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Do not link inside quotations, as per the Manual of Style. For the French quote, I suppose you can provide the English translation in parentheses instead.
MOS says to avoid doing so "as much as possible", not necessarily to avoid it always.
talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "in a way similar to" -> "similarly to"?
Ok.
talk) 04:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I added "On 'Who Are the Mystery Girls?', he scolds those who misuse love by wanting to 'kick it on the floor' and 'beat it like a scatter rug'. Other than that, not really.
talk) 04:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Release and promotion

  • The current caption of the music sample does not sufficiently explain why the snippet is useful for understanding the subject. Samples are meant to illustrate the sound of a song, so you should focus on that.
Understood. I've looked at Antonia's book and added more, particularly from this page, discussing how the singles were more polished studio version of previously unrefined live concert staples for the band.
talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Likewise, in the file page of the sound sample, Joe Gross's quote is described as referring to "Stranded in the Jungle", but in the article, it is used as a general quote to describe the album as a whole.
Ditto.
talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Much of Jon Savage's quote can easily be paraphrased and as a result we can avoid linking inside the quotes.
Done.
talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "For its front cover, the group eschewed the drag image of their first album in favor of a fake concert shot."—why is it noteworthy that they eschewed the drag image of their first album? It's obvious that they wouldn't reuse the cover of a previous album; who does?
They had a reputation in general for wearing drag on-stage. Clarified.
talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Too Much Too Soon was another commercial failure for the New York Dolls, as it only charted at number 167 on the Billboard 200."—I never brought this up when it appeared in the lead, but that seems like a very subjective assertion, because No. 167 on the Billboard 200 can be interpreted as a success as well.
I assume Gimarc took into consideration factors like the record label, money put into the Dolls by the label, and expectations. Other sources seemed to say the same ([21]), and I've never heard of that low position being interpreted as success tbh. I'll add the source from the link in this comment.
talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "It ultimately sold less than 100,000 copies."—"ultimately" here is redundant, as is "of them" in "...but neither of them charted".
Removed.
talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I added Hermes' source to clarify all the band members had drinking problems, and previous parts of the article make note of specific drug addictions (Kane and alcohol, Nolan and Thunders with heroin, etc.), so I think the reader will get the point. They all led to conflicts among band members. None of the sources specify what those conflicts were but it doesn't leave much to the imagination considering the problems they had. I specified "hard drugs" to avoid getting into whether alcohol is a drug or not.
talk) 04:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Alcohol's classification as a soft drug is debatable. Why not simply "addictions to alcohol and other drugs"? The Wikipedian Penguin 14:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.
talk) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Would "...songs the band had performed more rowdily in concert" be better?
talk) 17:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

  • "Too Much Too Soon was acclaimed by music critics upon its release."—(1) see above RE "acclaimed" (2) "music" is redundant, as what other kinds of critics would typically review a music album? (3) linking not needed (4) archaic use of the word "upon"; perhaps remove the "upon its release" expression altogether?
Ok.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Creem magazine's Robert Christgau said the polished sound reproduction retains their raw qualities..."—the use of "retains" here sounds strange for some reason. I would have used something like "maintains" or "preserves". Also, the use of "their" is ambiguous. Maybe "the band's"?
Done.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Robert Christgau is already mentioned and linked above. Unlink here and remove first name.
Done.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Robert Hilburn, writing in the Los Angeles Times, argued it is a markedly better-produced album..."—ambiguous "it", and "markedly" is barely crossing POV boundaries.
Replaced with album title, removed "markedly".
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Ron Ross from Phonograph Record magazine said the group's 'easy going ironic sensibility' is expressed 'far more amusingly and accessibly [here]' than on their debut."—debut what? Album I'm assuming.
Added "debut album".
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Some reviewers were critical of Too Much Too Soon for what they felt was an insufficient and overproduced sound."—what is an "insufficient ... sound"?
The source called it "underdone" to be exact. I replaced it with "poorly recorded".
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Richard Cromelin of the Los Angeles Times included Too Much Too Soon on his list of favorite records from the decade..."—awkward to use "on his list" with "included". I suggest "in his list".
Ok.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Legacy and influence

  • "Along with the New York Dolls' debut, Too Much Too Soon became among the most popular cult albums in rock music."—debut what?
"Debut" is also used as a noun, short for "Debut album". I'll add "self-titled debut" so "album" is repeated in this sentence.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That doesn't disambiguate the term because for all we know, it could be short for debut single, and their debut single was eponymous. I'd suggest just using the album title itself. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "When it was reissued by Mercury in 1987, Don McLeese of the Chicago Sun-Times wrote that Morton's production highlighted the New York Dolls' sense of humor and was rendered 'in vivid detail' by the CD reissue, but felt the album was still marred by inconsistent material and rated it lower than their first album."—awkward repetition of "reissue" and "album".
Replaced "reissue" with "remaster", split into two sentences.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The first paragraph is borderline
    WP:QUOTEFARM
    .
I reduced the quoted material.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You can keep "instant classic", as paraphrasing that to "masterpiece" is a bit far. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.
talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "He believed that, although Johansen's best original songs are on the debut"—also, first comma is not necessary.
Done.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "That same year..."
Done.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

See also

Done.
talk) 01:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
For the timeline link, it would be wise to note that Too Much Too Soon is included in the list. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Second read—additional comments before concluding review.

Why not?
talk) 19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Everyone knows New York City; it just seems like
WP:OVERLINK IMO. The Wikipedian Penguin 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, done.
talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Dan, after reviewing
    WP:PEACOCK
    term and agree with this. Can we use a milder alternative?
I don't think that's the point of WP:PEACOCK, to address the tone or strength of words ("milder" for instance) because I've used "acclaim" in numerous other FA and GA articles where a number of sources backed that word up. WP:PEACOCK also lists "
talk) 19:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Good point and I am satisfied with the change. The Wikipedian Penguin 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Babylon', 'Who Are the Mystery Girls?', 'It's Too Late', and 'Human Being' were first recorded by the band in March 1973 as demos for Mercury."—was this before they enlisted Morton? If so, it should be "...had been recorded by the band...". Also, what is meant by "for Mercury"?
Added "had". Demos often function as previews of a band for a record label.
talk) 19:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "They had also recorded demos of two songs written by guitarist Sylvain Sylvain, "Teenage News" and "Too Much Too Soon", before working with Morton, but neither were ultimately considered for the album."—"ultimately considered for" -> "included on"?
The songs were given consideration.
talk) 19:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Sylvain recalled confronting a hasty Morton about the decision..."—by decision, do you mean dropping "Teenage News" and "Too Much Too Soon" from the album? If so, then "this decision" would be clearer.
No, the decision to not even consider them for the album.
talk) 19:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, that's what I meant. Yes, "this decision" would be clearer. The Wikipedian Penguin 20:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More coming. The Wikipedian Penguin 18:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
talk) 22:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "Thunders held a doll in his arm as if to strike it against his guitar to add an element of shock value."—I think "an element of" is just added fluff and could be removed to tighten the prose.
Done.
talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "It was marred by cancelled shows and escalating addictions to alcohol and other drugs that led to conflicts between the band members."—sentence needs to be slightly redrawn because right now, it could be interpreted as the drugs leading to conflicts, not the addictions to the drugs. Minor point, but important for unambiguous and clear prose.
Rephrased: "It was marred by cancelled shows and conflicts between the band members stemming from their escalating addictions to alcohol and other drugs."
talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • the group's "easy going ironic sensibility" is expressed 'far more amusingly and accessibly [here]' than on their debut album."—words in brackets at the end of quotes can just go outside the quotes.
Done.
talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Around the time of its reissue. I replaced it with "in a review of its reissue".
talk) 23:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I made a mention of Morton incorporating additional feminine vocals, which ties into Gross' point about background choruses.
talk) 16:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • A few of the band members in the portrait face to the right, so I think it'd be best to have the image positioned on the left side of the article. The way it is now, there's an ugly amount of white space turning up on my screen.
That may have been from the "clear" template, which I've removed. Do you still see white space?
talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't, but the positioning of the image is still against MOS. Shift it to the left, and bring the quote box over to the right. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced it.
talk) 23:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Done.
talk) 22:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Support—a very well-presented, well-researched account of the album. I did not check sourcing, so a spotcheck should be in order. As for my review, you can leave it, collapse it, move it to the talk page, whatever the FAC coordinators allow. Good luck. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby I think you should call the band just "the Dolls" every now and then. It's pretty much standard practice when writing about bands (as you can see from the various quotes in the article).—indopug (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems kind of informal though for an encyclopedic article.
talk) 15:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, if it's good enough for Encyclopaedia Britannica...—indopug (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JM

This strikes me as a really well done article. Just a few smaller comments...

  • I think you're missing the mark a bit when you talk about recording demos. The band weren't recording demos, they were recording songs that they had originally produced as demos. The song exists independently of the demo.
I had originally worded it as "re-recorded demos" before one of the reviewers suggested changing it. I'll restore it.
talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I don't really understand what you mean by Morton being "hasty"
In a rush; reworded it.
talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "On the novelty cover songs, Johansen impersonates characters such as the high-stepper in "(There's Gonna Be A) Showdown" and Charlie Chan in "Bad Detective", whose nonsensical narrative is set in China." I'm struggling to understand this sentence
Reworded to "which has lyrics describing a nonsensical narrative..."
talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • In the last paragraph of the "Music and lyrics" section, there seems to be a tense shift- do you want to talk about what the songs feature in the present tense or the past tense?
Corrected.
talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I'm not keen on your annotations in the see also section.
They were suggested by another reviewer. Would you prefer it if I removed them?
talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Could you expand a little on "Anon. (1985). "All Time Top 100 Albums". Sounds (London)." ? Volume/issue/pages/url? "Willis, Ellen (1974). "Rock, Etc.". The New Yorker 50 (April 1)." is also a little light.
I have no other information on Sounds. I originally got the info from
talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm wondering if you've got the right issue for The New Yorker. See here, for instance. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Three small stylistic comments to have a think on- first, there are a lot of false titles (something I've only just learnt about!), second, there seems to be a tiny bit of inconsistency on whether you capitalise the "The" in band names (see: "The Olympics") and third, I think there is good reason to favour "s's" in the case of belongs-to-singular when the singular word ends in s (so, I would favour " Thunders's " over " Thunders' "). I certainty wouldn't oppose over any of these things, but these are some bits to think about.
I'm in favor of false titles since I'm an American speaker and saying "the" before "American hard rock band the New York Dolls" would sound funny to me lol. I have fixed "the Olympics". I revised it to "Thunders's"
talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

The sources are very good. For me, this is an excellent article- a great example of how to write about popular music. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!
talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Are there any other issues to resolve @
talk) 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Support. I'm so sorry I forgot about this. An excellent example of how to write about popular music. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • ref 1 (New York Dolls signed to Mercury and poor sales for debut album)–confirmed
  • ref 3 (session with Paul Nelson)–confirmed
  • ref 6–accurate statement
  • ref 14–according to the review
  • ref 19 (The New Yorker)–accurate cite
  • ref 21 (Spin alt guide)–accurate cite
  • ref 29 ("Human Being" lyrics)–confirmed
  • ref 31–accurate quote
  • ref 32 (number 167 on the charts)–correct
  • ref 36 (two festivals they played)–per source
  • ref 42 (Phonograph Record quote)–only found the Contemporary Musicians book (p.106), but it's there
  • ref 44 (Circus)-accurate quote
  • ref 50 (Christgau)–accurate quotes
  • ref 53 (cult album)–confirmed, first paragraph from Allmusic bio
  • ref 54–all in source, but it's slightly unusual how you combined the critic's various descriptions.
  • ref 55 ("instant classic")–confirmed
The article has plenty of quoted text, so I had no problems locating it on Google Books. I see no false sourcing here.--Retrohead (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 15:22, 12 September 2015.

Moonraker (novel)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker was Ian Fleming's third novel, following Casino Royale and Live and Let Die, the latter of which had not been published at the time he wrote this story. A high-quality cast turned up for PR following a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support – I was among the peer reviewers, and found very little to quibble about then, and am having even more trouble finding anything now, but here's one: the pictures could do with Alt-text. Perhaps the repetition of "British" in the first line could be avoided by changing "the British author" to "the English author". That's all I can offer. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. This is shaping up into a formidable series of top-notch articles on the Bond canon. Tim riley talk 10:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

Comments from West Virginian (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately defines the novel, establishes the novel's necessary context, and explains why the novel is otherwise notable.
  • The info box for the novel is beautifully formatted and its content is sourced within the prose of the text and by the references cited therein.
  • The image of the novel has adequate Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free book cover and has the non-free book cover template attached.
  • All images included in this article should probably include alt captions per
    Wikipedia:Alternative text for images
    , although this is merely a suggestion and is not mandatory for FA status.
  • The lede is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Plot

  • The plot is masterfully written, and I have no comments or questions for this section.

Background and writing history

  • The image of the V-2 rocket is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 de and is therefore acceptable for use in this article.
  • In the paragraph regarding the title, the second mention of George Wren Howard can probably be shortened to Howard, as he's the only Howard mention in the article.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, consists of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no further comments or questions for this section.

Development and Style

  • These sections are well-written, consist of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for these sections.

Themes

Publication and reception and Adaptations

  • These sections are well-written, consist of content that is adequately sourced and verifiable, and I have no comments or questions for these sections.
  • Support -- with just one comment:
  • "Drax was physically abnormal—as many of Bond's later adversaries were[37]—and is..." -- Would it be usual for the citation to come after the punctuation? I honestly am not sure about this because "Drax was physically abnormal—as many of Bond's later adversaries were—[37] and is..." doesn't look quite right either! CassiantoTalk 17:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comments re prose. From the lead
bearing a cover based on Fleming's own concept - bearing is officious; "concept" of what?
Uniquely for a Bond novel, the story is set entirely in Britain. - no explanation
caught cheating - CC - alliteration
destroying London with a nuclear weapon - coy
Suddenly "South African radio in 1956" which is not lead worthy. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but If you are going to oppose, you do need to give some explanation: what on earth, for example, is" CC"? I also mildly disagree with your edits on the lead so far, and one or two of your comments here, but with such scant justification here, I'm afraid there is little I am prepared to do without you actually explaining the rationale for your opinion. – SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being perfectly clear; the writing is disjointed and the tone muddled. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit Ceoil, I too am puzzled over the briefly written comments. The nominator isn't asking for War and Peace, just a little elaboration. CassiantoTalk 20:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I'm afraid you're not being at all clear. I have given one clear question for you to explain, but you have refused. I've further questioned the individual points in the hope you can bring some clarity to your thoughts. I'm also going to put back the information you removed from the lead, as I'm not sure your edits were an improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If ye both dont see problems with the passages I have highlighted, then thats the problem, and my oppose stands. Maybe ask for a copyeditor to run through for wording and coheriance. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame; I'm an admirer of your work and I expected better. CassiantoTalk 20:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Three experienced editors went through this at PR, and with my writing it works out at about 150 FAs between us. We're not novices at this and not utterly stupid. What I am not, however, is a flaming mind reader! If you do not care to enlighten us with the wisdom of your thoughts, the delegates will take that into account when assessing the article. I'm happy to work with most reviewers, but not those who don't wish to take the rather basic step of explaining specifics. I'll happily work with you to further improve the article, but you do have to explain a little more. – SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ceoil's "CC" is meant to indicate that "caught cheating" is an alliteration, though of course it isn't. Ceoil's other comments seem to me inexplicable. I agree with Cassianto that this is disappointing in an editor of whom one has hitherto entertained a good opinion. Tim riley talk 21:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that I'm not being clear and it seams a little cranky and blunt. Thats not fair. Let me read through again, help, and try an articulate the problem I'm seeing - I would like the article to succeed. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great - many thanks. – SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, Ceoil's specific examples are surely confusing, but I see where he is coming from and like most of his edits. (I don't care for paperback release as the third sentence, for example.) Some things I noted:
    • The lead is short, and a bit stuttery. The plot is not summarized so well (at all?) in the lead before we are told that something "was added" to the plot; I am to understand that the first half of the book is about a bridge game. Not sure if that's accurate. The part about being set completely in Britain could be a lead-in to summary of the plot.
    • the fourth to star Roger Moore although the story for the film was significantly changed from the novel to include excursions into space is rough and "although" is not appropriate
    • the re-emergence of Nazism, Soviet communism and the "threat from within"—this part reads like a list of three things but "the threat from within" is relative to communism, I assume?, so clearer wording would make the connection between the last two obvious. If they aren't related, then my question is "threat from what?".
    • for information on the Second World War German resistance force, the Werewolves and German V-2 rockets—basically I'd make the same argument here that I made in the previous entry (The Werevolves are the resistance force, or another thing in a list? A comma could solve that.)
    • to discuss the traits of megalomaniacs; Strauss lent him the book Men of Genius, which provided the link between the condition and childhood thumb-sucking—lack of proper referent: megalomaniacs are people, so what does "the condition" strictly refer to
    • Fleming owned a cottage in St Margaret's at Cliffe, near Dover, and he went to great lengths to get details right, including lending his car to his stepson to time the journey from London to Deal for the car chase passage—I don't know how these two things relate to each other. In general, when I see the word "and" I see an opportunity to provide clearer transitions or to rearrange sentences and clauses for clarity
    • and combination of Boodles and the Portland Club—is an article (the, a) missing here?
    • used further aspects of his private life in the shape of his friends—maybe it's dialect difference but "in the shape of" is confusing where I live
    • She gives Bond the proper coordinates to redirect the gyros—"She" is not clear (enough) and in my area "proper coordinates to redirect the gyros" is easier as "[Brand gives Bond] coordinates that will redirect the gyros"
    • The Scotland Yard superintendent, Ronnie Vallance, made up from that of Ronald Howe,—Vallance is made up from something of Howe?
    • This was largely modelled on Fleming's own lifestyle, although the journalist and writer Matthew Parker sees this as showing a sourness in Fleming's character. Again, "although" does not seem to be contrasting anything, and I don't entirely know what that clause means. It sounds interesting but needs unravelling to mean anything to the average reader. "This" is often an opportunity to re-assert what you are referring to. It's not clear in this example, in context.
    • the perceived reserve shown by Brand to Bond was not down to frigidity, but to her engagement to fellow police officer.—"down to" may be another dialect thing? Obviously I can figure out what it means, but it sounds slangy if I assume it's proper English somewhere. "A" fellow police officer?
    • and for the first time in the series he is shown outside a work setting. It is never explained how he received or could afford his membership at Blades—if Blades is the example of M being portrayed outside work, there is an opportunity for smoother transition. For example, M is another character who is more fully realised than in the previous novels. For the first time he is shown outside a work setting, [doing something] at the Blades club. It is never explained how he received or could afford his membership there, ... This change gets rid of the "and"-avoidance theme I mentioned earlier.
    • on M's salary his membership of the club would have been puzzling, given reference in the 1963 book On Her Majesty's Secret Service it is revealed that M's pay as head of the Secret Service is £6,500 a year—this is very unwieldy to me—my only hope of turning it into a sentence is to assume "given" means "given that", but it turns out that doesn't fix anything.
    • a stylistic point—I don't understand. "A technique"?
    • at the end of chapters to heighten tension and pull the reader into the next—"chapters" ought to be singular since "the next" contrasts with "[the previous] chapter"
    • that leads the uncovering of a greater incident—"leads to"?
    • the card game acts an "introduction ..."
    • As with Le Chiffre in Casino Royale and Mr. Big in Live and Let Die, Moonraker involved the idea of the "traitor within".—Here, Moonraker is a story being compared to two characters
    • Directed by Lewis Gilbert and produced by Albert R. Broccoli; —comma instead?
    • and so Bond "becomes something more than a cardboard figure" than he had been in the previous two novels—doesn't scan—more than [the] cardboard figure" that he had been"?

I largely skipped a section a two... I won't revisit my comments here, but I hope feedback is better than just S/O or silence. I wanted to mention the items, some more significant than others, that interfered with my reading experience. Regards, Riggr Mortis (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments

  • the re-emergence of Nazism, Soviet communism - The collocation implies that Soviet communism would re-emerge, when in fact it was still going strong when the book was written
  • Why include "Commander" in the lead?
  • kills Bond and Brand under a landslide, - "kills Bond and Brand under a landslide" doesn't convey to me that the assassin caused a landslide to kill them.
  • is engaged to be married to a fellow Special Branch officer. - Why not just "is betrothed to a fellow Special Branch officer." or "is engaged to a fellow Special Branch officer."
  • the Werewolves - Why the Easter egg? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done, bar the last. I'm not sure this is an EE - it goes to the article about the German operation of which Drax was a fictional part. Do you have a suggestion for a better link? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im really bad not sure on what would be the right wording on this, as the term is used as such in the primary source, and (I seem to remember, but haven't checked) in the linked article. Ian Rose, as a military expert who knows the Bond series, what would be your thoughts on this? – SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admiral Sir Reginald Aylmer Ranfurly Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax - That's a really long name, and a really long link. Any way to abbreviate it somewhat?
  • The name of the Scotland Yard superintendent, Ronnie Vallance, was made up from that of Ronald Howe, the actual assistant commissioner at the Yard, and Vallance Lodge & Co, Fleming's accountants. - Lots, of, commas, and, clauses, making, the, sentence, hard, to, parse.
  • 30 Assault Unit
    " or something to avoid the numerous commas.
  • Amis considers that this is - perhaps "Amis considers this to be"
  • reminding readers of a familiar threat in 1950s Britain in the wake of the war. - I get the feeling this could be reworked. Personally I'd drop one of the two time clarifiers (either "in 1950s Britain" or "in the wake of the war")
  • Dibdin agrees, - with whom? The previous statement was a statement of fact
  • Drache - Why italicize if its his name?
  • Standardize whether you use the literary present or past tense in discussing themes ("the character Marc-Ange Draco's surname is Latin for dragon," vs. "Moonraker involved the idea of the "traitor within".")
  • Fleming's friend—and neighbour in Jamaica—Noël Coward considered Moonraker to be the best thing he had written to that point: - could be read as Moonraker being written by Coward
  • thought that "Fleming is one of the most accomplished of thriller-writers", and thought that Moonraker "is as mercilessly readable as all the rest". - thought ... thought
  • Perhaps "The novel was adapted as a daily
    comic strip that was published in the Daily Express newspaper and syndicated worldwide. The adaptation was written by Henry Gammidge and illustrated by John McLusky, and ran daily from 30 March to 8 August 1959." to avoid having two "daily"'s in close succession — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments, leaning Support: Just a few issues (most of my concerns were addressed in the peer review):

  • Shouldn't the lead include at least a sentence dealing with the book's reception by critics and public? That strikes me as more important than reference to a radio adaptation in S. Africa or to the Daily ShitExpress comic strip.
  • Also in the lead: trivial, but "The plot came about from..." might be better as "The plot is derived from..."
  • Also: "so as to include" could be just "to include"
  • I reworded the stuff around Ronald Howe and Vallance Lodge into what I considered a clearer format, without the distracting mdashes. Check it out, see if you agree.
  • "diastema": I'm not sure whether the correct usage is "a diastema" or simply "diastema"; you use both forms ("a large head and protruding teeth with a diastema" and "Fleming used this information to give Drax diastema..."). I think you need to be consistent.
  • The publication history might be slightly expanded. Do you know the size of the first impression? ABEbooks mentions 9,900, but there may be a better source. You might mention the number of successive editions and reprints to date, which would give an indication of the book's abiding popularity. I note from ABE that Hodder and Stoughton published it in 1989, Panther in 1979, and that there are loads of Penguin editions, none of ehich are mentioned in your summary. Any idea about foreign language editions? I also see that an inscribed first edition is on sale for £55,000, if you've got a bit of spare cash.
  • I've added the 9,900 from a good source, but there are no good sources that deal with the specific publication details of this novel (I could pick a few details from the British Library's catalogue to highlight a few of the editions, if you think it worth it - although I think that level of detail may be better off as a foot note). There is a reference I have been able to use that says it's never been out of print, which I've added, but the sources tend to discuss the series as a whole, rather than individually. This the translations are described as happening for the whole series, and subsequent good sales, but nothing that I can pin down to Moonraker itself. - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the above should present problems (except maybe the £55,000) and I look forward to full support shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Brian, I've addressed your comments, but if you have any further thoughts or suggestions—particularly relating to the publication history information—I'd be very grateful to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't see the "never out of print" info – did you add it? You could include a sentence along the lines: "Since its inititial publication the book has been issued in numerous hardback and paperback editions, and has never been out of print", citing the first bit to here. Although I would not cite Goodreads as a reliable source for critical comment, it's OK to use it to establish that editions exist – I have used Amazon and ABE in this way in the past. I'll leave this with you – meanwhile I'm upgrading to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How odd... I made a couple of changes in one edit to that paragraph, but it doesn't seem to have saved. I've added your suggestion, with an extra bit on translations, as the Worldcat reference I've also added shows a few foreign language editions in there too.
Many thanks for your thoughts and comments, both at the PR and here - both are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 61 needs a subscription tag
  • Inconsistencies in providing publisher locations. Mostly you do, but sometimes you don't.

Otherwise, all sources are of approraite quality/reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

Here's my assessment of the images:

Very well-composed article overall. My only other concern is how all the images are aligned to the right; it would help to alternate the alignments so it seems less repetitive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Snuggums. The two photos by Allan Warren were donated to us by Warren, who gave us a stack of his images a few years ago, all cleared through OTRS at the time, so they are OK. I'll flick a few over to the left to break it up a little, which I'd overlooked before. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can now support. Happy to help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

Support Excellent work, seems an extensive review and input has ironed out anything I might have commented on! Only thing is that you might link Ernst Stavro Blofeld fully as it's currently a redirect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2015 [22].

Kalidas (film)

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about

GOCE veteran Bafflegab, it should be fine for FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala
I checked, they actually work in my server. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are showing accesing issues. I hope you can rectify them.
talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • All the three Images require Alt text.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imperial Movi-Tone does not have an article. Can you please explain why a redlink exists?
Done. Unlinked. Actually, it was Bafflegab who added it, and I thought an article could be created on it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prasad also acted in Alam Ara and Bhakta Prahlada—the first Telugu sound film—earning the distinction of appearing in three of the first sound films in India — This is more relevant in Prasad's article. Here, it sounds a bit trivial.
Done. Instead written that Kalidas was his second film following Alam Ara. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all the content the section has, it is relevant to rename the section "Release" to "Release and reception"
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kalidas was the only Tamil film to be produced and released in 1931. No print or gramophone record of the film is known to have survived, making it a lost film. The time of the film's loss has not been documented, although The Indian Express stated in 2014 that the film "turned to dust" long before the National Film Archive of India was established in 1964." — These sentences should start the section, preceding the existing sentences.
Like how? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like this. "Kalidas was the only Tamil film to be produced and released.......before the National Film Archive of India was established in 1964" should be the first paragraph. "Kalidas became a trendsetter for sound films in Tamil cinema.......the end should be the second paragraph. This is because, we have to mention about the film first and its influence on others later. That ensures a better flow for the readers.
talk) 08:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Kannada remake should have been mentioned in the lead.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the nominator to either rectify them or give an explanation regarding them here if required within a reasonable period of time. Yours sincerely,

talk) 17:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I found no other issues from my perspective in the meantime. Thus, i lend my support.

talk) 12:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Ssven2

  • "it features P. G. Venkatesan as the central male character" — "it features P. G. Venkatesan as the titular character".
Written as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kalidas was released amid much hype on 31 October 1931—Diwali." — "Kalidas was released amidst high expectations on 31 October 1931, coinciding with Diwali."
Written as asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she was "the automatic choice to play the heroine."" — According to who?
Randor Guy. Written that. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I lend my support. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon

Resolved comments from Edwininlondon
...
  • "₹75000 (US$1,200) against a budget of ₹8000 (US$120)" — Is that US$120 correct? Doesn't match up with the first number.
I think you know of two things called "exchange rate" and "inflation". And I have used the INRConvert template, but I am unsure if the template has produced an accurate result. Is there any source that lists the history of Indian exchange rates? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that complicated: if ₹75000 (US$1,200) is correct then the second one should be US$128. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few semicolons that are unnecessary. "while Rajalakshmi spoke in .." and "Rajalakshmi's singing performance .." are both better as their own sentence.
  • The cast section is incomplete. Move some cast info from the Production section into here. That is, more actors and also the extra info per cast member.
The other actors appear in seemingly minor roles, and I can't find information about their roles in the film. Can I just say "Other roles were played by ...." and add a source at the end? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be better.Edwininlondon (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy — Is there anything that can be said about other multi-lingual films?
I'll look into this. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No songbook survived, yet we see an illustration and a still. I think this warrants an explanation. It is so fantastic to have these 2 illustrations. Can you satisfy the curious mind? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the remaining images of the film appear in the 2011 book The Best of Tamil Cinema. Can I mention this? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something like "The only remaining artefacts are a few stills and an image of the cover of the songbook" Edwininlondon (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Note: I have conducted a dozen or so edits on this article prior to my support here. Those edits have been minor prose fixes only and I have not added anything substantial. Thus I don't consider my support to be in anyway bias. This is a very nice article and tells an interesting story about one of India's first films. I believe it meets all FA criteria. CassiantoTalk 07:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the amount based on a new source. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since it's a lost film, the plot summary must be cited to reliable sources (because it can't be verified by watching the film). If possible you should mention how even this much of the plot is known.—indopug (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done as you asked. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from Frankie
...
  • "features P. G. Venkatesan as the titular character" → "features P. G. Venkatesan in the titular character".
Will "in the titular role" do? "In the titular character" sounds grammatically incorrect. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In the titular role" I meant. In fact, how about "in the title role" or "eponymous role"?
Done. Written "title role". Kailash29792 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why is it "it features"? As it's a lost film, you should use past form.
I did, but some senior editor changed it. I'll rewrite. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Written "featured". Kailash29792 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't start a paragraph with "The film"; mention the film's name.
I will do make changes as so. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the need of space between ₹ and 75000. Likewise for 8000.
Will remove the space. Should I include something like "₹75000 (valued at about X US dollars in 1931)" in the lead? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed spaces, and added their US dollar value. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including Tamil (Vidhyadhari), Telugu" – link Telugu (in the production section) since you have linked Tamil and Hindi in that section.
Will do so. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I think, you should start section music with the film's name, not with "the film".
Will do. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor concerns. I think this is an article written very nicely. -- Frankie talk 08:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RO

Lead
  • It is most notable for being the first Tamil-language sound film, and the first sound film to be made in South India.
I'd drop "It is most notable", as it's kinds self-explanatory.
Changed it to simply "it is noted". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • the minister finds an illiterate cowherd
Although one can figure this out by the context, I was unfamiliar with the term "cowherd". Is there a good Wikilink we could use here?
@Rationalobserver: Linked it to Cowman (profession) if that's alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • This section needs a citation.
Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • according to different sources.[11][d] According to film historian Film News Anandan
I'd copyedit so we aren't using "according to" twice in this part.
Done Changed the first "according to" to "as per" if that's alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the film was produced in a "hurry",
Copyedit/paraphrase this to avoid this one-word quote.
Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • According to
I recently had to break this habit, but I think it would be nice to remove as many of these "according to"s as you can.
Done — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conclusion

This is an especially well-written article, and I only found a few very minor quibbles, which I've listed above. I'm happy to support on the prose, which is quite enjoyable and well presented. Nicely done. Keep up the great work! RO(talk) 15:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Has there been a source review? If not, please request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. --Laser brain (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Sorry for coming late to this. I have read through the article and since the above comments relate to the prose side of things, I'm happy enough that the article is comprehensive and meets the FA criteria. Well done on this. JAGUAR  16:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Photographs and cinematographic works become PD in India 60 years after publication; all images in this article are from 1931, so they are fine. As for US copyright, the images were PD in their home country before 1996, so they should be fine there as well. There is some text on some of the images though, and I'm a bit unsure if it is covered by the cited laws. FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An image is an image, and it should comply with the laws. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would depend on the jurisdiction, whether there is freedom of panorama in India or not (there isn't[23]). But I assume the text is covered under "other works", so I guess it is alright. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Reading though now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yves Thoraval book needs an ISBN, as do 43 other books in Bibliography section (and don't forget hyphens)
  • Newpaper articles generally have authors - some appear to be missing.
Some articles just don't have credited authors and are published anonymously, like the following:
Yeah, that happens. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need allcaps in an title of a reference.

Otherwise look ok. I will do some spot checking shortly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, going by this version of the page to ensure correlation of soruces.

  • Ref 14, used four times. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 16, used twice. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 30, used twice. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 38, used twice. Article faithful to source.

Earwig's has one issue but I think it is the WP text exported that is coming up as a false positive.

So spot checking looking ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2015 [24].

Gateway Protection Programme

Nominator(s): Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a refugee resettlement scheme operated by the British government since 2004. A longstanding good article, I first (unsuccessfully) nominated it for FA status some five and a half years ago. After a long break from editing, I returned to Wikipedia recently and saw that the article was in need of updating. New source material had also been published in the meantime, and I was able to use it to update and expand the article. The article is extremely stable (mainly because few other editors have bothered to edit it, leaving me as almost the sole author, which may be a problem - I don't know). I hope that it now covers the topic in sufficient depth and is well written enough to be promoted. I recently nominated it for FA status again and addressed some helpful comments left by Nikkimaria and Jimfbleak, but ultimately it didn't attract enough comments and was archived. Following discussion with Ian Rose, I am renominating it and will actively seek out reviewers so that it gets a proper review this time. The article is very topical in the current climate regarding migration to the UK, and it would be good to get this to FA status. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support. A few usage and content issues:

  • Three instances of the form "... by the then British Home Secretary ..." The 'the then' is unnecessary – it is always assumed in historical writing that all positions were as of the time being written about – when writing about World War II you don't say 'the then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill'.
  • Why is "'Lisbon Speech'" in quotes? Is it well-known, and I'm just not knowing it? If it isn't, just say speech in Lisbon perhaps?
  • "The legal basis for the programme's funding ..." ends up being a really run-on sentence. Make the House of Lords part be a separate sentence without a parenthetical.
  • No statistics for the tables later than 2012? It's noticeable because the text next to the first table is giving related figures for 2013.
    • The Home Office hasn't published statistics on the scheme that regularly. The tables are based on an evaluation document in which statistics up to 2012 were presented. I haven't been able to find comparable statistics for 2013 and 2014.
  • Why does the second table have "Congolese (DRC)" while the accompanying text just has "Congolese"? If anything the text should have the additional explanations, as it does for "Burmese".
    • "DRC" added to text. Is there a better way to distinguish between the two Congos?
  • "... the original 15 Congolese families in Norwich in 2006" seems to refer back to some earlier history that I can't find. And the reason for including the motorway crash needs to be clearer – was it linked to their status as refugees? or just an ironic commentary on notions of safety?
    • It's not meant to refer back. Does this wording work better? There's no particular reason for including the crash, other than that it made the news at a time when not much was written about the programme. Should I remove it?
  • What is the "English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision"? Is this some specific programme in the UK? The link is to a generic English as a second language article.
  • The "Evaluations" section doesn't have any findings after 2011. Have any been made?
  • You say the programme enjoys cross-party support. Has the UKIP said anything about it?
  • In the cites, most of the publishers have links (at least on first usage), but some don't, including The Daily Telegraph and Sheffield Telegraph. Any reason?
  • An old GAN comment: Still no dates on the Mandate Refugee Scheme. Even a rough idea would help.
    • I've not found any sources that state when this scheme started, but I'll keep looking.
  • Sort of another old GAN comment: I'm still not clear on the public reaction to the programme, or is it sufficiently obscure that most of the public are not aware of it? You say in your nomination above that "The article is very topical in the current climate regarding migration to the UK" but the article doesn't reflect that it's getting a lot of public attention.
    • No, the Gateway Protection Programme is still not very well known. I think my point in the nomination was that resettlement in general is being discussed, in the context of Syria especially, but most of that discussion doesn't mention this programme.

Comments notwithstanding, this is a very good effort – FAC closers, keep it open a while longer – Wasted Time R (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very useful comments, Wasted Time R. I'll make some edits to the article in response to them over the next day or so. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've fixed a few minor issues and have a few queries above if you're willing to respond, Wasted Time R (or anyone else). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from nominator: A few of the sources are referenced multiple times. Where these source have multiple pages (e.g. reference 1), do I need to employ a system to reference specific page numbers on each occasion that the source is cited? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This citing change looks good to me and my last couple of comments above have been resolved, so changing to 'Support'. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- the sole image appears appropriately licensed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of that, Ian. There are some good images on Flickr that would be excellent for the article, but sadly none of them are available under an appropriate licence. Cordless Larry (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What remains outstanding before this review is complete? Is a source check required? Is anyone willing and able to do that? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2015 [25].

Mayfly

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the mayfly, an insect that spends almost its whole life as an aquatic nymph, and a brief time (sometimes only a few minutes) as a winged adult. The article achieved Good Article status in July 2015 and we hope you will think it is also up to FA standard. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. This is a WikiCup nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do we have any information about its diversity in other continents instead of North America, and are they sometimes regarded as pests or do they usually avoid urban areas due to their aquatic lifestyle? Burklemore1 (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a couple of sentences on their worldwide distribution. I wouldn't say they were pests at all; they are like butterflies, pretty and innocuous, and seen more in rural areas than urban ones. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the change looks good. I'll give the article another read to see if I can pick up anything else. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised there was not any information in regards to parasitism, but I have found a few sources that discuss this topic. You may find these sources useful: 1 2 3 4 5
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for ref no. 33 and the external link for "Bibliography of Ephemeroptera" are dead (for me that is).
Removed the dead links; the ref itself is ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't much to say about the article now that my comments have been addressed. I will happily support this article as an FA. However, those who are more in depth than I am will need to give their thoughts on the article. Good job guys on yet another excellent article. Do you two have any further plans on promoting other insect articles to GA and FA (other than the two you currently have nominated for GA)? Currently I have just started to work on Termite in one of my sandboxes, since that needs immediate attention. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, while I am still supporting this article for FA, I have some more comments and suggestions:

  • What exactly is a thoracic shield?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, the article definitely has my support now. I do not see anymore problems, so that is all from me. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Philip Henry Gosse died in 1888 and Charles Bowlker in 1779. I have added the information to the image files. Thanks Nikkimaria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

Excellent article and very comprehensive. Even my usual parasite nitpick was addressed before I got here. Two things before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • First sentence: The mayfly... which also contains the dragonfly and damselfly—whythe singulars when there are hundreds of each of these groups? Looks like the hunter's singular "we hunted lion, elephant and mayfly". It's particularly weird because you use plurals throughout the rest of the article, next para begins Mayflies are relatively primitive insects...
Recast using plural. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • swarms a few metres (yards)—how is this a meaningful conversion? Drop the imperial.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Coemgenus

On first reading, there's very little to criticize. One thing I noticed is that in "Ecology," you wrote that fish are "probably" the main predators. Is the issue in doubt? I'll do a second reading and see if anything else comes up, but I'm leaning support so far. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly "among" the main predators, so have said that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. On second reading... I've got nothing. This is a well-written and interesting article, and I'm happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Cite 3: Some problems; 1. "The head is heavily sclerotinised" is an exact copy. 2. I can't find mention of the antennae being slender though that may be an obvious feature. 3. I can't find mention of the claw being absent in some species. 4. The source mentions that the female dips her abdomen in the water intermittently rather than sometimes. 5. I can't find mention of the length of the nymphal stage. 6. The page range should be extended since the information goes beyond page 20.
I have sorted these points, apart from the length of the nymphal stage, which you may have missed in the source, - the bit about voltinism. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All good, I suppose "sometimes" and "intermittently could mean the same. LittleJerry (talk) 11:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 28: Good
Cite 62: Doesn't mention mid-June. LittleJerry (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, the date was mentioned in another source. Thanks, LittleJerry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good. LittleJerry (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2015 [26].

Emu

Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the emu from Australia, the second largest bird in the world after the ostrich. It is a former featured article, but this status was revoked after a FAR in 2011. I think I have addressed all the issues raised at that time, added further information, removed some information, added citations, polished up the prose and tried to make the article as presentable as possible. Its an interesting bird (there was even an Emu War at one time) and I look forward to your comments and criticisms. This is a WikiCup nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

This article still needs work. A book published in 2002 might be useful: Davies, S.J.J.F. (2002). Ratites and Tinamous: Tinamidae, Rheidae, Dromaiidae, Casuariidae, Apterygidae, Struthionidae (Bird Families of the World). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

ISBN 978-0198549963
.

  • "; three subspecies are recognised." Not closely related to first part of sentence and the text below states that only two subspecies are now recognised.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "batches of eggs" clutches?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but have been known to go for weeks without food." repetition of food - "without eating"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Emus can live between ten and twenty years in the wild..." but text below has "In captivity, emus can live for upward of ten years."
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bird features prominently in Indigenous Australian mythology and the word "emu" occurs in hundreds of place names." - two ideas in same sentence implies that they are linked - but the word "emu" and places are not based on Indigenous names.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in Arthur Phillip's Voyage to Botany Bay, published in 1789." it would be nice to also cite the Phillips description itself which includes a picture: Philip, Authur (1789). The voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay. London: Printed by John Stockdale. pp. 271–272.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • etymology Ref 9 Boles - source is unsuitable
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The below cladogram is from their study." Their? The authors haven't been mentioned.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after which the disoriented emus were easy to catch after they had drunk the water." repetition.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and weigh between 700 and 900 grams (1.5 and 2.0 lb)," This is sourced to a Reader's Digest book. A more scholarly source should be used. Also, the weight seems too large - HBW has 450–650 g.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They stand about 12 centimetres (5 in) tall at first, weigh 0.5 kg" Why spell out centimetres and abbreviate kg?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seven months, defending them...the young emus are defended by their father" repetition
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "catching emus in nets," catching 'them' in nets
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some wild populations are at risk of local extinction due to the small size of their populations." repetition
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • NSW spell out
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are a few articles placed in the References section? Only Eastman 1969 needs to be there. Howarth is only 3 pages.
Others removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stiglec et al is listed but not cited.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 Patterson: provide link to BHL
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 Gould: needs page numbers pp. 200-203
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 Boles: this is an unsuitable source. Boles cites Marchant and Higgins which would be better.
This is the Australian Museum and Boles is a published author, see Ref 13. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10 www.mdahlem.net: Publisher? What makes this a reliable source?
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 15 Mitchell: don't link titles that aren't open access - doi suffices
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 Bruce: needs a {{subscription required}}
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39 Barker: needs a year - worldcat suggest 1989/90
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 41 Powel: needs full title "Leaf and branch : trees and tall shrubs of Perth" and place of publication. Why is a quote included for this cite only?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 44 Prickly pear: title linked but not free access. A version dated 2015 is available from here
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 50 Reader's Digest: Better sources are available. Title shouldn't be linked to wiki article, year and place of publication? Worldcat has 1977/8.
Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 53 Taylor: volume should be after journal title and need doi=10.1007/s002650050677
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 67 Nicholls: this is a book with an isbn=0-642-57869-9 - see worldcat
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70 Saravanan: missing period after initial
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref Eastman: title shouldn't be linked to google book when not open access
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. Aa77zz (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will work my way through them. Cwmhiraeth (talk)

I notice that many of the citations were added before the involvement of the nominating editor. Although I have access to many scientific publications through my institution, these don't include most of the sources cited by the article. I would like reassurance that the nominator has access to the main sources and has been able to check the contents of the article against them. Particularly important are the book by Eastman 1969 and the chapter by Davies 2003 (ref 3).

I do not have access to these books. As with most Wikipedia articles, I rely on the good faith of earlier Wikipedia editors to provide accurate information from these reliable sources. Eastman was first cited back in September 2010 and Davies in January 2009, both by editors who are no longer active. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my review above I challenged the value given for the weight of an egg. In response the source was changed to a web page of the San Diego Zoo. Although probably reliable I would have been happier with a specialised book or article - such as Eastman or Davies mentioned above. There are two articles on emu eggs that may provide values for the weight: Physical and physiological measurements of Emu eggs and chicks and A study of the egg shells of ratite birds. Aa77zz (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the full length versions of either of these articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps request them at the resource request?[27] FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note for the original article-improver. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new source for the weight of the egg, and I really don't feel it necessary to quote a peer-reviewed journal article on this point. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article is now much improved. Aa77zz (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Emu_caller.jpg: suggest adding FoP-Australia tag on Commons
  • File:Feeding_farmed_Emu.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Baudin_emus.jpg
  • File:Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png: suggest adding the PD-1996 tag. Same with File:Australianstamp_1505.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you Nikkimaria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, the vocalising emu video was filmed by me in Denmark (Odsherred Zoo[28]), not in Australia. In any case not sure why FOP is relevant, it is a living animal (not copyrightable), not an artwork? FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, File:Emu_caller.jpg is a photo of an artifact, not a video of an animal. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Cwmhiraeth changed the license of the video as well, so I thought it was because you had listed it here, but I now see you didn't. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

  • Though I've added a little bit of text about extinct emus here a long time ago, there should be no COI in me reviewing this. It'll probably a bit drawn out, though, and I'd also like to see if Aa77zz is satisfied with the fixes above. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing that struck me is that the intro is very long, probably bloated over the years. Could probably be cut by one third without problem, and be sure that it has no information not found in the article body.
Thank you. I have pruned the lead somewhat. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is D. novaehollandiae woodwardi considered valid by anyone today? Based on a comment below, it would seemnot to be the case, but you could maybe have a small paragraph in taxonomy about previously proposed subspecies.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make sense to have the history section as part of taxonomy? It essentially deals with discovery and naming.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "named by ornithologist John Latham on a specimen" Based on a specimen?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have come from an Arabic word for large bird" What word?
I don't know. I could remove the statement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, better to just keep it as is then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest can reach up to 1.5 to 1.9 m (4.9–6.2 ft) in height" Maybe make clear that this is head height?
I think the height implies the total height, ie the top of the head. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1 to 1.3 m (3.3–4.3 ft) at the shoulder" Does the source really say shoulder, not back or hip? The shoulder of a bird is not necessarily the highest point, that remeasure is usually for quadrupedal animals.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor thing, but the white space after cultural references irks me a bit, could one of the three images perhaps be removed to prevent this? Whatever one you find least significant (I'd say the stamp).
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use two different ways of quoting text (one under history, another under economic value), should probably be consistent.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the text under description seems like it would make more sense under behaviour.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with some of the text under conservation, looks more like it belongs under relationship with humans (ways of hunting, etc.)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "listen to this article" link under References is perhaps redundant, as there is already a link at the top right of the article?
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the first long paragraph under Behaviour and ecology could perhaps be split off into a "distribution and habitat" section?
If I did that, you would say "Some of this section should be in the Behaviour and ecology section"! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I did read it thoroughly, and I think most of it is directly relevant to distribution/habitat, including migration. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pebbles and stones are swallowed to assist in the digestion of the plant material." Link to gastrolith?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I wrote the King Island emu article, sources stated this subspecies developed a brood patch. I'd assume the same was the case for the mainland emu, but it is not mentioned?
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "develop a capacity for thermoregulation. During incubation, the embryos are ectothermic but need to develop endothermic behaviour" Could need links and parenthesis explanations for these terms.
Rewritten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newly hatched chicks are active and can leave the nest within a few days of hatching." Link
    Precocial
    ?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems juvenile emus are much darker than adults when they lose their stripes?
Added in the Description section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always make sure no info or term is unique to the intro, some examples:
  • "to Australia where it is the largest native bird" Only mentioned in intro.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the second-largest living bird in the world" Only mentioned in intro.
Added elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are opportunistically nomadic" Term nomadic not used under behaviour, only intro.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "economical trot" Only stated as such in intro.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are not monogamous"
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during this process he fasts"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

Great that you've taken this on, just a few comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • HBW doesn't recognise D. novaehollandiae woodwardi, so I think you should make it clear that it isn't a definite ssp. I can give you the relevant HBW text and online ref if needed
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should know by now that I'll look for a parasites section! There's plenty out there for you to add something on this
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • its name is Latin for "fast-footed New Hollander"— we normally give the relevant Latin words for etymology. I can provide Jobling's entries and formatted refs if you need them
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim. I have dealt with those points and added a section on parasites. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Citation 10: All good expect c (does not mention population number). I also added another cite.
Sorted. Source may have been rewritten and now no longer supports the fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 20: Good.
Citation 27: Good.
Citation 31: Mostly good expect it does not seem to mention "loose-packed".
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 50: Fully supported for b, partially supported for a. I'm assuming 34 supports the other half in the case of a.
It does. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 70: Mostly good expect it doesn't mention cholesterol.
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 71: Does not say that "and are slaughtered at 50 to 70 weeks of age" but that their market age is 15-18 months. I'm not sure if they mean the same.
Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 73: Good.
Citation 81: Good.

LittleJerry (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review. I have made amendments where necessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sourcing. LittleJerry (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

Looking now:

Need to rejig the lead -

The emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) is
extant member of the genus Dromaius, it is most closely related to the cassowaries." It endemic
to Australia where it is the largest native bird."

you wanna say what it is before where it is...

Changed round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Emus were first reported as having been seen by Europeans when explorers visited the western coast of Australia in 1696 - whoa...any further info on this to add?
Added a little. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant about the siting really...if there is anything to add...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very obscure. It might have been at 115°50 east at an island the explorers called "Fog Island" or "Dung Island", but otherwise I am in the fog here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
largest individuals can reach up to 1.5 to 1.9 m (4.9 to 6.2 ft) - I think I'd change these to cm to align with measurements that follow....
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link albumen, incubation (at first instance)....
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Sainsf

As many reviewers have already pointed out several imperfections and made practicable suggestions, I feel this article has inched significantly closer to success. I have the following comments to make after a thorough scrutiny of the whole article:

  • General: Please confirm that the article consistently uses either American or British English. From an earlier review I remember it is preferable to use that form which is used in the native region.
I have been through the article with my British English spellchecker and it seems OK. I understand that Australian spelling is generally more similar to British usage than American, but I cannot be sure that this article fully complies with Australian English spelling. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I think just BE is well enough. --Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • The species was named by ornithologist John Latham based on a specimen... The taxobox mentions this event to have occurred in 1790, could we include this in the main text as well?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his original 1816 description of the emu, the French ornithologist Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot used two generic names; first Dromiceius, then Dromaius a few pages later Though I am not sure, is it really necessary to add the "few pages later" phrase? Unless it is necessary for us to guide the readers through the original papers the ornithologist published!
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The population of these birds varies from decade to decade, largely being dependent on rainfall; current estimates range from 630,000 to 725,000 birds It is best to define what you mean by "current", when was the estimate made?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find some confusion in "Systematics". Please read all points before proceeding to action.
  • I came across an online copy of the Novitates Zoologicae (Vol. XVIII, No. 3) of January 1912. In pages 175 and 176, Gregory M. Mathews clearly names 3 extant subspecies : D. n. novaehollandiae, D. n. woodwardi and D. n. rothschildi. I think you could systematically cite this source and mention these three subspecies, followed by discussions regarding disputes.
  • You can use the nomenclature details (when and by whom the name was given) of all three subspecies from Avibase entries 1, 2, 3
  • In the present form, the article mentions only the first two of the above subspecies; and while the HBW source objects to the last two subspecies, the article seems to suggest that the HBW entry opposes the first two.
  • Therefore, I think this paragraph (following the one about the ranges and populations of various emus) needs a complete rewrite. I would suggest that you give all the three ssp. names citing the article by Mathews, this can help remove the "some authorities" vagueness. Then you can add something like "the HBW entry argues that ..." (this removes the "other authorities" vagueness) to show the possible invalidity of the latter two subspecies. Finally the bit that D. n. rothschildi, coined in 1912, is considered dubious today.
  • Note: I am not sure whether you should include the common names like Southeast emu for the subspecies, as there is a lot of variation among sources regarding that. Better give just the scientific names or follow only one good source consistently.
How's that then? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marvellous! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • Emus flap their wings when running; it is believed that... a reword to remove the vagueness in the latter part?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest linking pelvic and tracheal.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour and ecology

  • I think you should give a better start to this section. The first para seems just to be picking up a few traits of the bird, and does not look a helpful introduction. Rather, you should make this the 2nd paragraph (after the presently 2nd para). If possible, the first line Inquisitive birds, emus are known to approach humans... observe people and The bird's legs are among the strongest ... tear down metal fencing could be placed in "Relationship with humans".
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emus sleep during the night, and begin to settle down at sunset. You should mention sunset before night.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should mention a bit of their diurnal activity too in the para about the sleep schedule. It should look like a short summary of its whole day. I think they forage in the day (as said in Diet).
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest linking homeothermic, thermoneutral zone, bleaching effect (Breeding) and parasite.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emus drink infrequently, but ingest large amounts when they do so. and They typically drink once per day but can drink several times if the supply is abundant. these two sentences from "Diet" can be merged. I also suggest that if the reason for sudden ingestion of large amounts of water is abundance in water sources at times, state it clearly in "Diet" as well as Lead (this could better reword "when the opportunity arises").
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Breeding", the fifth paragraph appears to be a continuation of the third (behaviour of the interested male is continued), but the fourth seems an unnecessary barrier between the two. Better swap the 4th with the 5th.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with humans

  • "Oil" is linked twice under "Economic value".
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why link "Central Australia" when other Australian regions have not been linked elsewhere? Similarly, why link Peru if other countries have not been linked elsewhere?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest linking antioxidant.
Actually the word is not there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed it; it's there in the third para after the quote. I have linked it anyway. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 09:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status and conservation

  • The IUCN considers their population trend to be stable and assesses their conservation status as being of least concern You can add "As of 2012...".
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...predation of the eggs and young by foxes, feral and domestic dogs, and feral pigs. Should the dogs and pigs not be mentioned among the predators in "Behaviour and ecology"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is all from my side. Awaiting replies, Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Sainsf. I think I have dealt with all your points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great job Cwmhiraeth! Really swift and blitzkrieg response!
Support: All my points have been addressed, and I feel the article would make a successful FA. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2015 [29].

Menkauhor Kaiu

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Menkauhor Kaiu, the seventh ruler of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, ruling in the late 25th century BC. The present article includes absolutely all that is known of this relatively shadowy pharaoh, covering every aspects of the king's reign and its legacy (activities, monuments, surviving artefacts, historical sources, family, funerary cult etc.). I thank the Egyptologist Filip Coppens for helping with the article by providing the latest published material on the subject. Article passed GA on the 17th of July and received a thorough peer review after that. Menkauhor Kaiu is part of a series of GA and FA articles on the 5th Dynasty (see Unas, Shepseskare, Sahure, Pyramid of Userkaf) in view of a future Featured Topic. Iry-Hor (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK license-wise (PD, CC) - 1 minor point

  • I have improved some of the license tags and added an archive for a dead PDF-link - OK.
  • File:Map pyramid Lepsius XXIX.jpg should have a reference to verify the map. Assuming the original uncropped map was re-drawn from a book, a citation to that book (or any reliable book where such a map is shown) should be added to the image description page. GermanJoe (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GermanJoe Done! I just added a reference for the map in both the article and on wikicommons from J. Berlandini's article showing the location of the pyramid Lepsius XXIX in the wider Saqqara plateau. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, point updated above. GermanJoe (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I reviewed the article at GAN and commented at PR. It has been no hardship at all to read it again for FAC, and the polished work presented here seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 15:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and thanks again for your help! Iry-Hor (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

I'm afraid I'll have to do this in chunks as RL is a little hectic at present.

Lead
  • I'm not terribly fussed on this point, but I,thought we were supposed to eschew BC in favour of CE?
No. According to
WP:ERA, either style is acceptable as long as it stays consistent within the article. In some topic areas, like Judaism, there may be a loose consensus to use only BCE/CE, but WikiProject Ancient Egypt has never chosen one style or the other. A. Parrot (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
That's fine - I prefer the old style anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have Fifth dynasty and Fifth Dynasty – best to make this consistent.
Done it should be "Fifth Dynasty" everywhere now, thanks for pointing this out! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow... – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical
  • "reigning for 9 years" -> nine
Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Family
  • The false titles (;Name) are a no-no: either scrap them or use level three headings
Ok I changed them to level three headings
Reign
  • "between 8 and 9 years" -> eight and nine
Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are known to us": you can lose the last two words
Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sun temple
  • "We know of its existence" -> "Its existence is known..."
Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow anon. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am looking forward to it! Iry-Hor (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch for you:

Pyramid

  • "the Headless Pyramid was the Pyramid of Merikare, a pyramid dating": I think we can lose at least one of these with structure, building, etc!
Fixed. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicating that a burial did take place": "took place" would work slightly better
Fixed. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

  • FNs 27, 48 59 should be pp., not p.
Fixed 27 and 59. For the num. 48, there is only one page specified, the number "59" being the beginning of the section title in the book, i.e. the ref 48 is p. 136, paragraph "59. Inscription of ...." Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 99 should be p., not pp.
Fixed. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 89 is probably better expressed as pp. 292, 299, 381, 390, 394, 400 & 412.
Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting read – many thanks for getting it into such good shape, and for dealing with the previous comments so promptly. – SchroCat (talk) 10:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat thanks for your help! Iry-Hor (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - just a rephrase suggestion and some nitpicks, not preventing support for this well-written article:

  • Lead - "Menkauhor Kaiu (also known as Ikauhor and in Greek as Mencherês) was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh, the seventh ruler of the Fifth Dynasty at the end of the 25th century BC or early in the 24th century BC, during the Old Kingdom period." ==> Consider a slight rephrasing: "Menkauhor Kaiu (also known as Ikauhor and in Greek as Mencherês) was an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the Old Kingdom period. He was the seventh ruler of the Fifth Dynasty at the end of the 25th century BC or early in the 24th century BC.", bringing the most basic information up first and splitting the lengthy dynastic information in digestible portions.
Ok I did it. I found the previous version more agreable to read though but I understand the hierachy of information here. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following king Nyuserre Ini [on throne]" ==> "on throne" sounds redundant in context - it's clear that rulers are listed in order
You are right, done! Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical - "and it is known [to us] only through later" ==> redundant
Fixed. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contemporaneous - note 3, ref 29 <-> ref 31, note 4 ==> "note first" or "refs first", order should be consistent (not sure if there is a preferred variant), please check throughout
Fixed throughout, I chose to put notes first. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filiation - "ref 40, 38" ==> refs should be listed in ascending order, please check throughout.
Fixed throughout. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my concerns were dealt with at the peer review, and having read it over again this morning I can say that it's even tighter now than it was a few days ago. Nicely done! RO(talk) 17:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Has there been a source review for formatting and reliability? If not, please request at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. --Laser brain (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laser_brain Ok I have asked for it. Note that this was done when the article became GA and I believe also during the peer review. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sourcing. I've looked over the sources and spot-checked a couple of references. Most of the sources are impeccably reliable: Egyptologists, most of whose names I recognize, writing in journals and books from academic presses. A handful aren't quite on that level, but they are all unobjectionable. The Seipel source seems to be a PhD thesis, though it's significant enough to be cited in Kanawati's book. The Lepsius, Mariette, Petrie, and Murray sources are very old, but they're all simply listing and reproducing cartouches and don't make any outdated interpretations of evidence. Kratovac and Wright are both based on Hawass' press release. I'm not the best at spotting inconsistencies in ref formatting, but they all look consistent and neatly organized to me.

The only significant snag is that the Kratovac source is a dead link, but I found the same AP story reproduced on ABC News' website: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5014538. Because I'm not familiar with the use of news sources, I'm not sure if you would attribute it to ABC News or the Associated Press. It's really not necessary to include Kratovac at all, though, as the story by Wright supports the same text. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I have removed the Kratovac reference as proposed by A. Parrot. Thanks for the review! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2015 [30].

Battle of Agua Dulce

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest entry in my survey of the battles of the Texas Revolution. It's a mostly forgotten episode that had little actual impact on the war or its outcome, although it has the distinction of having been fought at just about the same hour that leaders in Texas were declaring independence several hundred miles away. There is a bit of drama - ambush! high-speed chase across the countryside! stampeding horses! Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images - only image is the map, which is appropriately licensed. Are there any other images that could be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no images that I can find of the Texian commander, and the only image I've found that purports to be of the Mexican commander I cannot verify. I could put File:Campaigns_of_the_Texas_Revolution.jpg (which was used in the FA Texas Revolution) in the Prelude section, but it's hard to read when it's that small. Images of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, Sam Houston, James Fannin, or Frank Johnson could go in the background of prelude sections, but they aren't really that important to this article. Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is a nice easy read and gives me a sense of the Texas Revolution - a war that I've always found confusing for some reason. I can't remember the exact rules regarding non-breaking spaces, but introduced one in this edit because the number was on a separate line. Otherwise I can't find any nitpicks. Nice work. Victoria (tk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the comment above I searched google images and found that we have File:JamesWFannin.jpg on en.wp so I took the liberty to add it. I won't be offended if you don't like it and revert. Victoria (tk) 20:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments. The article is in good shape, and I look forward to supporting once these minor points are dealt with.

  • "The resolution thus gave the Mexican Army permission to take no prisoners in the war against the Texians": didn't the Tornel Decree apply only to foreigners? So it would not have given the Mexicans permission to execute someone born in Mexico or Mexican Texas? Explanatory footnote added.
  • Suggest linking "fifteen-minute battle" to Battle of San Patricio, or perhaps naming and linking the battle in that sentence. I know it's linked in the infobox, but most readers won't see the connection.
  • "rode leisurely": "leisurely" is not an adverb, so this needs rephrasing.
  • "historians generally only list 12 Texians as killed. It is likely that historians were not including the Tejanos under Benavides." It's not clear if these are modern historians or 19th century historians.
  • Do we need the list of Texas Revolution battles in the "See also" section, given that they're listed in the infobox? removed

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good now. I've switched to support above. Nice work, Karanacs, and thanks, Maile, for helping out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco comments
  • Overall the lead strikes me as a bit verbose. - This lead is the style Karanacs uses. Thats all I know about this. — Maile (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • many of the Texians were shot before they were able to raise their guns. Many Texians - Any way to avoid this repetition? ("many ... many")
  • It is likely that historians were not including the Tejanos under Benavides. - I'd give this in-article attribution
  • Otherwise nothing to comment on. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian
  • Karanacs, first and foremost I would like to comment you on a job well done on this article. I only have a few quibbles regarding your well-written article. Otherwise, I find that it meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Thank you for all your hard work on this article and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • San Patricio, Texas can probably be rendered as just "San Patricio" in the first paragraph in the lede since at the time it was located in Tamaulipas and not Texas.
  • I wonder if there is another way to reword "The Mexican army quickly put down revolts in the Mexican interior..." to avoid repeating Mexican twice in the same sentence. Perhaps consider "The Mexican Army quickly put down revolts throughout the country's interior" or something like it.
  • Mexican Congress should probably be wiki-linked to Congress of the Union.

Coordinator note: Karanacs hasn't been active in over a month, so this may have to be archived as an abandoned nomination if she doesn't return soon. --Laser brain (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ceradon: I'm planning to send Karanacs an email if she doesn't surface soon and decide a course of action from there. I'm uneasy having anyone take over a nomination unless they are very familiar with the subject, have been involved in developing the article, and have access to the sources. I hope you understand. --Laser brain (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per prodding from @Laser brain:, I have fixed the issues mentioned above. The issue with the Tornel Decree is in the footnote. Please note that Karanacs never used Almonte's Texas in her research. I have linked it where the entire book is online. — Maile (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I did nothing about the "verbose" lead. That's the style of Karanacs, as far as I know. I don't think I should be the one to re-edit it. — Maile (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I'm not clear on what the last paragraph before Aftermath is saying. I see the complaint about the lead above; I made a couple of edits, but I don't see a copyediting problem. (If there's a problem with the choice of what to include, that's not something I would normally tackle in a copyediting role.) These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - If the lead is going to be trimmed, alright. If not, no worries. This is a good article, and I'm not going to block it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comments - I was/am happy with the lead, FWIW. I will take a look at the referencing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formatting of references internally consistent. Nil issues. (well, just formatted 2 page ranges)
  • Graham source supports the underrepresentation of Tejano involvement - material faithful to and does not copy source. so ok.
  • Jackson/Wheat supports the text, though one segment from a different page and added.
  • Earwig's copyvio tool looks fine

In summary, all material examined looks good, but much is offline only. Leaving it to the delegates on this one....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2015 [31].

Thunderbirds (TV series)

Nominator(s): SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My second Featured Article nomination after five years, for a programme that is 50 years old this year. Promoted to Good Article status in December, it has since been copy-edited several times and provides – in my opinion, at least – a comprehensive treatment of the subject's main elements (particularly its production) and appropriate summary treatment of its sub-elements. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cambalachero

Image review
File:Thunderbirds logo.jpg is a non-free image, and seems to have a correct rationale. File:Hood and Scott Tracy puppets from Thunderbirds.jpg seems to be fine; the photo failed to include the full right puppet, but it's a minor detail and can not be fixed. File:Lorne Greene - 1969.jpg seems to be fine. File:Sean Connery 1964.png uses the "no copyright notice" license for a TV screenshot, which seems a bit innapropiate. File:Robert Reed 1971.JPG seems to be fine. File:Adam Faith headshot.jpg seems to be fine. File:Charlton Heston - 1953.jpg seems to be fine. File:AnthonyPerkins.jpg uses a license that goes from 1923 to 1963, so we need the exact date to know if the image is covered by it or not ("the 1960s" is not good enough, because it may a moment between 1964 and 1969). File:Stourhead House (8349738431).jpg seems to be fine (it lacked a FOP license, but I added one). File:RP1357 p8 Soyuz Rocket.svg needs more information: as detailed in the license, the NASA host images of the Soviet program, which may not be in the public domain. File:ThunderbirdsFAB (Cropped).jpg seems to be fine. Cambalachero (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that better-licensed alternatives for Connery and Perkins are available, although I note your comment below regarding the use of this gallery in general. The source of the Soyuz image is a large PDF filled with schematics of both US and Soviet space vehicles, all drawn in the same style. Based on this, as well as the fact that the image is an outline rather than a photograph, I'm doubtful that it originated outside NASA. As the figures in the PDF aren't individually credited, however, I'm not sure how this could be proven beyond all doubt. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Soyuz image has been replaced with File:Hawker Siddeley Gnat T1, UK - Air Force AN2239232.jpg, which illustrates a different aspect of the production. It is OTRS-confirmed and does not, as far as I can see, present any licensing concerns. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the images used seem to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great to know! SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Storyline
Are the characters named after the astronauts in-story? If someone does not know about them, is the TV series explicit in that point? Some words and expressions are a bit puffery, such as "Unknown to the rest of the world" or "the force behind"; use simpler terms. Do we really need so many trivial details about the cars? Name and pilots should be enough. Same goes for the overly detailed info about the defenses of the island or the motivations of the heroes and villains: you have to use a summary of the important and defining info. The last two paragraphs (analysis of the continuity snarls on the date and the hidden meaning of the call) are not needed and should be removed. Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the characters' names – no, there is no in-universe explanation to that effect. It was merely the producers' intention. I have therefore moved this information to the production section. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text seems to be better now, but the use of a list in this location does not seem correct. It may be better to simply turn it into a paragraph. Cambalachero (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph ended by this sentence discusses writing and character development. Character naming falls under character development. I'm not sure what purpose would be served by splitting this paragraph. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Production
In the first paragraph, try to avoid the use of parentheses for sentence-long comments. It's better to just reformulate them as new sentences. In the second, "The local authorities..." is a 4-lines long sentence, try to reformulate it. In the third, do not include wikilinks inside of quotations. The sentence that mentions Bonanza should end there, and the rest be another sentence. World War II is far more common than "second world war". I'm not sure if the word "illusion" is appropiate. Cambalachero (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section seems to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Filming
Again, try to avoid the use of parentheses. "(which were designated "A" and "B")" can easily be a text written after a comma. As for units, please choose one and use it from the them on, there's no need to keep giving numbers in both systems all the time. Watch out for overly long sentences. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons should be clearly described as such when linked, not linked under the name "new concept" (the reader must have it clear what is the link that he would follow). Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"separate "A" and "B" crews" may be replaced simply by "separate crews". You do not say anything specific about A or B, and the name used to set them apart is trivial. Cambalachero (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The A and B distinction becomes relevant further on, at the end of the third-from-last paragraph: most of the filming for Series Two was handled by B crew, since A crew was busy shooting the film sequel Thunderbirds Are Go. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Casting and characters
The "Other occupation(s)" field is an unneeded second field for in-universe information, and makes the column too wide. "Role" should be enough. Cambalachero (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Section seems to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Design and effects
Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Puppets
The actors whose likeness has been used for inspiration seems a bit trivial to include in photos, specially if it is such a wide set of photos. Again, watch out for the use of parentheses. Cambalachero (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Special effects
"Special effects" is a common word and does not need to be linked. "evolved from his wish" does not sound like good writing. In "This decision was not informed by any expert mechanical knowledge on Meddings' part: "The model just looked better that way.", the quote doesn't really add much; just skip the intro and say directly that it was a personal preference. Cambalachero (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The section seems to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Title sequence
Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Music
As pointed before, don't use wikilinks inside of quotations. Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Section seems to be fine now. Cambalachero (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast
Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero: I believe that all the textual issues raised above have been seen to. What do you think of the article in its current state? SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Cas Liber

Two series and thirty-two 50-minute episodes were filmed - sounds like the two are additive. I'd change to something like, "Two series comprising a total of thirty-two 50-minute episodes were filmed" or something similar.
Corrected.
technological superiority - I'd say "advanced technology" or just "technology"
Changed to "technology".
The Tracy brothers took their names from... - I'd not make the characters the subjects, as it was the creators who determined the names, so make passive or make creators somehow subjects
Changed to "The Tracy brothers were named after ..."
– due to the series' technical complexity, a longer period than for any of APF's earlier series. - this looks wierd as ndash then comma as it makes the "longer period" relate to the clause immediately before it rather than the "five months" - I'd make it two ndashes.
Split into two sentences.
..in an effort to go against viewer expectations - wish there was another way to phrase this...although an alternative isn't springing to mind...
What do you think of "to defy the viewer's expectations"?
Better...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link petrol jelly
The sources give "
petrol
gel". I'm not sure how this became "jelly".

Looking on target for FA status otherwise I think...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...@SuperMarioMan:? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Sorry for my delay in replying here. I think that the points above have been addressed. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, am happy with comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your support! SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 13:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support

Coord note -- Welcome back to FAC, SuperMarioMan. Since it's been a long time between drinks, I'd like to see a reviewer conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as well as the usual source review for formatting and reliability. Requests for those can be posted at the top of

WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Source review/spot check by Cas Liber

In progress....

I've removed
WP:ELOFFICIAL). After some thought, I've also retained the BBC Online link – it is authoritative on the subject of Thunderbirds (being part of the official website of a broadcaster) and does, I believe, "provide a unique resource" beyond what the article would contain if it became Featured.

This reduces the number of external links from six to three. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

  • Be consistent in how you write the publisher location (i.e. locale, state/country, or just locale alone)
  • Pageranges - you have "17-18" (i.e. 2 or all digits) in one bit and "121–2" (1 digit) - align one way or the other...
  • Also - align all the titles of references so they are in all title case or sentence case.
Formatting is now consistent throughout. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting of refs otherwise looks ok.

Spot checking...

  • Earwigs comes up with a false positive from a mirror site, otherwise looks ok.
  • Online refs 104, 199 and 218 (using this version of the page) check out.
  • Online ref 9 used three times - twice fine, but source does not mention "April 2015" as date screened, just "2015". so to be faithful, we must either lose the "April" or add a source that says it screened in April
This has been re-sourced. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 00:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin

Overall, this is very well written and only requires a few tweaks. Some queries...

  • "... he exerts a powerful telepathic control over his estranged half-brother, Kyrano, and manipulates the Tracys into missions that unfold according to his nefarious designs."—this sentence gives the impression of introducing Kyrano for the first time, when in actuality he is mentioned earlier.
  • It needs to be explicitly stated that there were two filming crews, A crew and B crew, because the two crews are mentioned in passing as if we are already familiar with these names.
  • "He therefore asked Anderson to devise a new concept – which, in his estimation, stood a greater chance of winning over the profitable US market."—it's unclear what exactly "which" is referring to in this sentence.
More coming; I've read up to Casting and characters. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... typically measuring twelve by fourteen by three metres (39.4 by 45.9 by 9.8 ft) in length, width and height."—why spell out the dimensions in metres but write the feet in figures? It is not aesthetically pleasing and does not accord with the MOS.
  • "...director of photography John Read discussed the advantages of circumventing the puppets' lack of agility 'so that they appear, for example, to walk through doors (although the control wires make this impossible) or pick up a coffee cup (although their fingers are not in fact jointed).'"—literally, this is saying that he discussed the lack of agility so that the puppets appear to walk through doors or pick up a coffee cup, which does not make sense. The Wikipedian Penguin 17:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Models and sets were also 'dirtied down' with powder paint or pencil lead to create a used appearance."—"used appearance" is rather odd. Something like "to make them appear used"? The piped link to Used good is up to you.
  • We have critical praise/criticism in the reception section, where it should belong, but also some scattered in other sections, like Title sequence and Special effects. What was your approach to this?
    • The effects, music and title sequence are major aspects and arguably the most important reasons behind the series' popularity. It therefore seems appropriate to include a certain amount of critical opinion that is aimed directly at these elements. I've chosen to place all of this in the relevant sub-sections of "Production" so as to keep the focus of the main "Reception" section (which is already quite long) on the series in general. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the Thunderbirds title sequence varies with each episode: the first part consists of a rapidly-edited action montage that serves as a preview of the plot."—what does "rapidly-edited" mean? Anything like fast cutting?
  • "'Thunderbirds Are Go!' – the track accompanying the launch sequences of Thunderbirds 1, 2 and 3 – is praised by AllMusic's Heather Phares as a reflection of the mod aspect of 1960s British spy fiction."—the use of passive voice here is very awkward. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Granada transmitted Thunderbirds in unedited form for the first time with the start of repeats in 1966."—"unedited" was unclear to me at first. Make it explicit that they aired the 50-minute/1-hour form.
  • "In 1990, eight of the 19 audio episodes released by APF Records were converted into radio dramas..."—one of the exceptions to the MOS:NUM rule of thumb is that comparable numbers and numbers representing ratios be formatted the same way (i.e. either both figures or both words). So, either say "8 of the 19" or "eight of the nineteen". The Wikipedian Penguin 18:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some elaboration on why Marriot believes the series was technologically influential would be helpful.
  • "Simon Heffer, a fan of the series in childhood, has commented positively on the series for The Daily Telegraph..."—I feel like "has commented" should simply be "commented", consistent with similar instances.
  • "However, he also opines regretfully that the 'tongue-in-cheek' humour of Stingray is less evident."—"opined" is right, but it's relatively inaccessible language for most readers.
  • "Thomas argues that the world of Thunderbirds is broadly similar that of the 1960s in so far as contemporary capitalism and class structures have survived mostly unchanged."—not sure what you're trying to say here.
  • "...arguing that its rejection of stereotyping is most evident when it is actively used to positive effect..."—the show rejects stereotyping by actively using it to positive effect? Maybe that is what you mean, but the example doesn't help much in clarifying.
  • "Bignell comments that the Hood's Oriental appearance and mysterious powers draw parallels with James Bond villains and fears of China acting as 'a "third force" antagonistic to the West'."—so we have a mix of "commented", "has commented" and now "comments"; why?
    • I've written the "Reception" section so that it contains a range of contemporary and more recent opinions; the former are framed using the past tense, the latter more often the present tense. I appreciate that this could be confusing and will therefore try to stick to the simple past when I revise this section. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He suggests that Thunderbirds adheres more closely to cultural norms in its subscription to the 'cult of the secret agent whose skills defend the home from enemies unknown', for which it can be compared to The Avengers or Danger Man."—I don't understand this at all, sorry.
  • "...with the revived merchandising campaign more successful than that of the Star Wars trilogy."—implies the Star Wars trilogy also had a revived merchandising campaign. Note that this sentence was modified by me so that it could not be interpreted as the Thunderbirds toy line being more successful than Star Wars itself rather than the latter's merchandise. However, the original version of the sentence had the sample problem (re. "revived").
  • "A full-length "Thunderbirds" strip appeared a year later, at which point the "Lady Penelope" strip was given its own comic."—why quotation marks for Thunderbirds?
  • Write "United States" on first occurrence and then use "US" on subsequent instances.
  • Just a thought, but perhaps end the "Influence" section (therefore ending the entire article) with a quote from someone summing up the impact the show has had in the world in general? Are there such quotes available? It would really be a nice way to touch off and conclude such a long article.

This may look like a sizeable list, but given the length of the article, it is actually quite good. The Wikipedian Penguin 00:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll revise the "Reception" section to clear up the ambiguities and standardise tense. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 12:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that most of the above points have been resolved. Detailed response on quotations and tense, which are slightly more complicated, coming soon. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having reviewed
        MOS:TENSE, I think that the default tense for "Reception" should be the present. Regular use of the past tense seems odd if you don't specify the years in which the various commentators made their remarks – and to do that would make the section sound very repetitive. The second half of the third paragraph is in the past tense because those statements are time-dependent (i.e. as Hood, Thomas and Viner are talking about the series' lasting appeal over generations). Most of the other opinions are, in a way, "timeless", and therefore do not seem to merit the past tense. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 20:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Support - and recusing as closing coordinator - This is a well-written and fascinating account of a much loved TV series from my childhood. I watched all of the Anderson's productions when they were first aired. Having read this wonderfully comprehensive article I no longer have any excuse to believe that Scott, Virgil, Gordon, John, Penelope and Parker were real people. But I am not going to stop playing with my Thunderbirds models. Fantastic article. Thank you. Graham Beards (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This is a beautifully written article on a TV show which I have liked since childhood and I have no shame of supporting this work for featured article candidacy. Z105space (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator Note: I mentioned in my opening statement that this series has its 50th anniversary this year. In fact, it turns 50 at the end of this month – the
    TFA for 30 September has not yet been selected, should this FAC result in promotion (and if there is still time) I will definitely be nominating the article for a Main Page appearance on that date. I think that it would be a great tribute. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 03:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2015 [32].

Sisters at Heart

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Christmas episode of Bewitched that was written by 22 African-American high school students on the subject of racism. The article has received an independent copy edit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors and has since been promoted to good status. Neelix (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jaguar

  • "Asher also expressed pleasure with the program's success, and recommended that other white businesspeople" - I don't think there's a need for white people to be linked here, even if "white" isn't linked in the lead
  • "Sargent considered Saunders the main reason for the success of the program. "She was interested in innovative forms of teaching," he said." - I might be wrong, but I feel that this should be paraphrased a little so that the sentence doesn't begin with a direct quote
  • "One of the high school students was granted the role of assistant director, and at one point screamed "Quiet on the set!", a memory that Sargent later recalled fondly" - was it the high school student that screamed "quiet on the set" or the real director?
  • "CBS erased all episodes of The Merv Griffin Show produced between 1969 and 1972 after Griffin left the network" - I don't understand how they could erase episodes of a show, was it cancelled?
  • " As an introduction and conclusion to the episode, brief videos aired of Montgomery alone looking at the camera and speaking about the episode" - was this introduction only shown in the episode's 1971 re-run?
  • " a role that he says Samantha also fills in "Samantha at the Keyboard," another Bewitched episode" - can this episode be linked?
  • I think that the lead could summarise the article better, in accordance with
    WP:LEAD
    . I don't know any other similarly-themed sitcom FAs to compare this with, but either a little more on production could be mentioned. For example, how many students at Jefferson High School were illiterate, or the legacy/impact this episode has had on the civil movement. I know that the movement was mainly between 1954 and 1968, but if you think about it, 1970 isn't that far off!
  • The reception section is looking quite short and void of critic's opinions. Comprehensiveness and detail are a major factor of the FA criteria, are there any online reviews or more critics that had a say about this episode?

That's all from me for now. I'll come back and have another read through of this article later, but those are the initial structure/prose issues I could bring up. Nice article overall! JAGUAR  16:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Jaguar! I have removed the link to White people, resituated the Sargent quotation, reworded to avoid the confusion about who screamed "Quiet on the set!", linked Wiping and reworded to clarify what happened to the episodes of The Merv Griffin Show, switched the sentence order to avoid the confusion about when the introduction was shown, and added two production-related sentences to the lead. I have not linked "Samantha at the Keyboard" because there is no Wikipedia article for this episode and I haven't been able to find enough sources to justify creating one. At present, "Sisters at Heart" is the only episode of Bewitched that has a Wikipedia article. I know of at least one other episode that is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article, but there may be only one other; certainly, most Bewitched episodes are not independently notable. Thank you for recommending that I look for more online reviews of "Sisters at Heart"! I managed to find two more and have added them to the "Reception" section. I have also created an "External links" section. I was able to find other reviews of the episode online, but none that exhibited editorial oversight. Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns. Neelix (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and I must apologise for the long delay; there has recently been a flood here and it has caused my internet to return to pre-1999 "dial-up" speed! I didn't know that this was the only Bewitched article on Wikipedia, usually TV programmes are well covered! I don't think I can do a full source review as I don't have access to any of the offline sources, so I'm about to go through the four online sources to see if anything needs paraphrasing. JAGUAR  12:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could only access two references because an online subscription is required for the others, but nevertheless I found no issues with content or paraphrasing. After looking through the article again, I don't think I have any other concerns to make, therefore I'll support this article on the basis of it being well written, comprehensive (especially for a 1970 episode) and well referenced. I'm sure somebody else might have access to the offline references, but I'm happy with how the article how it is. JAGUAR  12:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cliftonian

It seems I share a surname with the director of this episode—not something that happens to me a lot. I don't think we're related, but you never know. I'll have a look through and jot note any thoughts I have as I go through.

Resolved comments from —  Cliftonian (talk) 
Lead / infobox
  • In the picture, which of these young ladies is Lisa and which is Tabitha? Also, shouldn't the caption be in the present tense? "after Tabitha casts a spell"?
  • "erroneously believes" perhaps "incorrectly believes"
  • do we really need to wikilink simple words like "racist", "bigotry", "advertising agency"?
  • "so he sees everyone, including himself, as African-American." as in he imagines himself and everybody else looking and acting like African-Americans? or simply that he sees himself and everyone else with black skin? I'd advise the latter—the pertinent thing is that he imagines everybody black, not that he imagines them African-American specifically (i.e. they could equally be of any nationality).

Plot

  • Why is African-American not wikilinked here while white American is? I don't think you need to link either of them. Also, why "white American"? Why not just white?
  • "including Darrin Stephens (Dick Sargent), his wife Samantha (Elizabeth Montgomery), their daughter Tabitha (Erin Murphy), and their son Adam (David Lawrence)" perhaps "including the Stephens family—Darrin (Dick Sargent), his wife Samantha (Elizabeth Montgomery), their daughter Tabitha (Erin Murphy), and their son Adam (David Lawrence)"
  • again, wikilink on advertising agency.
  • "Mr. Brockway decides to visit" → "visits"
  • "When Mr. Brockway arrives at the house" → "When he arrives"
  • "Through witchcraft, Samantha causes Mr. Brockway to see everyone in the room, including himself, as African-American" see point above; I think the pertinent thing is that he sees them with black skin, not as African-American specifically. Somebody like Mr Brockway (before his redemption at the end of the episode) hates black people no matter what their nationality.
  • Again, not sure we need to wikilink racism. Anybody who doesn't know what that means can understand from what we have just described happening.
  • "acknowledges his racism" presumably he stops being a racist, though, rather than just acknowledging that he has been one?
  • Not sure we need to wikilink Christmas dinner. (delicious though it is)

Production

  • Not sure we need to wikilink chartered bus. Also "paid for all 22 students" could just be "paid for the students"
  • We use the word "students" a lot here. Perhaps mix it up a little. "paid for the students" could be "paid for the guests", for example. "The students were impressed by the visit" could become "The visitors were impressed".
  • "that Christmas," Christmas 1969, presumably?
  • not sure we need to wikilink gift wrapping.
  • "Asher called Barbara Avedon and told her about the students' script" could be "Asher told Barbara Avedon about the students' script"
  • "and he asked her if she would help the students with the rewrite" → "and asked if she could help with the rewrite"
  • "who had previously written" don't need "previously"
  • "who had been" don't need "who had"
  • "even though Asher contacted her while she was on a break from all television writing" too much detail? perhaps this might actually have been a factor for her accepting, as it meant she had no other work competing with this for her time.
  • "the series deals with miscegenation by way of the marriage of a witch and a mortal" very apt. perhaps "between a witch and a mortal" to cut down repetition ("of ... of")
  • What's Screen Gems?
  • "a total of fifty students" all from Jefferson High, right? Or other schools too?
  • Wasn't anybody offended by the white cast members blacking up? A lot of people today would get very upset at something like this.
  • Again my point about the racist Mr Brockway "see[ing] everyone as African-American".
  • "We're having integrated turkey: white meat and dark" Oh dear. (no action)
  • "Montgomery and Baer both appeared" perhaps "appeared together"?
  • "Montgomery appeared on The Merv Griffin Show in order to promote "Sisters at Heart,"" we don't need "in order to". Just "to" is enough. Same meaning with fewer words.
  • Who's Oscar Mayer? You mean like the hot dog song from The Simpsons?
  • "as the 213th episode of Bewitched" the 213th episode aired, or the 213th episode produced? or both?
  • "brief videos aired of Montgomery alone looking at the camera and speaking about the episode" perhaps "Montgomery briefly spoke directly to the camera about the episode"

Reception

  • Perhaps clarify in the caption that "How Not to Lose Your Head to King Henry VIII" is an episode of Bewitched, and not a play or something.
  • Ah, yes, I see my point about the blackface was picked up in a recent review.
  • "apologizes for his racism" perhaps "apologizes for his prior racism", as it seems he has now discarded this character trait, and he seems to be effectively redeemed when he joins the main cast for Christmas dinner.
  • Why suddenly wikilink black people at the end of the article?

I enjoyed this one. Thanks, David; a fine piece of work. I hope the above comments help. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you enjoyed the review,
white American, which I think too central to the episode to leave unlinked. I retained the phrase "white American" in order to mirror the phrasing of "African American". I retained the phrase "When Mr. Brockway arrives" rather than switching to "When he arrives" because the most recently mentioned person to whom "he" could refer is Darrin. I retained the phrase "help the students with the rewrite" rather than switching to "help with the rewrite" because I am concerned that readers will think that Asher was undertaking the rewrite and was asking Avedon to help him. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns or if I haven't sufficiently addressed any of your concerns above. I always appreciate your comments. Neelix (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the quick reply David. I won't quibble about the links on African-American or white American, or the other prose points you mention. I'm now happy to support and cap my comments above. Well done David; very good job on this one. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

Only three small points. First, is "Governors Award" really given without a possessive apostrophe? Secondly, in the alt text for the picture in the Reception section I'd replace "poofy hats" with "medieval costume"; I don't know what "poofy" means where you are, but here it is a derogatory slang term meaning "swishily gay". Thirdly, in the bibliography the ISBNs are in unhyphenated 10-digit form rather than the hyphenated 13-digit form requested, on what authority I know not, at Wikipedia:ISBN; I don't feel very strongly about this point, and at any rate you are consistent – the list is not a mish-mash of the two forms – but I just mention it. If you feel like following it up there is a handy tool here. The text appears balanced and comprehensive, and is in very good prose. The article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 08:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and support, Tim! I have checked the Primetime Emmy Awards official website and the apostrophe is indeed absent, although I don't know why. In my experience, "poofy" has meant "filled with air"; I was unaware of the alternate derogatory definition and have reworded the text accordingly. I have also switched the 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digit ones. Thank you for notifying me of the ISBN converter! That made the job much easier. Neelix (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Cliftonian

Formatting:

  • Bibliography and citation notes are all consistently laid out so far as I can see.
  • Ref 26: Isn't Allmovie a work, rather than a publisher?

Spotchecks:

  • Reference 5 [Pilato (2012), p. 212.]: the book mentions "twenty-four African-American children", not 22. I appreciate that reference 4 specifically says there were 22 of them. Perhaps remove references to the number where only reference is used, or add reference 4 as well, or perhaps add a footnote mentioning that the book says 24 while the article says 22. Otherwise reference 5 checks out.
  • Reference 11 [Crump (2001), p. 38.]: checks out.
  • Reference 13 [Erickson (1971), p. 37.]: checks out.
  • Reference 14 [Metz (2007), p. 65.]: checks out.
  • Reference 22 [McCann (2009), p. 229.]: checks out.

I'll assume good faith on the rest. Looks generally fine, just a couple of minor points. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the source review, John! I have switched Allmovie from a publisher to a work and added a footnote mentioning the numerical discrepancy between the Pilato and Jet sources. Neelix (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2015 [33].

Norma (constellation)

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've buffed over twenty constellations to FA status now - this article is the next in line. I think it is as good as the others. It's had an astronomer (Mike Peel (talk · contribs)) look it over as well as a few astronomy wikiproject folks. (and yes it is a wikicup entry) Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: A wikicup nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

Cas Liber, first and foremost, I'd like to commend you on this well-written and well-researched article on Norma. Following my review, I assess that this article meets Featured Article criteria, but I did have three questions/comments that should first be addressed:

  • In the "History" section, it is mentioned that Lacaille first named the constellation l'Equerre et la Regle ("the Square and Rule") and then Latinized the constellation's name to Norma. I'm curious as to how Norma is a Latinization of l'Equerre et la Regle ("the Square and Rule"). Could this be expanded upon?
Yes, added a little, though the source doesn't give much more other than to add to the confusion (i.e. doesn't really explain how we get from "Square and rule" to "Niveau" to "Square"...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section, Scorpius and Lupus could probably stand to be wiki-linked, these are their first mentions in the article's main prose. Circinus could be de-linked in this instance, as it is wiki-linked above in "History."
good catch - all linked/delinked as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any further information on how or why Beta Normae was omitted from Lacaille's 1763 catalogue?
Yes, accidentally...though later chartmakers felt they should be in Scorpius anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber, thank you for your extraordinary work on this article and your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx for the complement :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber, thank you for addressing my three comments/questions in such a timely manner. I hereby formally Support this article for promotion to Featured Article status. Congratulations on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks/a pleasure Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from edwininlondon
Well written article full of facts. Only one question, should the lead not have information about the distance to nearest star? That strikes me as a reason why people look up a constellation page. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this one is tricky. I've never had anyone point this out before and the star itself was deleted as non-notable. Nothing much is coming up on line. Will have a look more tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Jim

No problems I can see,so supporting. Interesting comment from Edwininlondon above. it wouldn't have struck me as relevant except in the special case of Centaurus. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Jim...that reminded me...was going to look today... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
URW Praemonitus (talk)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi
  • Wikipedia text "Ant Nebula... has a complex appearance, with at least four outflow jets and two large lobes visible". Source: "At least four distinct outflows have been identified which, from the inside to the outside, are the following: a pair of bright bipolar lobes, two opposite highly collimated column-shaped outflows, a conical system of radial structure, and a very dim, previously unnoticed, low-latitude and flattened (ring-like) radial outflow." It seems that our text takes two of the four outflows and lists them separately, thus describing as six things which in fact are four...am I correct, or am I misreading?
It is tough to read. Luckily there is a diagram at the top of page 2 here, so it is four jets and two lobes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
so "four jets" == "a conical system of radial structure"? And should we mention the visible "highly collimated column-shaped outflows"?
The four ray thingies...I figure any more detail should be left to the daughter article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • same paragraph, 1600 years seems like a short time to me, so what does "per kpc to the nebula" (in source) mean?
(groan) it means "per kiloparsec" - reading the paper again leaves us with a possilbe age of outer bits at 1500 years...but that is presuming a certain distance which we are not sure it is...in any case the paper is a little vague with some if/then bit so just removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to make you groan. Of course I have no knowledge of all these things, and so do not know what is or isn't worth mentioning, or what granularity of precision/correctness is generally considered acceptable. :-)
I groaned because I misread it in the first instance and then realised it was going to be tricky to discuss without clarifying that the distance was uncertain yada yada...astronomy articles are alot trickier than bio ones.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article mentions eight open clusters visible through binoculars, but I count 7 in text: NGC 6087, NGC 6067, NGC 6134, NGC 6167, NGC 6115, NGC 6031 and NGC 5999.
The constellation has at least 11 open clusters, so I didn't think that we needed to list all 8 as such. I'll try and dig up #8 though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
update: nothing much else to find. the source doesn't list the 8 so I can't figure out the 8th. Just making the stubs and trying to figure out from there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you finesse it with "at least 7", or add another source, or...?
update:I would love to...but can't find any sources... :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judgment call, your mileage may vary: I count 8 google scholar hits for "Fine-Ring Nebula", 134 for "Norma Cluster", etc. I might put Norma Cluster at the top of this section, before the eight open clusters etc.
I structure these sections, ordering from close to far away, so intragalactic, then close extragalactic (galaxies etc) then far far away....(galaxy clusters/superclusters) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps a few appropriately-phrased descriptive words before each para indicating relative distance would be helpful.
Ummm...there are. several objects have their distance in light-years listed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article already places a conspicuously high cognitive load on readers. Organizing sentences increase readability and help the reader by reducing overall cognitive load (thus permitting the reader to focus attention/energy on the key bits that really need it). Tks. • 
Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah I know - I have tried massaging the prose to place the distances up front to set the scale a bit. Agree they are tricky to balance accuracy and accessibility Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, those wee little changes made it noticeably more readable.
Funny how language and word order can work, ain't it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find "2.8 years" in "The HARPS Search for Southern Extrasolar Planets XXIII. 8 Planetary Companions to Low-activity Solar-type Stars"
Aha, in conclusions section, its period is 1027 days (divide that by 365 leads to 2.8 years...more accessible for lay-readers) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning (and referencing) that "the rotation period for SGR J1550-5418, ~2.07 s, is the fastest yet observed for a magnetar"?
yes/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "Overall, there are 44 stars within the constellation's borders brighter than or equal to apparent magnitude 6.5." If "visual magnitude" s the same as "apparent magnitude", then I count only 16 stars greater than 6.5 in our table at List of stars in Norma. Moreover, what makes this self-published source reliable? I count three such works by Ridpath in refs
Good point - Ian Ridpath is a notable author and in fact much of his web material was published as one or more books. He has written several astronomy guides. Hence I'd take him as a reliable source. Visual does equal apparent magnitude. There are slightly more than 44 stars listed at List of stars in Norma that are brighter than 6.5 (i.e. lower value) - magnitudes can be hard to pin down.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't know to count "less thans" instead of "greater thans". OK. • 
Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Should we mention Great Attractor in the lead?
Hmmm, I wonder whether off topic a bit, but maybe not...let me take a look how tangential it might be... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will leave as is, as the link is not clear-cut. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article states "It is thought to be around 102 million years old, and contain 893 solar masses" and gives source as Piskunov, but I can't find that info here
Many of these articles have the data separate, so one goes here and clicks 'online data'. At the next page "NGC 6067" is entered as the name and we get answers in logarithms - 108.01 years (i.e. 102 million years) for age and 102.95 solar masses for weight (i.e. 891 solar masses...whoops). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, call me picky. I see this next one is a summary, but: article states "It was poorly monitored after the first eruption, so it is possible that it erupted in 1961" Source states "For IM Nor, we have two known eruptions (1920 and 2002) for a simplistic recurrence time scale of 81.5 years. But there could easily have been missed eruptions in the many decades between. For the interval with a plausible missed event (1930–1991), 〈Fdisk〉 = 0.85, with most of the chances for a missed eruption being from 1955 to 1977. As such, the most likely case is for no missed eruption, although one missed eruption is a real possibility. With this, the average τrec is 82 years, or perhaps 41 years." Source also talks about poor monitoring of all such eruptions, of the researcher finding several missed ones, etc. But our article connects one too many dots in this thread, however, and makes 1961 seem like a date that has real evidence behind it rather than academic speculation. The source also doesn't specifically single out our particular star as poorly monitored; it says all such have been poorly monitored.
Fair call - changed "in between". Deliberating whether to add, "not unusually for these stars" or some other qualifier to "poorly monitored" without it coming across as off-topic.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support.

t • c) 16:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

added one, just trying to get a source to clarify what is notable about the other to add both now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support I did a pretty decent spot check of the sources (ssee above for some comments, plus I also looked at other sources, but didn't mention them because they were OK). However, I wasn't really paying attention to reference formatting, and don't have time to check. If anyone looks at ref formatting and says everything is fine, then I support. Good work. • 
    Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
thx for the source check as well, and accessibility is what we're all about so that was helpful too...cheers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • Fn 24: I don't understand what "93, 10 pp" is supposed to mean for the page numbers. Pages 10 and 93?
Sigh, astronomy articles have some weird indexing. For that one, see here. Its id is 93 and it is 10 pages long. This form of indexing is not uncommon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the way you've cited the information from Ridpath web sites. Since you're actually citing material he's citing, should you either cite the original source, or use some "as cited in Ridpath" format?
What Ian Ridpath has done is transcribe his own book onto his website. As I have used the web, I have used the web address and cite web rather rather than the book, which I can't see all of. He is a noted writer of astronomy books. I'm not sure I follow how you'd do it differently....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough—I misinterpreted the Ridpath site. Consider my comments addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2015 [34].

Hastings Line

Nominator(s): Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a secondary railway line in the United Kingdom. It was built across difficult terrain requiring many tunnels. Lax supervision of the construction of the tunnels meant that a following rectification of the defects discovered, a restricted loading gauge was required for 140 years. During a modernisation scheme in the 1980s, measures were taken to remove the loading gauge restriction.

This is the second nomination for this article. The first nomination failed mainly because of a lack of reviewers. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved with previous FAC

  • @
    Pek the Penguin
    :

I take it that you still support, Tim. Dr. B, have you any further comments to those issues raised in the first FAC? Do you accept my responses where I have not made changes? RedRose64 and Tivedshambo/Pek, do you have any comments re this FAC? Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support again. It is a weakness of the FAC system that a fine article can fail because not enough reviewers happen to have looked in. (Not that I can think of any other FAC system that would be more practical.) I hope most sincerely that this time the article will get enough head of steam. It certainly merits promotion to FA in my view. I have (not, I hope, improperly) put a note on my talk page drawing attention to this review. Tim riley talk 20:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mjroots

Editors should read the comments in Archive 1 before commenting here. This is to avoid duplication. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Tim brought me here with a request on his talk. I've fixed some refs for you and have laid down some "by whom" tags which I think need to be clarified. I'll continue to read and post here over the next few days. CassiantoTalk 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: I've clarified one. One is obvious, and for the other the source does not state who proposed the line to Mayfield, only that there was such a proposal and that a meeting was held at Mayfield. Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. CassiantoTalk 12:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

"Difficult terrain" is not POV when a source states that the
High Weald is difficult terrain (Beecroft, p.7, para 1, line 3 and also p.7, para 3, line 2). Mjroots (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)q[reply
]
How is it difficult? Rocky, hilly, slippery, overgrown? What might be "difficult" to one might not be difficult to another. CassiantoTalk 14:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Explained that it is forested and hilly. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thank you. I would be willing to strike the oppose if everything else is ironed out. It's not completely out of the question to be able to do this whilst the FAC is ongoing, it just depends on how much time in RL you have to be able to do it. CassiantoTalk 15:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- this article's promotion to FA. I have read through this article again and I'm highly impressed with the improvements; it's like a different article! Oppose stricken and deferred to full support. CassiantoTalk 07:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose -- I'm sorry, but the more I look at this article the more I see further problems. There is a lot of repetition in the prose; tunnels, station(s) are two words that spring to mind immediately and a lot of it can be either cut out or merged. There are a lot of stubby lines which makes for some bumpy reading; POV issues which could be worded in a more neutral way, and punctuation errors are also present (two of which I have fixed). On the whole, I don't think it's ready. I see you had a peer review which resulted in a couple of people turning up, but to be honest, I don't think it has been of benefit. I would suggest you withdraw the nomination, look about at FA and note down past editors who have been successful in producing featured articles on the railways. I would then approach them and ask them to take part in a review of some kind. On the plus side, I would say that this article is very well researched. It could be a fascinating article if the writing matched in quality. CassiantoTalk 12:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

with eight tunnels and fourteen stations, those words are going to occur quite a lot. There are no alternative words available to use, except in the case of Mountfield Halt. Mjroots (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, and I'm not adverse to a little repetition where it can't be helped. But I feel it can be helped in some places. If you look at a couple of my copy edits, you will see what kind of repetition can be avoided. CassiantoTalk 15:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got time, but am away from home for a few days, so might lack access to a few sources, although I've got Beecroft with me. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Well it was only opened yesterday so you have bags of time. I don't think you'll need many books as my issue is not with content but with the prose. I will of course assist in any which way I can, although not enough to warrant my eventual support biased. CassiantoTalk 19:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now back at home. Unfortunately a relative has passed away today so I might not be around much tomorrow, weekend looking a little better though. Should be back to normal service by Monday. Mjroots (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume "past editors who have been successful in producing featured articles on the railways" is a reference to either myself or
    iridescent 08:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm going to have to re-read it. I see that Brian has given a review which, assuming you've taken his advice, should seal my support. I'll read through over the next couple of days and report back. You may want to ping Brian to ask him if he is satisfied with all your fixes. CassiantoTalk 10:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassianto: you've not forgotten this, have you?

Support from Optimist on the run

No comments to make, but full support (making it explicit this time, as I hadn't realised a lack of negative comments wasn't enough).  — An 

Pek the Penguin) 06:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments from Brianboulton

A few preliminary comments:

I've tweaked the map caption a bit, should now be more obvious where Hastings is. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: The collapsed diagram is excellent – it seems a pity to "hide" such a useful feature.
The map is collapsed because it can be quite dominant. On my PC,using Firefox, when extended it clashes with the TOC. I'm currently on a laptop using Google Chrome. When extended, the diagram pushes the TOC down and does not clash. Best left normally collapsed IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction of a single line branch from Tunbridge to Tunbridge Wells, a fashionable town where a chalybeate spring had been discovered in 1606, began in July that year..." That year!!? (I've heard of heritage lines, but that's ridiculous). Seriously, you do need to reword that sentence; personally, I'd drop the chalybete spring stuff altogether, as it is barely relevant to the railway.
Reworded and clarified the sentence.
The background to TW is important for context. Before the C17th, Tunbrige parish extended as far as the Sussex border. It the town hadn't existed in the mid-1840s, the next settlement of any size would have been Wadhurst. It was the existence of the town that spurred the SER to put the branch in. Without the branch, there was less likelihood of an extension southwards. Mjroots (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of this section has considerable overdetailing, and could be cut drastically. We don't need the detail for each step of the legislation through parliament. I would consider replacing everything after "31 July" with: "The necessary Act of Parliament had passed all its legislative stages by 28 July 1845, after which Royal Assent was granted on 31 July."
I've reduced the detail quite a bit. I left the start date in to indicate the timescale involved in the Act's passage through Parliament. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was decided" – who made the decision?
Now stated. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The first train, comprising four locomotives and 26 carriages arrived on 19 September" Some punctuation missing. And arrived where?
rewritten and clarified. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trains from Tunbridge had to reverse before starting the climb to Somerhill Tunnel, as there was no facing junction at Tunbridge. This situation was to remain until 1857, when a direct link was built at a cost of £5,700. The old link remained in use until c. 1913." Sorry, but I'm having great difficulty understanding this.
I've added a diagram showing the development of Tonbridge station. Should be clear now. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't finished the Background section, yet I've identified quite a few problems. The information is all here in the article, but its presentation seems to need quite a bit more work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: thanks for the above comments, which give me something concrete to work with. I will respond individually to points raised. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm prepared to work with you, to get this up to standard, but it may take me a while, as I have much to do at present. I trust the co-ordinators will be patient. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, as long as there's activity we are fine. It's when things go quiet that the clock starts ticking. Mjroots (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The map is better, but as mentioned below, could be improved. Leaving that aside for the moment, my chief concerns are with the prose. Rather than cluttering this FAC page with detail, I intend to open a thread on the article's talkpage and raise issues there. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Later comment: I have raised a number of prose and presentational points on the talkpage. Mostly these have been addressed, and I think the article has improved. My remaining concerns, which I have passed to the nominator, are:

  • The over-listy appearance of the article. We have a table of tunnels, a section that is effectively a list of stations (which are also listed within the collapsed diagram of the line), and two sections presented in bullet point format, meaning two further lists. If little can be done about the tunnels and stations, then at least the BPs can be prosified.
  • Too many images: the desire to have an image for every tunnel and every station is misplaced. The article's presentation is seriously distorted; we don't need to know what every station looked like, and if we want to know, there are linked articles for each station where the imagesare shown. I strongly recommend a considerable reduction in the number of images in this article.
  • The article contains the sentence: "The train, consisting the Royal Saloon, two first class carriages and a brake van made the journey from Bricklayers Arms to Tunbridge Wells in 75 minutes". Thinking the omission of "of" after "consisting" was a typo, I inserted it. My correction has been reverted and the original form reinstated on the grounds that it was correct.

Work needed on these points, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed images of all stations except Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells and Hastings. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, "consisting of" is incorrect. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are right, the Oxford Dictionary of English is wrong! I believe you are confusing this with "comprising" which does not require the "of". Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm persuaded. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been changed per
WP:COMPRISEDOF. Mjroots (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Openings section has now been put into prose. I think this now addresses all of Brianboulton's points. Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I'm still waiting for your response here please. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Clem

Changing the map is trivial- knowing what is required involves thinking. All my svgs are done using Inkscape- which is free on Linux and I think Microstuff. I am doing a few at the moment File:London dial.svg etc. So how do you want it changed? I can't quickly find an similar FA page to see what is required. Maybe this is case of doing a pencil sketch, scanning and sending an external email. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed is the Hastings Line bolded betwen Tonbridge and Hastings. The date 1852 adding between Robertsbridge and West St Leonards, and the built up area of Hastings marking. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion, you may want to take the approach I took at
iridescent 08:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
(adding) I agree that the image currently in the infobox (
iridescent 09:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I have modded the map, but in doing so have to agree it is not of a FA standard. The source was Jessop's page in Kent railways and the lines that tailed off into East Sussex were an afterthought. (Also I cant find either of my copies of Jessop at the moment). It will do as a holding job but if we get a better image- then just ditch it. File:Hastings Kent Railways.svg-- Clem Rutter (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that Southeastern (train operating company) has File:Southeastern TOC route map 2010.svg. That is an even clearer map, perhaps a version of it showing only the Hastings line could be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Testing the internet in a l'Arche Cafeteria on the A10 south of Paris! File:Southeastern TOC route map 2010 Hastings.svg may be what you want. Do check the permissions etc- je suis un peu pressé.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ClemRutter: not to denigrate your work in producing these maps, but I think the existing map is better, sorry. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. But now I have proved it. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lingzhi

Drive by comment by Nick-D

The number of photos is greatly excessive, and causes considerable amounts of white space at the end of the article. Please be more selective with the choice of images. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any issues with images causing white space. Try increasing your font size. Mjroots (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely seeing what Nick-D is seeing—the images are so close together they push each other down, creating a huge white space at the end between "Notes" and 'References" with a "tail" of images down the side. When the WMF increase the default image size, as they're likely to do fairly soon, this will only make the matter worse. (I'd suggest losing most of the individual station photos; they aren't particularly interesting architecturally, and anyone who wants to know what they look like will be reading the individual station articles anyway.) – 
iridescent 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I've got 4 lines of text below the image of Hastings station. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Different people will see the layout differently. It depends upon many factors, not just obvious ones like screen width and font size, but also the settings at Preferences → Appearance → Skin and Preferences → Appearance → Thumbnail size will affect it. Different browsers will lay out the page in various ways. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a largish monitor (but not usually so), but the amount of white space is pretty huge - it's about the equivalent of 1 1/2 screens of white space with photos at the side. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would formatting the stations section into a table (similar to tunnels section) be acceptable? That way, the images would be confined to the table and not stretch past the bottom of the secion for some readers. Mjroots (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that would help, but reducing the number of photos would be preferable (for instance, what does having two images of the train ticket add?). I'd note that quite a few of the photos are low quality. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a table, and it doesn't work. Too much text produces lots of whitespace; also the inability to have a caption with a specified image width. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All images in the article are valid. I appreciate that some of them are not the best quality, but they are the best that we've got. There is one image still needing to be added, I'm in correspondence with Network Rail re filling this gap. The ticket images could be combined into a single image. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: most of the station images have now been culled. Mjroots (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent

I'll come off the fence and support this. There are a lot of things I'd have done differently had I written this, and I would seriously recommend hiving the individual tunnels and trains off into a separate page (c.f.

iridescent 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Frank Chapman was a senior reporter with the Kent and Sussex Courier for many years, and wrote several books on Tonbridge topics. Probably not very well known outside the area. I wouldn't have used him if he wasn't a reliable source for the info. Mjroots (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I concur with Iridescent's characteristically generous comments, above. This article has received a great deal of reviewer attention during this FAC, not always in the same direction, and further tweaking probably isn't going to improve it. Most of my main criticisms concerning readability and presentation have been satisfactorily dealt with, and I don't feel strongly enough to insist on further changes. I will be happy to see this promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- fair bit of discussion re. images and sources above but have we had formal reviews of image licensing and source formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: - this would have been covered when the article was promoted to GA status. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GAN isn't FAC, and it was almost a year ago anyway, so I'd like to see fresh reviews. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
Iridescent: - as you've sort of raised the issue of sources above, would you do the review of sourcing and images please? Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry for the belated reply (I only just noticed this). Because almost all the references are to obscure specialist books, this is almost impossible to fully spotcheck, although the one book in the references I do have access to (Branch Lines to Tunbridge Wells from Oxted, Lewes and Polegate) does check out, as does a dipsample of the references to websites.
I have no concerns about the legitimacy of the sources, even though they're from obscure presses. As has been raised before at FAC, a lot of people writing about railways in Britain choose to write for Ian Allan or for local small presses and historical societies, even when it's not necessarily in their financial interest to do so. The nature of trainspotters/railfans means no error is likely to survive for long.
(As an aside, I'd agree with those recommending losing the ticket images. I agree that even if they are technically in copyright, the 20-years-defunct British Rail is not about to start chasing for royalties, but they don't particularly add anything since they're not particularly artistically interesting and don't contain any information that's not already in the article.) ‑ 
iridescent 10:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
The (now combined) ticket image is staying. It portrays the biggest event in the history of the line since opening. I don't understand why people are not seeing the significance of the event. Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see the significance of the event, I just don't feel that the ticket images add anything to readers' understanding of it. I've already supported regardless and the image isn't a dealbreaker, I just don't see the point of including them, as to me they add clutter without conveying any information already in the text. ‑ 
iridescent 10:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Image review

The infobox map and all photographs of trains, stations, tunnels and stretches of track seem fine – some have been created by Wikipedians and released into the public domain or published under an acceptable CC licence; others have been transferred from

Geograph.org.uk or Flickr
, having originally been published under an acceptable CC licence.

Are File:1066 ticket front.jpg and File:1066 ticket back.jpg truly ineligible for copyright protection, given that they are more than simple shapes and have a certain element of creativity to them (the "1066" logo on the front; the text on each side)? I'm slightly concerned that they may be pushing the limits of "no original authorship". SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 13:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:MCQ (diff), and the query was eventually archived a second time without a firm answer. As those who frequent MCQ are "hot" on copyright infringements, I took this to mean that there was no problem with the images being housed on Commons (along with an earlier image showing the front of a similar ticket from the event). Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments by Crisco 1492

  • Oppose Responding to the ping on Ian's talk page: I would nix both of these images, both because the status is unclear, and because the number of images in this article is unwieldy. An article of this length does not need 29 images (30 if we had an image of Wadhurst Tunnel, which I'm assuming you'd include if you had one). Per
    WP:IRELEV
    you should go through the article and choose those most pertinent to the subject at hand. Look for quality and educational value, not quantity.
Also, and this is the crux of my opposition, the section #Stations reads extremely rough with all those short paragraphs and sections. Rather, I'd write a few paragraphs about the stations (two to three, summarizing the key points) and then (if necessary) create a Stations along Hastings Line article (or whatever). Doing that would allow you to improve readability, reduce the number of images, and (if you choose to make a list) use images of all of the railway stations in the same article (just not this one).
Essentially, I agree with all of Brian's outstanding comments. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: There has already been one major cull of images from the article. Looking at the images, all are relevant. There are very few that could be culled, but I'd be loathe to do so. The only obvious candidates are those of Bopeep Jn signalbox and the preserved Hastings Unit. It is my intention to fill the Wadhurst Tunnel gap, and I've been in correspondence with Network Rail to this end. Unfortunately, there remains a licencing issue to clear up.
The ticket images are not proven copyvios. As I have said above, they have been before MCQ and have been allowed to remain, therefore it would seem that they are valid. Unless and until they are deleted from Commons, they should remain as they illustrate an important point in the history of the line.
I believe that I have addressed all points raised by Brianboulton. Mjroots (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering Brian isn't supporting, I don't think he necessarily agrees with you. The sheer number of people expressing concern over the number of images is evidence enough that the management of images is not up to FA standards.
As for the tickets, the Precautionary principle does not require us to "proof violation of copyright. It states "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file it should be deleted." The threshold of originality is deliberately very low in the UK, such that many signatures would even fall under copyright. Four paragraphs of text is certainly enough to constitute a copyrightable piece of work in British law.
You have failed to respond to my concerns over the quality of the prose in the "Stations" section. Brian has raised the same point already. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've not responded to your concerns over the stations section yet because I'm thinking about what has been suggested. It is likely that I will make some changes there. Will report back once I've done so. Mjroots (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've give this much thought, and have decided that the section will stay as is. As stated above, I have struck a balance between giving basic details of the station, whilst leaving detailed info to the article on the station itself. Several editors support the article with the section as is. I hope you will understand and accept my reasoning. Mjroots (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I cannot get behind an article with single or double-sentence sections at this level. That's fine for a stub or even a start-class article. Maybe even C. But not FA.
    MOS:PARAGRAPHS states "Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose", "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized." and "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." As the stations section is currently written, it and its subsections violate these parts of the MOS, and the above-linked guideline. You can take another approach if you want, but my oppose still stands so long as there are single or double-sentence sections and subsections.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oppose stricken — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Just a note that this still needs a review of source formatting. I see

Iridescent commented on the spot-check/reliability but I'm still spotting formatting problems. For example, inconsistent expression of page ranges (see fn 32 and 67). --Laser brain (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Now fixed. Can't see any others myself, but no doubt someone will spot something an point it out. Mjroots (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting: I am assuming that all spotchecking has been done, and have only looked at formatting isues:

  • "HC Deb" and "HL Deb" – presumably these abbreviations stand for "House of Commons Debates" and "House of Lords Debates", but as this won't be obvious to all your readers, you should to spell them out.
  • Ref 16: hyphen should be ndash
  • Ref 65: space needed after "p."
  • Ref 84: is "p. 0" correct? Very odd pagination if it is
  • Ref 107: lacks a "p."
  • Ref 121: I get a "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded" error message
  • Ref 138: Why no page ref?

These are the only format points than I can find. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators: My considered view is that these minor format questions could be cleared up after promotion, if you think that otherwise the article is ready. Brianboulton (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2015 [35].

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge

Nominator(s): BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a film that has been running in a theater in India for nearly 20 years, making it by far the longest running film ever in the country. It helped propel to stardom an actor who is now arguably the biggest movie star in the world. I have put a lot of work into this article in hopes to get it promoted to FA, and possibly make TFA on its 20 year anniversary. I look forward to your feedback. BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

Lead
  • "also known as DDLJ" → "abbreviated as DDLJ" or "also known by its acronym DDLJ".
  • "Kajol Devgan (known mononymously as Kajol)" – redundant. Write simply as Kajol (better be on her biography).
It was that way before, but I was told by another editor in a peer review to add this, for readers not familiar with Indian cinema. BollyJeff | talk 14:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever be that "another editor", I think he has not understood Wiki fully. If
Madonna Ciccone, Adele Adkins and Beyoncé Knowles don't have to be referred to by their full names in most articles, then even Kajol doesn't. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay fine. BollyJeff | talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • An
    alt text
    might be added for the poster.
  • "Earning ₹1.06 billion (US$17 million) in India and ₹160 million (US$2.5 million) overseas" – was the dollars exchange the same when it earned 1 billion?
  • Not sure "one of the biggest hits" is encyclopædic.
Origin and scripting process
  • "Aditya Chopra assisted his father, the director/producer Yash Chopra" – slash should be omitted per
    WP:SLASH
    .
  • Somewhere you call him Aditya while there are places where he is called by his surname. Be consistent.
  • Again, "Yash Chopra", "Yash".
The reason for this is that there are 4 people named 'Chopra', and 5 or 6 named 'Khan' mentioned in this article, many times in the same paragraph. I did as best as I could without mentioning their full name each time, which would seem excessive. BollyJeff | talk 14:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that, and what I am trying to say is that mention their full names the first time. After that, you can refer to him simply as Yash. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that is appropriate either, because people are usually referred to by there surnames when they appear multiple times in articles. I would like to wait and see what a couple other reviewers say before I change to all first names. BollyJeff | talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Casting
  • "causing Chopra to continue pursuing Shah Rukh.[17][a] Chopra and Shah Rukh Khan had four meetings over several weeks" – "Shah Rukh" or "Shah Rukh Khan" write one and stick to it.
  • "She and Shah Rukh Khan had previously worked together in Baazigar (1993) and Karan Arjun (1995)" – perhaps a "successful" word be added. You can use this source.
  • "Although Chopra was assigned Sameer Sharma as the assistant director" – error.
Sorry, what is the error? BollyJeff | talk 14:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Chopra was assigned Sammer Sharma". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Accolades
  • The table needs to meet
    MOS:ACCESS
    for row and col scopes.
Done. I patterned it after the FLC List of accolades received by American Hustle. BollyJeff | talk 19:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know so much about the FAC process so that's all I have to say. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have fixed everything except the names now, thank you. BollyJeff | talk 21:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have now used first names only after the first mention for all the Chopras and Khans in the Production section. I think it's okay elsewhere as there is minimal repetition. BollyJeff | talk 12:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dwaipayan

  • This sentence in plot "Although both value their Indian origins, they have experienced different parenting styles" sounds editorial. The plot remains same even if you delete this sentence. And, having seen the film, I doubt whether Raj was as dedicated to "Indian" values as Simran.
  • I think the next sentence in the plot can be slightly modified like "Simran was raised by her strict and conservative father, Baldev Singh (Amrish Puri), while Raj's father (Anupam Kher) was very liberal in his upbringing."; or , just liberal (minus the "in his upbringing" part).
  • "One evening, Raj enters Baldev's shop after closing time and feigns a headache to persuade Baldev to sell him beer. Baldev refuses and Raj grabs a case of beer, throws the money on the counter and runs away. Baldev, infuriated, calls Raj a disgrace to India." This episode is taking unnecessarily large chunk in the plot, given it's non-importance in the overall story of the film. You can easily remove this episode.
  • "Baldev accepts Raj, but insults him and tells him to leave after he discovers a photograph of Raj and Simran together in Europe" Is that what happens? Baldev discovers a photograph? I have not seen DDLJ in the last few years so cannot really remember.----Dwaipayan (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. I shortened as you suggested, but also clarified the reason for the beer scene. BollyJeff | talk 22:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punjab in plot should link to Punjab, India.
  • " Baldev lets her go to see the world before her marriage, but tells her not to betray his trust" Trust regarding what? IMO it is difficult to grasp for non-Indian readers if you are meaning in general trustworthiness; or are you meaning that she should not break his trust that she would marry Kuljit? (I do not remember the film exactly). May be replaced by "reluctantly agrees".
  • " The next morning, Simran is reunited with Raj in the fields" comes abruptly and somewhat peculiar : "in the fields"? Consider replacing with more generic words such as, Raj arrives in India and meets Simran. (otherwise you will have to give unneeded details like Simran wakes up to the tune of a music that Raj used to play, runs towards the source of music, and finds Raj etc).----Dwaipayan (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BollyJeff | talk 20:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead

  • Soundtrack: a few c/e suggestions here: can you drop "that were" from the opening sentence and can you clarify who consists the duo (third sentence; I assume it would be Jatin Lalit and Anand Bakshi, but it doesn't hurt to ask).
I corrected it to show that Jatin Lalit is a duo. I could hyphenate their name if I knew which dash style to use. Do you know?
It reads fine now.
  • Box office: I don't know what's the criteria for a film to be called a Bollywood hit, but I suggest using a more neutral word. The rest of the sections seems fine,
Done.
  • I'm not sure if the accolades fall under "Release"; it seems closer to "Legacy" in my opinion, and I often see tables and non-prose sections at the very end of the article. I'll leave the decision to you, since this is not an urgent issue.
I think it should be under Release since many of those awards happened the same or following year. Legacy is things happening years later. BollyJeff | talk 17:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "People return not just to see the film, but to be a part of an experience." I'm little concern about the second clause. What do you mean by "experience"? This sounds like some person or critic's opinion rather than a fact, and might unintentionally take a side (favoring the film's projection as a cult experience).
It was in the source, but I guess I understand your concern, so I removed it.
  • I'm not sure about film credits, but I know that albums usually cite the source right after the sub-section title.
Done.
  • Well, you have my support on the prose. I can't provide full support because I'm not very knowledgeable in movies (thus I can't comment on criteria such as comprehensiveness or being well-researched), but good luck with the rest of the comments.--Retrohead (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Support. The prose in this article is, I think, the best of any I have seen in an article on Indian cinema. There is no excess of detail, the facts appear comprehensive and are set out logically and with due regard to balance. I think this article meets the FA criteria. A few tiny quibbles:

  • Links
    • There are a couple of
      duplicate links
      : non-resident Indians and Jatin Lalit.
    • The MoS bids us avoid links to well-known geographical locations: this includes London.
  • Box office
    • "it has been showing for more than 19 years" – we need to avoid
      WP:DATED
      here, just as it has been successfully avoided in the lead, by saying "as of 2105". If the run continues past October this year I imagine we can take it for granted that the nominator will change 19 to 20.
  • Impact
    • re-issued – it may be a matter of
      WP:ENGVAR
      , but the OED doesn't hyphenate this word.

That's all from me. The article is focused, readable and well-sourced: a fine piece of work, in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the kind words. I have fixed your issues. BollyJeff | talk 12:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

Support. Continue the good work, Bollyjeff, Looking forward to Mary Poppins next. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Support Sorry I'm late, I've had a lot on. You've had some great reviews which has left me with very little so it's just the one comment from me:

  • "Aditya Chopra assisted his father, the director and producer Yash Chopra, during the making of Chandni (1989), Lamhe (1991) and Darr (1993). During this time, he wrote several of his own scripts..." Who wrote the scripts, Aditya or Yash?

This looks to be all in order and makes for an interesting read. CassiantoTalk 19:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

Image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has been requested on project talk page. BollyJeff | talk 11:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I see no problems with these.

SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 13:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check

Coming. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • All authors, pages, isbns, formatted consistently.

Using this version as a reference point for the numbering of the footnotes:

  • Ref 18, used once. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 34, used twice. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 42, used thrice. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 49, used once. Article faithful to source.
  • Ref 120, used once. Article faithful to source.
  • Earwig's looks ok (I think it is the size of the article throwing up some high scores)
Text from 3 of the top 4 scores (Salon and Roger Ebert) is quoted and attributed to the authors. BollyJeff | talk 14:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2015 [36].

Joehana

Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Sundanese author of whom little is recorded, but whose works had an important influence on the early cinema of the Dutch East Indies, and whose jokes are even today used in Bandung. This is easily the best English-language source available on the author.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

How interesting! Happy to take a look through.

  • "Although little is known of his life, it is clear that he worked for a time at the railroad before becoming an author by 1923" This doesn't quite work for me.
  • "and marketed mainly in the Bandung area, they were popular." I'm not sure what the marketing has to do with the popularity- do you mean they were marketed mainly in that area, but had popularity beyond it?
  • It's not immediately clear to me in what sense you mean to call wayang a literary form.
  • You should probably avoid "recent" in the lead. How about something like "but critical consensus in the 2000s [or whatever] has been negative"?
  • "Meer Uitgebreid Lager Onderwijs" The article doesn't capitalise like that
  • Are either of the unions worth redlinking?
  • What is "escape literature"? Do you mean escapist?
  • This is just stylistic, and your method is perfectly acceptable, but perhaps you could consider "introducing" your theorists a little? So rather than "Smith argued", go for something like "Literary theorist John Smith argued". (I see you do introduce Rosidi, but not at first mention.)
  • "These publications, particularly his novels, were generally inspired by what types of works were popular at the time." How about "These publications, particularly his novels, were generally inspired by the types of works that were popular at the time of writing." Also, does your source say this explicitly?
  • "Nangis Wibisana" Translation of the title for consistency? Also "Goenoeng Gelenjoe". Or would you prefer to leave the translations of his titles out of the prose?
  • "Joehana died after helping put together a stage performance based on his novel, Kalepatan Putra Dosana Ibu Rama, in Tasikmalaya." Given that there are several novels that could be referred to, the novel's name doesn't work as a dependent clause. This should be changed to something like "...based on one of his novels", or else the commas (or at least the first) should be removed.
  • Is Soerapati worth linking?
    • Haven't found much detail on the newspaper. There were dozens of short-lived publications in the Indies at this time, and very few seem to have been documented in enough detail to warrant an article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not all are extant" Is this what your source says? It seems a strong claim; "It is possible that not all are extant" might be safer?
  • "Although other works, such as Eulis Tjinio, have been attributed to him, they are not included here owing to a lack of verification." I don't think this is really something to be sourced to the 1979 study- it's a self-reference. An endnote might be more appropriate. A translation of the title of Eulis Tjinio would also be nice.
  • Why do you not include title translations for all in the main list?
    • Bambang Hendrasaputra, Moegiri, and Roro Amis are all person's names and thus not translated. I can leave hidden text if necessary. I've added "Mrs. Raden Tedjainten" for the other one not given a translation here. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lamp would become de lamceh" Do you mean "de lampceh"?
    • As in source ("'Gampil!' ceuk Karnadi, 'Asal paséhat baé, sareng ti payunna nganggo "de", ti tungtungna nganggo "ceh". Sapartos lampu, Walandana 'de lamceh', bangku 'de bangceh'" ("'Easy!' Karnadi chortled, 'So long as it is logical, just add "de" in front of it and "ceh" at the end. Like lampu [lamp], the Dutch is "de lamceh", bangku [bench] is "de bangceh"'".). Rosidi names this joke specifically  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "menak (noblemen)" If this is your addition, would square brackets not be appropriate?
  • Is Sunda worth linking? Wangsit?

I've not looked into the sources or images, but it strikes me that you get the tone exactly right- a very nicely written article, and a great addition to WP. I've done some light copyediting; please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support unless I've missed something or there are problems with the images/sources (which I certainly don't expect). The "railroad" sentence in the lead still doesn't quite work for me, but we'll see if anyone else objects to it. Three last comments: 1) "Atikah dates it to c. 1930" I obviously don't know precisely what your source says, but perhaps something like "Kartini et al. report that Atihah dated it to c. 1930". 2) On the subject, there's an inconsistency between the et al. of the prose and the et al. of the references. Consistency would be good. 3) I don't know if you're worried about category bloat, but I'm thinking about categories like Category:Indonesian journalists (and other subcategories of Category:Indonesian writers) and Category:Social critics. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) The source says "Atikah, istrinya menyebutkan bahwa Yuhana meninggal pada lebih kurang tahun 1930" ("Atikah, his wife, says that Yuhana died in 1930 give or take"). Rather than repeat Kartini et al. in the text, I've added "Quoted in" to the reference.
  • 2) Apparently et al. should not be italicized. Fixed.
  • 3) Added.
  • Thanks again! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • If Dutch law does not apply to images from the Dutch East Indies, why are we including EU tags for these? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what the tag says. The tag says "extension of the copyright of works from the Dutch East Indies by the URAA would have considered Indonesian copyright law and not Dutch law", i.e. for purposes of calculating copyright renewal under the URAA, the Indonesian copyright law would have been considered and not Dutch law.
As the Dutch copyright may still apply to works first published in the Indies, I included the EU tag to make sure its 100% clear that the images are free in both countries which could conceivably claim jurisdiction. As to whether or not the Dutch would still enforce copyright from the Indies, that's a question I haven't the answer to. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thanks for clarifying. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian
  • Support: Crisco 1492, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article adequately stands alone as a concise overview of Joehana's life. The lede defines Joehana's accomplishments, establishes context, explains why Joehana is notable, and summarizes the most important points of Joehana's biography. The article overall is comprehensive, well-researched, well-written, and uses verifiable sources that are cited within the prose with consistent citations. The personal pronoun of "he" could stand to be replaced with Bassah one or two more times in the first paragraph of the "Biography" section. I have no further comments, as the only minor issues were addressed by J Milburn earlier. There is no need to gild the lily. Thank you for all your hard work on this article, and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wehwalt
Very well done, just my usual list of quibbles.
  • " a lifelong interest in social welfare" This may come across to some more cynical readers as less than certain, since we do not know when he died.
  • "During the seven years in which he was active" possibly they could figure it out from the date of his first novel, but I think it would be best to tell the reader which years you are talking about.
  • Can you avoid the double "published" in the first sentence of the third paragraph?
Bio
  • "The scholar of Sundanese literature Ajip Rosidi," I'm dubious about the "The" (A?) possibly a comma before the name.
  • Just to chip in (I hope I'm not treading on any toes...)- a comma would be a bad addition, as the name is the subject of the clause, not a parenthetical clause. Removing "The" would give a false title (something I've only just learned about myself!) which is sometimes considered bad form. One way it could be changed would be to go for "Ajip Rosidi, a scholar of Sudanese literature,...". Josh Milburn (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works
  • " the edition was not recorded." Maybe, "copies of that edition were not saved" or similar.
  • No, it means the edition / printing number is not recorded in the books themselves. So the same books were published under the same title at different dates, but there's nothing like "2nd Printing, 1927" etc. to differentiate between them. Changed to "the printing number was not recorded." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that list of works fully sourced?
  • As stated in the text, "The following list is based on the one compiled by Kartini et al. in their 1979 study." The citation is {{sfn|Kartini|Hadish|Sumadipura|Iskandarwassid|1979|pp=12–16}} I can scan the pages in question and send them to you if you want (though the source is in Indonesian). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Style
  • "The names of areas in Joehana's novels coincide with those of actual locations in Bandung" maybe "Joehana used real-life Bandung locations in his novels" ...
  • "Some of these jokes have remained popular; Rosidi records one, about how to speak Dutch, as having survived into the 1980s." He does say that some have survived? The example you give of the 1980s is a little dated (it pains me to say that).
Themes
  • "then must make a living as commoners." I would strike "as commoners". You've adequately set forth the situation they face. I don't favor "commoner" in this context anyway, it's not like the two were royal.
  • "In this novel, Joehana calls for the poor to not be despised by the rich, but rather supported and defended." Perhaps "In the novel, Johanna calls on the rich to support and defend the poor, not despise them."
  • "those Muslims who have been on the hajj pilgrimage." I would say "those Muslims who have been on the pilgrimage to Mecca". with an appropriate pipe. "hajjis" and "haj" may force a click to those unfamiliar.
  • At least to my eyes, you seem inconsistent on whether to italicize names (groups, periodicals) that are in foreign languages.
  • Do you have any examples? The publisher Kiwari is not italicised, nor is Girimukti Pasaka. The social movement Sarekat Rakyat isn't italicised either. Names of books are italicised (Kesusastraan Sunda Dewasa Ini, Moegiri), as are the names of magazines (Sunda magazine; Sunda referring to the people/culture/language is not italicised). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sarekat Rakyat was the one, I see you are right.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They find that, at times, his attempt to convey a social message is so dominant that the works come across as didactic propaganda" I'd cut "didactic". The reader will get the idea.
Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The changes all look good as do the explanations. Very nice job. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2015&oldid=683391233"